MINUTES LUBRICANTS GROUP Standards Meeting - November 7, 2011

Transcription

1 1. OPENING & INTRODUCTIONS See Attachment 01 Sign-In See Attachment 02 Meeting Agenda MINUTES LUBRICANTS GROUP The meeting opened with attendee introductions. A Sign-In sheet was circulated to document who attended the meeting. (See Attachment 1) The agenda was reviewed at the start of the meeting. (See Attachment 2) Michael See from the API OGC gave an Anti-trust reminder for those attending the meeting AMAP Update See Attachment AMAP Dave Smith gave a short review of the 2011 AMAP results (See Attachment 3). The presentation advised that API had collected 424 samples from the market. Of the 424 samples 311 Test reports have been reviewed with the following non-conformances Non-Conform Physical/Bench Test: 39 Non-Conform Questionable Elements: 43 Based on the AMAP results seven Cancel-For Cause Letters Sent to licensees. API is still working to resolve the Non-Conformances which form the basis for the letters. Number To Be Listed On Web Site As Canceled: 1 API Legal Action against Oil Marketer in Michigan See Attachment 04 API Legal Action As general information the Lubricants Group was notified that API filed suit in Michigan against an oil marketer for misuse of the API trademarks. Information about the suit is provided in Attachment Minimum Phosphorus Specification See Attachment 05 Difference Phosphorus Limit See Attachment 06 Phosphorus Limit ASTM History Dave Smith reviewed differences in Phosphorus limit between ASTM D 4485 and API (See Attachment 5) The issue is the presence of a minimum limit for API SH, SJ and SL oils in ASTM D 4485 when no minimum limit exists in API The history of ASTM s adoption of the limit was provided to API by Lyle Bowman. (See Attachment 6) That ballot was approved by ASTM Subcommittee D02.B0 in May API agreed to review adoption of the minimum Phosphorus limits in API 1509 for SH, SJ and SL. Before proceeding API agreed to search the data base to determine how many oils would be affected. ACTION: API to check data base and determine how many licensed oils will not meet the 0.6% phosphorus minimum limit. API to report results at next LG Meeting. Lubricants Group members also agreed to review their product lines to determine how many engine Page 1 of 8

2 oils would not meet the proposed specification. MINUTES LUBRICANTS GROUP ACTION: LG Members agreed to check their product offerings and determine how many engine oils will not meet the 0.6% phosphorus minimum limit. LG Members are to report results at next LG Meeting. 4. ROBO Test Inconsistency See Attachment 07 ROBO Inconsistancy API was advised of a perceived inconsistency between the ROBO Test requirements E and Table F.5 VGRA for Seq. IIIGA and ROBO Test. (See Attachment 7) The issue was discussed and it was noted that the requirement given in E was the result of a direct negotiation and agreement with ILSAC. It was decided that the BOI/VGRA Task Force should collect data and make a case to ILSAC that E should be reconsidered. ACTION: BOI/VGRA to Collect Data on ROBO that may support a change in the E test requirement. Once data is available LG will re-engage with ILSAC on the ROBO Test Requirement. 5. MOTOR OIL MATTERS UPDATE & API 1525A See Attachment 08 MOM Update See Attachment 09 API 1525A Draft Kevin Ferrick provided a Motor Oil Matters Update. (Attachment 8) API has control of the Motor Oil maters website and has started development of the licensing program. API is continuing to make progress on implementing Motor Oil Matters NIST 130 is continuing to progress toward adoption. A goal of NIST 130 is to the ensure information motor oil installers and consumers receive for bulk oil is equivalent to information on motor oil bottles (i.e. Brand name, Viscosity grade, Performance level) NIST 130 was sent back to committee to increase understanding of some Weights & Measures representatives. NIST 130 is expected to pass at the next national meeting. API 1525A - Chain of Custody Standard is another part of Motor Oil Matters. Kevin Ferrick gave a summary of API 1525A and sought LG support to ballot the standard. Tom Olszewski proposed sending API 1525A to ballot with a 6 week ballot time and was seconded by Mather Ansari. LG voted on sending API 1525A to ballot with the results summarized below: Table 1 - Send API 1525 A to Ballot Yes 13 No 0 Abstain 1 Not Present 3 Page 2 of 8

3 ACTION: API to prepare and issue a Lubricants Group ballot for API 1525A. 6. ILSAC-Oil Process Changes See Attachment 10 ILSAC/Oil Process Changes Kevin Ferrick reviewed the proposed revision to the ILSAC-Oil process. (See Attachment 10) The revised ILSAC-Oil process is a 2-step with an Auto-Oil Drafting Body to develop a Final Draft Specification and the Lubricants Group Standards Committee which adopts the Final Draft into API The Auto-Oil Drafting Body is analogous to current ILSAC/OIL process with a change for individual company voting. The Lubricants Group Standards Committee remains the same as the current standard. Membership on the Auto-Oil Drafting Body is: Auto: ILSAC-member companies plus other automakers Oil: Oil and Additive Companies Interested parties that have a material interest in the specification There was a discussion around the meaning of the phrase material interest. Based on the discussion it was concluded that at this time there is no need to formally define the term material interest. There was a suggestion that the voting of the Auto-Oil Drafting Body should follow ASTM voting procedures. Based on available information the following outlines the ASTM voting process: ASTM D03.B has a passing minimum of 50% of votes. PCEOCP which has advisory votes to recommend ballots to D02.B has a higher pass level of 70/80% of votes. To better understand the ASTM voting process API agreed to form a Sub team to review the ASTM and PCEOCP voting guidelines. ACTION: API to establish sub team to evaluate ASTM and PCEOCP voting process ACTION: Sub team to draw comparisons between ASTM and proposed API voting procedures. Joe Franklin to send API information on D02.B Voting Processes Thom Smith to send API information on PCEOCP Voting Processes API agreed to set up a teleconference to discuss the results of this investigation. A tentative date was tentatively set for December 2 at 11AM. ACTION: API to set up teleconference to discuss different standard voting processes. Tentatively set for 12/02/11 at 11AM EST Page 3 of 8

4 7. Ballot Resolution REBALLOT - Elastomer Compatibility Test BOI for API Group II & Group III Base Stocks See Attachment 11 The Vote Summary is: Approve 14 Approve w/comment 1 Disapprove 0 No Response 2 Shell asked if the data supporting the Elastomer Compatibility included different levels of Dispersant Viscosity Modifier (DVM). The DVM level was not a controlled variable in the test data. It can be included in future matrix testing. BOI/VGRA Task Force was requested to review Matrix testing to include different levels of DVM. ACTION: BOI/VGRA TF to include DVM in Matrix Testing Analysis ACTION: APPROVED Ballot on Elastomer Compatibility for Group II & Group III BALLOT: Revision of API 1509, APPENDIX K See Attachment 12 The Vote Summary is: Approve 13 Approve w/comment 1 Disapprove 1 No Response 2 The ExxonMobil Approve with Comment asked that the correlation of L38 SS and KO be Reinvestigated for newer generation S category oils. The LG Discussed this and asked the BOI/VGRA Task Force to include this review in any new testing. The disapprove ballot was discussed by the AMAP Work Group before the meeting. The LG agreed with the AMAP Work Group recommendation to remove the testing of HTHS viscosity by ASTM D4683 for the Resource Conserving designation from the ballot proposal. This change to remove the HTHS by ASTM D4683 for the Resource Conserving designation requires that the Revision of API 1509 Appendix K to be re-balloted. ACTION: API to reissue the ballot for Revision of API 1509, APPENDIX K. BALLOT: Updated to API 1509 Section 1, Paragraph See Attachment 13 The Vote Summary is: Approve 13 Approve w/comment 0 Disapprove 1 No Response 3 Lubrizol objected to the draft wording and proposed revised wording to resolve the negative. The LG discussed the revised wording and concluded that the change was editorial and clarifies the change. As a result Lubrizol changed their negative to Approve. Page 4 of 8

5 ACTION: Approved Change to API 1509, Paragraph BALLOT: New Edition of API 1560 See Attachment 14 The Vote Summary is: Approve 11 Approve w/comment 3 Disapprove 0 No Response 3 Comments from Chevron, Lubrizol and Motiva were considered. Most were considered editorial comments with the possible exception of the deletion of the phrase to ensure warranty coverage in the last sentence of Section 4.1. There was considerable discussion over if this phrase could be deleted. API has reviewed and accepted the deletion of the phrase to ensure warranty coverage in a later version of API Because of the existence of an updated API 1560 known as Version 5 it was decided to re-ballot the New Edition of API ACTION: API to Re-Ballot New Edition of API 1560 Elastomer Compatibility VGRA for Group I Base Stocks See Attachment 15 The Vote Summary is: Approve 11 Approve w/comment 3 Disapprove 1 No Response 2 Several comments provided with the 3 Approve with Comments ballots and the Disapprove ballot were similar and addressed the issue of placing new restrictions existing guidelines pertaining to the Sulfur and saturates content of Group II and Group III base oils. The LG discussion involved how to change the wording for Table F-14 and the Examples. After some discussion and several new ideas it was decided to return the issue to BOI/VGRA Task Force for rewording. The proper wording was worked out the LG would re-ballot API SN, ILSAC GF-5 Elastomer Compatibility VGRA for Group I Base Stocks. ACTION: API to Re-ballot Elastomer Compatibility VGRA for Group I Base Stocks Mack T-12A VGRA the same as the Mack T-10A VGRA See Attachment 16 Ballot Item #1 - Update API1509 Appendix E Section E.4.7 and Table E-27 to Allow Mack T-10A BOI/VGRA as the Mack T-12 BOI/VGRA The Vote Summary is: Approve 12 Approve w/comment 2 Disapprove 0 No Response 3 The comments from Chevron and Afton addressed the same issue and were editorial in nature. The changes in ballot wording will be made and the ballot approved. Page 5 of 8

6 ACTION: Ballot Item 1 Approved MINUTES LUBRICANTS GROUP Ballot Item #2 - Establish the Mack T-12A VGRA the same as the Mack T-10A VGRA. The change has been made in Table F-15 The Vote Summary is: Approve 14 Approve w/comment 0 Disapprove 0 No Response 3 Ballot Item #2 was approved without comment. ACTION: Ballot Item #2 Approved 8. GF-6 Discussion See Attachment 17 The LG review the ILSAC Update from October 20 which included a needs statement for ILSAC GF- 6A and ILSAC GF-6B with a Timeline for GF-6 first licensing in 1Q2015. API LG noted the difficulty of a GF-6A and GF-6B specifications. They also questioned the timeline which has first licensing in 1Q of To meet this timeline it is necessary to have the GF-6 Engine Tests defined early in In reviewing the time line it was necessary to add a decision point in the time line to determine if the proposed timing can be met. A specific requirement for meeting the GF-6 Timeline is the Seq. IIIH. GM must commit to provide this engine test in January ACTION: LG to continue discussions in with ILSAC on the GF-6 specification and timeline a requirement that all engine tests are available. Must negotiate a realistic timeline for first licensing. 9. PC-11 NCET/DEOAP Report See Attachment 18 NCET Presentation See Attachment 19 ACC Presentation Dan Arcy gave a presentation on the results from the New Category Evaluation Taskforce. The presentation documented the results of the NCET process. As part of the process the NCET asked and answered the following questions : Why is it required? What is being proposed? When is it needed? The timeline for PC-11 is ambitious and if successful would have first licensing on January 1, To meet this timeline it will be necessary to overcome significant challenges as outlined in the NCET Presentation. The Phase 2 Category Development showed how the organizations are intended to work. Steve Kennedy gave a brief review of the Benefit Analysis which illustrated the difficulty of accessing the benefits of a PC-11 Fuel Economy diesel engine oil. The NCET Summarized their work as: Page 6 of 8

7 NCET Evaluated the request and supports the need for a new category First Licensing Date No Later Than Jan. 1, 2016 Request approval and support of LG to proceed with new category and establishing NCDT Pat Fetterman from ACC addressed several issues from the NCET process. The presentation stated that we need to take the time to get it right. Key points were: 1. The test development process needs to start now 2. The NCET category evaluation has made significant progress but several questions remain (i.e.) a. What is the practicality of placing two new categories in the market? How will the consumers respond? What education is needed? Do we have Oil Marketer input? b. Do we have confirmation that EPA is in agreement that HTHS is sufficient for defining improved fuel efficiency? c. Have the Needs been fully defined and supported? d. Is there a way to spread the development costs over a longer timeframe? e. Have EMA and API discussed how the categories will be defined and provided a plan for customer education? f. Is there a fail-safe proposal to protect end users? ACC members emphasized that input is needed for the following items: Need to get input from the LG on how the PC-11 oils will be marketed. Clarification on responsibilities during the PC-11 Development Would like NCDT review need for Energy Conserving designation Need to look for optimal way of meeting PC-11 and future New Categories Funding Needs Better Design Both the NCET and ACC presentations were discussed at length. At the end of the discussion it there was a call for a motion from the LG. The motion was: Accept the recommendation of the DEOAP to have the API LG Form a NCDT. A vote of the LG was taken with the results given below. Table 2 - Form PC-11 NCDT Yes 15 No 0 Abstain 0 Not Present 2 API LG directed the formation of the PC-11 NCDT. 10. MEETING DATES Meeting in conjunction with ASTM in New Orleans o Wednesday, December 7, pm 2012 Meeting Dates o TBA Page 7 of 8

8 Page 8 of 8