EPA-AA-TEB-511-81-1
EPA Evaluation of the Gas Meiser I under Section 511
of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act
by
Edward Anthony Earth
May, 1981
Test and Evaluation Branch
Emission Control Technology Division
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Environmental Protection Agency
-------
-2-
5560-26 EPA-AA-TEB-511-81-1
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[40 CFR Part 610]
[FRL
FUEL ECONOMY RETROFIT DEVICES
Announcement of Fuel Economy Retrofit Device Evaluation
for "Gas Meiser I"
AGEKCY; Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
ACTION: Notice of Fuel Economy Retrofit Device Evaluation-
SUMMARY: This document announces the conclusions of the EPA evaluation of
the "Gas Meiser I" device under provisions of Section 511 of the
Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act.
-------
3
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Section 511(b)(l) and Section 511(c) of the
Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 2011(b))
requires that:
(b)(l) "Upon application of any manufacturer of a retrofit device (or
prototype thereof), upon the request of the Federal Trade Commission
pursuant to subsection (a), or upon his own motion, the EPA Administrator
shall evaluate, in accordance with rules prescribed under subsection (d),
any retrofit device to determine whether the retrofit device increases
fuel economy and to determine whether the representations (if any) made
with respect to such retrofit devices are accurate." .
(c) "The EPA Administrator shall publish in the Federal Register a
summary of the results of all tests conducted under this section, to-
gether with the EPA Administrator's conclusions as to -
(1) the effect of any retrofit device on fuel economy;
(2) the effect of any such device on emissions of air pollu-
tants; and
(3) any other information which the Administrator determines to
be relevant in evaluating such device."
EPA published final regulations establishing procedures for con-
ducting fuel economy retrofit device evaluations on March 23, 1979
[44 FR 17946].
-------
-4-
ORIGIN OF REQUEST FOR EVALUATION: On December 17, 1980, the EPA received
a request from Gas Meiser Corporation for evaluation of a fuel saving
device termed "Gas Meiser I". This Device is claimed to "... increase
fuel economy by pre-heating the fuel." The Device consists principally
of a gasoline hose wrapped around the vehicle's upper radiator hose.
Availability of Evaluation Report: An evaluation has been made and the
results are described completely in a report entitled: "EPA Evaluation
of the Gas Meiser I under Section 511 of the Motor Vehicle Information
and Cost Savings Act," report number EPA-AA-TEB-511-31-1 consisting of 18
pages including all attachments.
Copies of this report may be obtained from the National Technical
Information Center by using the above report number. Address requests to:
National Technical Information Center
U.S. Department of Commerce
Springfield, VA 22161
Phone: Federal Telephone System (FTS) 737-4650
Commercial 703-487-4650
-------
-5-
Suminary of Evaluation
The stated method of operation of the "Gas Meiser I" is that the "Gas
Meiser I" is designed to preheat the fuel and thereby increase a
vehicle's fuel economy.
The Applicant submitted no test data with the application for evalua-
tion. Analysis of the information submitted by the Applicant did not
prove that use of the "Gas Meiser I" would enable a vehicle .operator to
improve a vehicle's fuel economy.
Previous EPA testing of another device that preheated the fuel showed
that preheating the fuel gave no emissions or fuel economy benefits.
Thus, there is no technical basis to support any claims for a fuel
economy improvement due to the use of the "Gas Meiser I" device.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Merrill W. Korth, Emission Control
Technology Division, Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control,
Environmental Protection Agency, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan
48105, 313-668-4299.
Date Edward F. Tuerk
Acting Assistant Administrator
for Air, Noise, and Radiation
-------
-6-
Evaluation of the Gas Meiser I Device under Section 511 of the Motor
Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act
The following is a summary of the information on the device as submitted
by the Applicant and the resulting EPA analysis and conclusions.
1. Marketing Identification of the Device;
"Gas Meiser I"
2. Inventor of the Device and Patents:
A. Inventor
William LaBombard
1516 Oakes Street
Marinette, Wl 54143
William Blemke
1516 1/2 Oakes Street
Marinette, WI 54143
B. Patent
"No Patent - 6 feet approved 5/16" Neoprene Hose, 2 approved
hose clamps, 2 wire ties
"Mr. Redman of Wisconsin Department of Agriculture Trade &
Consumer Protection indicated that at most, a person could
expect a 10% increase. See enclosure #1." Enclosure #1 is
Attachment A,
3. Manufacturer of the Device:
"Pending"
4. Manufacturing Organization Principals:
"Pending"
5. Marketing Organization in U.S. Making Application:
Gas Meiser Corporation
1516 Oakes Street
Marinette, WI 54143
6. Applying Organization Principals:
William LaBombard - President and Treasurer
Verna LaBombard - Vice-President and Secretary
William Blemke - Sales Manager and Representative in Communications
-------
-7-
7. Description of Device:
(a) Purpose of the Device (as supplied by Applicant): "To increase
fuel economy."
(b) Theory of Operation (as supplied by Applicant): "To expand the
atomic structure of gasoline by preheating."
(c) Detailed Description of Construction and Operation (as supplied
by Applicant); "6 feet approved 5/16" Neoprene hose, 2 ap-
proved hose clamps, 2 wire ties. Preheats the gas with the
heat from the top radiator hose expanding the atomic structure
of the gas which increases the gas mileage. See enclosure #2."
Enclosure #2 was the device plus the General Instructions which
were also provided as Enclosure #3. (Enclosure #3 is Attach-
ment B of this report.)
8. Applicability of the Device (as supplied by Applicant);
"All combustible gas engines except diesel and air cooled. Gas
Meiser I will be marketed in one size only and will fit all auto-
mobiles except diesel and air cooled."
9. Device Installation (as supplied by Applicant);
"a. General Instructions - See Enclosure #3"; (Enclosure #3 is
Attachment B.)
"b. All combustible engines except diesel and air cooled"
"c. Tube cutter, screw driver"
"d. None"
"e. Reduce wrapping if vapor lock occurs"
"f. Minimal mechanical ability"
10. Device Operation (as supplied by Applicant):
"See Enclosure #3"
11. Device Maintenance (as supplied by Applicant):
"Maintenance Free"
12. Effect on Vehicle Emissions (non-regulated) (as supplied by Appli-
cant) :
"No independent test results available"
13. Effects on Vehicle Safety (as supplied by Applicant);
"See Enclosure #4" (Enclosure #4 is Attachment C).
-------
-8-
14. Test Results - Regulated Emissions and Fuel Economy (submitted by
Applicant):
"No independent test results available"
/
15. Analysis
A. Description of Device:
The Device consists principally of a gasoline hose wrapped
around the vehicle's upper radiator hose. The Device is judged
to be able to heat the fuel to some limited extent.
B. Applicability of the Device;
The applicability of the device, as stated in Section 8, "All
combustible gas engines except diesel and air cooled" is judged
to be valid.
C. Device Installation ~ Tools and Expertise Required: were iden-
tified in Section 9
(1) The general instructions provided are judged to be adequate
for the physical installation of the device.
(2) The claim that the instructions are applicable to "all
combustible engines except diesel and air cooled" (Sec-
tion 8.), i.e. no vehicle specific instructions are
required, is judged to be correct.
(3) The tools identified in Section 9.c. are judged to be ade-
quate for installation of the Device.
(4) The statement that no special equipment is required for
installation checkout is judged to be correct.
(5) The Device is judged to not require adjustments nor require
vehicle adjustments. If vapor lock problems are encoun-
tered, the Applicant suggests reducing the number of
wrappings of the "Gas Meiser I" around the engine's upper
radiator hose. This is judged to be able to alleviate any
vapor lock problems induced by the device.
D. Device Operation:
The Applicant refers to the installation instructions for Device
Operating instructions. The only post installation instructions
contained therein relate to vapor lock. This is deemed adequate.
F. Device Maintenance:
Applicant claims the Device is "Maintenance Free" in Section 11.
This is true in the general usage of the term maintenance, the
-------
9
added Device fuel fittings and fuel line installed in the vehi-
cle, would require the normal periodic inspection accorded
similar components in the vehicle.
G* Effect on Vehicle Emissions (non-regulated):
The Applicant submitted no test data, Section 12. However,
since the Device does not appreciably modify the vehicle's emis-
sion control system or powertrain, it appears reasonable to
assume that the Device would not significantly affect a vehi-
cle's non-regulated emissions.
H. Effect on Vehicle Safety;
The Applicant's enclosure on safety is a letter from his attor-
ney to an automotive association (see Attachment C). In this
letter the claims for safety appear to be based on three points:
(1) the fuel is not heated above the temperature of the auto-
mobile coolant.
(2) the fuel is not pressurized or vaporized.
(3) no problems have been encountered in the unspecified number
of installations made.
When properly installed, it appears unlikely that the Device
would adversely affect vehicle safety in normal usage and that
the Applicant's claim is justified.
However, if vapor lock is encountered, the Applicant's solution
of reducing the wrappings on the radiator hose will require
disconnecting the fuel line. If this was done on a hot, stalled
vehicle, fuel would be spilled in the hot engine compartment.
To minimize this hazard, the Applicant should specify that this
procedure be only performed after the engine has cooled.
Also, in event of an accident, the vehicle's fuel system would
be more vulnerable due to the added length of the fuel line
wrapped around the upper radiator hose.
I. Test Results Supplied by Applicant;
Applicant did not submit any test data per the Federal Test
Procedure or Highway Fuel Economy Test. These are the only EPA
-------
-10-
recognized test procedures^-'-). This requirement for the test
data following these procedures is stated in the Application
format and two subsequent letters EPA sent to the applicant
(Attachments D, E, and F). Therefore, there was no technical
basis to support the Applicant's claim of increased fuel economy.
J. EPA Testing of a Fuel Preheater:
EPA tested a fuel preheaterv^) which used water from the
engine block to heat the fuel in a copper tube and shell heat
exchanger. This device could be expected to add more heat to
the fuel than "Gas Meiser I" because the copper tube and shell
design is a more efficient heat transfer mechanism than the "Gas
Meiser I" neoprene hose wrapped around the upper radiator hose.
Also it would have acted sooner because the engine would not
first have to raise the engine coolant to the thermostat setting
for the hot coolant to flow through the upper radiator hose.
This fuel preheater did not improve vehicle fuel economy. Since
the "Gas Meiser I" could be expected to receive less heat from
the coolant, in the absence of valid test data there is no
reason to expect the "Gas Meiser I" to improve vehicle fuel
economy nor justification for EPA to test the Device to further
investigate the claim for fuel economy.
16. Conclusion:
The Applicant submitted no test data that proved that the "Gas Meiser
1" would improve vehicle fuel economy.
EPA previously tested a similar device which failed to show a fuel
economy benefit. Therefore, it is unlikely that testing of the
device would have shown a fuel economy benefit.
From EPA 511 Application Format:
Test Results (Regulated Emissions and Fuel Economy):
Provide all" test information which is available on the effects
of the device on vehicle emissions and fuel economy.
The Federal Test Procedure (40 CRF Part 86) is the only test
which is recognized by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
for the evaluation of vehicle emissions. The Federal Test
Procedure and the Highway Fuel Economy Test (40 CRF Part 600)
are the only tests which are normally recognized by the U.S. EPA
for evaluating vehicle fuel economy. Data which have been
collected in accordance with other standardized fuel economy
measuring procedures (e.g. Society of Automotive Engineers) are
acceptable as supplemental data to the Federal Test Procedure
and the Highway Fuel Economy Data and will be used, if provided,
in the preliminary evaluation of the device. Data are required
from the test vehicle(s) in both baseline (all parameters set to
manufacturer's specifications) and modified forms (with device
installed) .
(^Evaluation of the Fuel Xpander, EPA-AA-TAEB-80-2
-------
ROGERS & HERTEL -
> 3 _ S O t_' T M MILL D T R E E, 1
MERRILL, WISCONSIN
May 6, 1930
'M
TELEPHONE 7/5/5.7*5-550'
Attachment"A
TOMAMAWK O r f" I C C
> O SO". 3SO
7 NOPfTM lOfAMJ?** AVENUE
TOMAMAW*. WISCO.%Si'< ?. *B7
tLtn^ONE 7IJV/-*5> Mf.J
7"5/S.T«% - It J'-*O
MOBILE TELEPHONES
JAMES T. MOOCRS .
"5/3&0 HOD
MARRr n. HE^TCt.
Mr. William Blemke
P. O. Box §4
Bryant, WI 54418
RS: Gas Preheater
Dear Bill:
I believe that I have some answers to the questions that you raised regarding the
development and marketing of your gas preheater.
As far as I have been able to determine, there is no State Agency that would test
your product before marketing can start.
However, I did talk with a. Mr. Tom Redman at the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture
and Trade, Consumer Protection Division, 801 W. Badger Road, Madison, WI 53702,
(608) 266-7222, regarding the proposed advertising and marketing of your product.
He is forwarding to us a law which went into effect on April 30, regulating the
advertising and marketing of devices intended to increase or improve fuel mileage
in automobiles and motor vehicles, which is enclosed.
What we have to avoid/ of course, is making a misleading or unsubstantiated claim
about the increase that a customer could expect by buying and using your product.
Mr. Redman indicated to me" that the University scientists they have talked with
have indicated that at most, a person could expect only a 10 per cent" increase -'--r:
by the use of any gas .preheater or vaporizer in the gas line as yours is set-up. -J _
They talk about this- as the maximum, theoretical efficiency increase.. ;'?.. ';/"" J
: -^ScL^V - .:??''&₯'&?
'' - ^fe^'.- f;^j^3p£-
'^swi*^
, . ... ...
-------
GAS MEISER I
Read Instructions Before Installation
1. Cut fuel line approximately 6" from carburetor WITH TUBE CUTTER.
2. Connect 1 end of hose to line from carburetor and secure with
clamp.
3. Begin wrapping fuel line hose around radiator hose. Be sure
fuel line hose is wrapped tightly to receive top performance
from GAS MEISER I.
4. After wrapping fuel line hose approximately 4 to 6 times,
depending on engine size, connect other end of hose to fuel
line from fuel pump and secure with clamp.
5. After fuel line hose is connected on both ends, use plastic
wire ties to secure GAS MEISER I to radiator hose.
6. Before starting engine, make sure gas filter and air cleaner
are clean. .
7. Start engine to make sure all lines are connected properly.
8. If vapor lock should occur, reduce wrappings on" radiator hose.
-------
Attachment
-13-
LINCOLN HO'.'-.L
P O. ilO* 4 \f\
**O SOUTH MILL r*rMEtT
MEHHILL. WISCOMSIN E'
TELEPMOM: 7is/53e s^oi
rO"AHAW>-. Office
, ,.,
JAMCS T POOtRS
»is -ase-uoo
LAWYERS
September 15, 1980
JAMES T. ftOOCFfS / HARRY R. HEUTEU /JAMES T. RUNYON
HENRY R.3CHUL7Z
Mr. Gary L. Antoniewicz ,
Staff Counsel ' "
Wisconsin Automobile & Truck Dealters Assoc. . ..
25 W. Main Street
P.O. Box 5345 ."-..:.; :':'', - .
Madison. Wis. 53705 ' ^ ' : . , V . -.
Re: William Blemke -. Gas-Meiser Gas Preheater : .
Dear Gary:
I have your letter of September 12, 1980, and expected that sooner or
later my correspondence would cross your desk when 1 learned that the
Wisconsin Automobile & Truck Dealers Association was involved.
I make no claims to having any engineering skills or expertise, but 1
would like to take just a couple minutes of your time to explain the
principles involved in Mr. Blemke's "Gas Preheater".
Mr. Blemke has developed two models; the first model uses a right angle
plumbing joint and the gas line runs through a copper tubing surrounded .-.-
by hot water from the automobile or truck's cooling system. "._ .' """.".""
The gasoline under no circumstances is heated above the temperature that
the coolant obtains during normal engine operation of approximately 190*'.'
to 200°. ... -... .. , -.- .; . /;. .... .,,;;;.:" .: ' -'.- .'^--'.-i^v--- -
Mr. Blemke's second model involves using six feet of black neofrene
gas line tubing which is wrapped directly around the hot water hose that
runs from the engine block to the radiator.
Once again, the gas in the black neofrene tube is not heated above the
temperature- of the coolant in the automobile approximately 190° to 200°.
Both models of Mr. Blemke's gas preheater have been installed on a number
of automobiles and trucks and to date there have been no problems with fires,
explosions, or vapor lock that is associated with gas preheaters that use
the engine heat from the manifold, which raises the gasoline considerably
above a safe temperature.
....: ; .;.-.':J.Tn. :'}
-Z:'- '.'-.' = L'.-N- -V-'- * "f.
-------
Kr. Gary L. Antoniewicz
Page 2
Ti\f. greatest results with Mr. Blemke's gas preheater are realized during the
winter months, when gasoline in thr gas tank is normally at 20° to 25" below. _..-.
zero, depending upon the ambient air temperature and instead of entering the ..
carbeurator at 20° to 25° below zero would enter it at 180° to 190° Fahrenheit,
which results in increased and. easier vap< i.zation and better gas mileage.
Neither model of Mr. Blemke's gas preheater alteru r.he chemistry of the vehicle's
etavaissions. -:...... .-",'_
. .- ' v: ' Y * ''.
We have been working with State and Federal agencies regarding Mr. Blemke's ..'?,.
invention and 1 share your concerns regarding the product's liability issue,% -'
but I reiterate, to date there have been no problems with either model and .'.--, .'
none of the State and Federal agencies .that we have contacted seem concerned
about the safety of the product. . "'-.'';'' :""V'.
Once again, 1 want to reiterate that Mr. Blemke's device does no-t pressurize "
or vaporize the gasoline. By the way, Mr. Blemke's advertisings/and experience
with the gas mileage' improvement are much more reasonable and in line than the
crazy advertising schemes probably seen lately.
Mr. Blemke's customers have been experiencing a 3 to A mile per gallon increase
and not the 100 to 500X seen advertised by others. . .
Mr. Blemke has advertised a 10% to 30% increase in mileage based of course on
the vehicle and the previous-mileage experience of the driver.
Yours truly,
James T. Runyon ...
Attorney for William Blerake and Gas-Meiser, Inc.
, .f .
-------
Attachment D
,. .-15-
July 7, 1S>30
Rogars £r liercel Lawyers
Lincoln. Llouse
P. 0. 30x 393
Merrill, Wl 54452
Dear Hr. Kuayoa:
* 'in re^e to
oa procre, <"**?'
-*
i-:-
(Test Policy, Retrofit
. the
laforiaatioQ
It should be M»d ttat .
Eot EPA wattos P^« to oat^tlag.
,!«. th. -portion you
d
", h»a no
w^s-rto ai3cus\S"»acerlal-- ^ Wkaanshlp;, ^ E?A;.
..r^^^l^Sv^^Sl^sSs^K^:
fflodifieB cha fuel Ueli^.y 8/sCua oz interest froTa
:io«. (>-
itei-^el
'foiTthSir" recomaendislona ou ttUs'"subject. y7~- :,:~ -.-:;.;;; ^^.TTX^.;.;;'.^.:^.;>:
« youuave any additiouul ^a.io.s, pl-sa 'f^ft^ to coutact ne f or ^
assiscauca.
*B» - '
Sincerely,
P.. Peter Uutclilns* Project 5-lanajjer. :
lest aad Evaluaclou Sraacix . .
Enclosures -... - . "-'V'-V-'-V
. . . . . . --s^--; ^.^SiiPi
- si-'f *'>. ' - -''''."J'^Vifei*"
.-.~; ..-'"-:. .""yy-v-/yg^g
' . _^i:^i-i^.-.--'"--"frH^rr^r
___ -- - - :" ^v.^v.':-. .:':i^2J*^
, " . - -. . ..ii »v,-»*'tv.-- ^..- . -*.*.*'-3(t*vT»,«rrvS:
-------
-16-
Attachment E
.
December 4, 1960 ;.'.. .;/;.
1-lr. v/illiam Slemke "- r','Vfr*^''
151''1- Oaues Street '-"'-\''7;?~^i.
"arir.etta, !,;! 54143 ' ^S^
Dear Mr. lilerake: 'X- ' - Y^Y"'^
This letter is in response to your inquiry of November 26, 1930 re$arding an ':'---: '-'':
T-TA evaluation of Gas Meiser. The Environmental Protection Agency is charged ': -;\>
by Congressional irandate to evaluate fuel economy and esisaion control
devices. While the EPA does not actually "approve" such devices, it does . _ .. V ,
conduct evalaatiofis for the purpose of increasing the ccnnon knowledge in the .-.-
area. For this reason, tbe outcoine of any testing by U?A becomes public
information. It is this infom'.ation which ir>ay be cited although no claims can
be made that any EPA findings constitute "approval" of the device or system.
Enclosed with this letter is a packet of nateriala which you will need to
apply for an EPA evaluation of your device. This packet consists of 1) an :
application foroat, 2) a docLnr.ent entitled "EPA P.etrofit and Emission Control
Device Evaluation Test Policy" and 3) a copy of the applicable Federal Regula
tlors. - -..'-. '.'''-'' "'-:--'; --" . . '" -;. .'-".-/;..'.; ':' . /. ..':-,'.:...-_ -..;.
In order for the EPA to conduct an evaluation of your device;, we r?.ust-'have an
application. Once you have reviewed all the docuoar.ts in the packet, you .
should"'prepare an application iu accordance vrith. the «yidelin-sr..oi" . the'-'- "--
application.: forii.-at. . -.- If- yoii ho.yo- not yait.'rCon'cluc-tVd tlio.-tests. u-e... rfcnuicej.'.-vc-.';.. .-..
covi -:r>sr.j.s-t iu ;the -lioc'i.o'n'.cbt -of .^ a :s?i tin factory "..tes.'t-'.ji.larj* .".-"_.-:-.,-.'.^v.v.^-_'»"-"-""~ ~^':.'~:~\-
Gticc .'-fi receive' ybiir application,: it will be reviewed to -ieteninr;. if It ir«etG
r he., recu.ir.cp.e_nt.>. -1 i s.t e-J ^.-in,;. the i.IoTjpa t. . .'If -_-i so y ..-..yo«__"_ vi 1"1'.', be' - r.^i v i 3_fi
-------
-17-
If your application is not complete,'we vili ask you to subniit further infor-
mation or data. This request rain with the device installed with no vehicle
adjustments between tests. If installation of the device also involves
eoine adjustments, e.g. tiering, fuel-air p.ixture, ': choke or idle speed,
another test sequence with only these adjustments should be inserted
between the first and last. Also as a ninitruK, the test sequence shall
consist of a hot start LA 4 portion (bags 1 and 2) of the Federal Test
Procedure (FTP) and a Highway Fuel Economy Test (HFET). The details of
these tests are contained in the enclosed packet. ' Although only a
hot-start FTP is required to Tnininize the costs to you, you are
encouraged to have the entire cold-start test. performed since any testing
and- evaluation .performed by EPA will be based cm .the complete FTP and . you
nay wish to know how a xt>hicle with your device performs over this
official test. As a final requirement, the personnel of the outside
laboiMtory you select should perfons f.very eleine.nt of your' test plan.
T'ni.s includes preparation cf the test vehicle, adjustment of parar:eter.^
r.nd installation of the
-------
-18-
We would expect a p.i^iitiura of 5£ inprove^ant for a fleet of 5 vehicles"
(see. table below). Test results vhich rJisplay a significant increase in
cp.icsicm levels nay be. reason for EPA to require rrore extensive testing
or to deny further evaluation. . -
Submission of Data - Ve require that all test data obtained frota .
outside laboratories in support of your application be submitted to. us.'-r-
This includes any results you have vhich vere declared void or invalid by
the laboratory. V-'e aioo ask that you notify us of the laboratory .you "*
hova chosen, when testing is scheduled to begixi, what tests you have
decided to conduct, allots us to raintain contact with the laboratory ^
during the course of the testing, and allc'-r the test laboratory to
directly answer any questions at any tirr.e about ths test prograia. '
Despite the current backlog. and increasing number of inquiries regarding fuel
econ.o-.ay device evaluations, the EPA intends to process your application in as
expeditious a iranner as possible. We have established a goal of twelve veeks
fron tlm receipt of a complete application to tha announcetMut of our raport.
Tho attainment of this objective requires very precise scheduling and we are
depending OR the applicant to respond promptly to any questions or to submit
any requested data. Failure to respond in a tirr.ely isar.per v/ill unduly delay
the process. In the extreme case, we r.ay consider lack of response as a
vithdrawl of the application.
L '"ope the information abova and that contained in the enclosed documents will
aid you in the preparation of an acceptable application for 'an EPA evaluation
of your device. I will be your contact with Ei'A during this process and any
subsequent EPA evaluation. My address is EPA, Motor Vehicle Enission
Lo.borr.'tory, 2555 Plyiroutli Road , Ann Arbor, Michigan, 4S105. The telephone
r.v.nber is ,(313) 663-4200. . Please contact TTC if you have any questions or
' any further information. . ' " - "
Merrill I/. Knrth, ;
.Sevice Evaluation;Coordinator ... ;----..-
'£r-i3sion Gonirol Technology L'ivision - '.:;
ECTD:TEB:Korth:cd:X259:2565PlymouthRd:12/4/80
rV '-t -
~r,-:C
-jrfe^^^S^^-^f^i^^v^**155^^
-------
(
f Attachment-F
-w- V - - -
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN 48105
o 100, OFFICE OF
January 8, 1981 . AIR. NOISE AND RADIATION
Mr. William Bletnke
1516 Oakes Street
Marinette, WI 54143
Dear Mr. Blemke:
EPA has received your application for evaluation of Gas Meiser I under
Section 511 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act.
EPA has reviewed your application. However, no test data was submitted
with your application. If you decide to obtain data from a private labo-
ratory as described in my letter to you on December 4, 1980, we will be
happy to work with you in designing a test plan. The EPA policy docu-
ments that you received require only hot start data but it may be to the
advantage of your device i£ it is tested on a cold start basis.
The Gas Meiser I is a fuel preheater that routes fuel through a flexible
fuel line that is wrapped around the upper radiator hose. EPA recently
tested a fuel preheater called FuelXpander which showed no fuel economy
benefits. (A copy of this report which was sent to your attorney,"
Mr. Jamas T. Runyon, on July 7, 1980.) Therefore, in the absence of
valid new data showing a benefit for your device, there is no basis for
EPA conducting confirmatory tests of the Gas Meiser I,
EPA will continue to process your application On the basis of the avail-
able information.
Enclosed for your information is a copy of the EPA report detailing the
FuelXpander test results. Please contact me (phone (313) 668-4299) if
you have any questions or require any further information,
Sincerely,
Merrill W. Korth, Device Evaluation Coordinator
Emission Control Technology Division
------- |