ADVISORY COMMITTEE

                               MEETING SUMMARY
                               FEBRUARY 1, 1995



The Phase 2 Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) Advisory Committee met on
February 1, 1995, the third in a series of planned meetings.

The Advisory Committee's Chairman, Mr. John Lagarias, began the
meeting by giving a brief overview of the Performance,
Transition, and Public Education Subcommittee's activities since
this Advisory Committee's last meeting on October 18, 1994.  The
Performance Subcommittee has met on five occasions to date, and
the Transition and Public Education Subcommittees have each met
four times.  

The draft meeting summary from the October 18, 1994 Advisory
Committee meeting was approved as final, as there were no
comments received on the draft version.

Presentation on Performance Subcommittee Efforts

Mr. Dean Simeroth of the ARB discussed the Performance
Subcommittee's compatibility and performance test program
(Attachment 2).  The following points were made:

     The Subcommittee's mission, objectives, and formation were

     Phillips Chemical Company has been contracted to produce the
     test fuel, and Texaco to distribute the test fuel. 
     Acknowledgement was given to Texaco for paying for part of
     the fuel costs, and to Shell Oil which is covering the cost
     for the bulk of the test fuels.  Fuel shipments are
     scheduled to begin at the end of January, 1995.  

     The Subcommittee has approved the test program protocols for
     the on- and off-road motor vehicle fleets; approved the test
     fuel specifications; assisted in the selection of the test
     fleets; and supported individual company test programs by
     General Motors, Ford, and Chevron.

     The on-road motor vehicle test program begins in February,
     1995 and is scheduled to end by August, 1995. 

     The subcommittee agreed that commonly available gasoline
     will be used as the control fuel, due to cost and logistical

     The on-road fleets will be made up of 1,035 test vehicles
     and 817 control vehicles, for a total of 1,852 vehicles
     participating in the program in northern, central, and
     southern California.  [Update as of May 16-17 Subcommittee
     Meetings, the numbers are now approximately 800, 500 and 
     1300, respectively.]
     Mr. Paul Jacobs, ARB, Mobile Source Division, gave details
     of the compatibility and performance program; detailed the
     inspection program; and explained the procedures which will
     be followed, from the point of a driveability incident
     report to assessment by a Technical Review Panel, who will
     analyze confirmed fuel related failures.  (Attachment 3).

     Ms. Analisa Bevan, ARB, Stationary Source Division,
     presented an overview of the off-road and non-vehicle gas
     powered engine test programs (13 different categories).  The
     final report findings from Tecumseh's field and bench
     testing, which was completed in November, showed no
     performance or durability problems.  Briggs and Stratton's
     preliminary field test findings also indicate no problems
     encountered with Phase 2 RFG.  (Attachment 4).

     Dr. Gerald Barnes, General Motors, presented an overview of
     two separate bench test programs to be conducted by General
     Motors and by Ford (Attachment 5).  General Motors will be
     looking at five fuels, and the impact on elastomers and
     plastic materials used in engines and the fuel delivery
     systems.  General Motors will be reporting back to the
     Performance Subcommittee in May or June.

     Ford's test program will analyze the lubricity impact of the
     Phase 2 test fuels, as well as of conventional fuels, on
     metal-to-metal wear.  Evaluation ranking and comparative
     analysis will be presented to the Performance Subcommittee
     for their review. 

     Mr. Simeroth also reported that Chevron is doing an
     independent test program using a Phase 2 gasoline of their
     own, with their employee fleet being used as the test 
     vehicles.  The program was to begin in mid-January.  

     Acknowledgement was also given to Powerine Oil which is
     helping to procure the specialty fuels for the General
     Motors and Ford tests.

Presentation on Transition Subcommittee Efforts

Ms. Susan Brown of the California Energy Commission presented an
overview of the discussions of the Transition Subcommittee
(Attachment 6).  In summary:

     In November, 1994, and January 1995, the subcommittee
     addressed issues of supply, distribution, federal RFG
     implementation, the oxygenate outlook, the CEC/ARB Joint
     Survey, and regional issues.

     The subcommittee evaluated historical and anticipated
     California supply, demand, and reserve capacity. 
     Preliminary CEC forecasts indicate that supplies of
     California RFG will be adequate for the start-up of the
     general public use in March, 1996 and that production
     capacity can meet maximum forecasted demand through the year

     In monitoring the Phase 1 (federal) RFG program, the
     following observations were made:    Phase 1 gasoline for
     Southern California currently constitutes sixty percent of
     total state production; no mechanical breakdowns had been
     reported at refineries; storage has been adequate for
     segregated fuels situations; required record keeping for
     federal RFG is much more extensive than will be for Phase 2
     (California) RFG (only at the refinery).

     MTBE appears to be the oxygenate of choice for most
     refiners.  However, methanol prices remain somewhat volatile
     due to market uncertainties.  The oxygenate situation will
     continue to be monitored.  The CEC will also begin to track
     ETBE more closely because some refiners may consider it to
     also be an attractive option.
     Cooperation from refiners in completing the Joint CEC/ARB
     RFG survey forms will enable the CEC to make more accurate
     forecasts of expected production, maximum production, and
     import volumes.  All data is aggregated so that no
     individual provider's data can be ascertained.

Presentation on Public Education Subcommittee Efforts

Mr. Ron Friesen of the ARB presented the Public Education
Subcommittee's progress in developing an information outreach
program (Attachments 7 and 8).   A public relations contract for
professional assistance is being pursued to develop an outreach
strategy and to advise on how to proceed.  Eight responses have
been received for the 18-month, $100,000 contract.  A committee
has been formed to review the proposals, and hopes to select a
contractor by early March.  

     The outreach plan blueprint has been drafted for targeting
     key audiences, developing messages, and exploring
     appropriate media options (included in meeting handouts). 
     After review by the public relations contractor, the
     outreach plan will be presented to the Advisory Committee
     for final review.

     The Subcommittee presented the first in a series of facts
     sheets, entitled "California RFG Fact Sheet 1," to be
     distributed to the general public.  In laymen's terms, it
     provides background information on Phase 2 RFG issues.  The
     draft for Fact Sheet 2 was also presented to the Advisory
     Committee and will provide information on the performance
     and compatibility test programs.

     In addition, a quarterly newsletter of Advisory Committee
     and Subcommittee activities, issues and decisions entitled,
     "California RFG Forum," has been developed, which is
     intended for specific audiences, such as this Advisory
     Committee and the Subcommittees, as well as the State
     Legislature.  Issue No. 1, December, 1994, has been
     published, and a draft Issue No. 2, February, 1995 is ready
     for production.

     Ms. Janet Hathaway, Natural Resources Defense Council
     expressed the value of, and the need for, extensive public
     education.  The need to avoid jargon and speak the language
     of the different interest groups is critical.  The
     Subcommittee is looking for sources for disseminating
     information such as through the "free media" and editorial
     boards.  Assistance from Committee members who can be
     available for media opportunities would be appreciated. 

     Ms. Jan Speelman, Southern California Service Station
     Association (SCSSA), reported that a survey of the SCSSA
     membership found that service station operators have minimal
     knowledge regarding the reformulated gasoline issue.  They
     need to be informed about supply, price, fuel impacts, and 
     health effects.  The more the gasoline station operators are
     informed, the more they can also inform the general public. 
     This is one of the gaps the Public Education Subcommittee
     hopes to fill.  

Open Discussion and Comments Following the Presentations

     Mr. Al Mannato of the EPA indicated that he doesn't think
     the claims on the recent ABC Television show regarding
     health issues will continue. The EPA is fairly comfortable
     that there is no scientific basis for the alleged negative
     health effects being caused by MTBE, and does not believe
     there is anything to change the risk assessment of MTBE. 
     However, the EPA will be looking for independent assessment
     before the end of this year.   

     Mr. James Boyd, Executive Officer, indicated that,
     nevertheless, the ARB will remain attuned to the public
     concerns on this issue, and will be more pro-active in
     public education.    

     After a question and some discussion, Mr. Boyd suggested
     that at future meetings, the Subcommittees might want to
     discuss "what if" scenarios and develop potential solutions. 
     Although discussions regarding solutions would be limited by
     anti-trust regulations, it would assist in being alert to
     potential problems as the program progresses, although none
     are anticipated.  


     Chairman Lagarias announced that the ARB electronic bulletin
     board is now operational, which has a section devoted
     specifically to Phase 2 RFG issues.  Users can view and
     download Phase 2 RFG Committee and Subcommittee meeting
     agendas and summaries, as well as other information.  This
     service is now on-line and can be accessed by calling: (916)

     At the next Board Meeting of the Air Resources Board, a
     status report of the Phase 2 RFG Advisory Committee and
     Subcommittees' activities will be presented.  The meeting
     will be held on February 23 at the ARB Headquarters building
     in Sacramento.

     Future Subcommittee meetings are scheduled for March 14-15,
     and May 16-17, at the ARB Headquarters building in

     The next meeting date for the Advisory Committee is
     tentatively set for Wednesday, June 7, 1995, at which time
     early results of the performance test program will be
     discussed.  Sacramento location to be announced.     

CBG Program Advisory and Subcommittee Activities