EPA-AA-TEB-511-81-28
EPA Evaluation of the Glynn-50 Device Under
Section 511 of the Motor Vehicle Information
and Cost Savings Act
This document contains several pages which may not reproduce well. Any
questions concerning the legibility of these pages should be directed to:
Merrill W. Korth, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Mobile
Source Air Pollution Control, Emission Control Technology. Division, 2565
Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, (313) 668-4299 or FTS 374-8299.
by
John C. Shelton
August 1981
Test and Evaluation Branch
,. Emission Control Technology Division
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
6560-26
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[40 CFR Part 610]
[FRL
FUEL ECONOMY RETROFIT DEVICES
Announcement of Fuel Economy Retrofit Device Evaluation
for "Glynn-50"
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of Fuel Economy Retrofit Device Evaluation.
SUMMARY: This document announces the conclusions of the EPA evaluation
of the "Glynn-50" device under provisions of Section 511 of the
Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act.
-------
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,
together 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
pollutants; and
(3) any other information which the Administrator determines to
be relevant in evaluating such device."
EPA published final regulations establishing procedures for
conducting fuel economy retrofit device evaluations on March 23, 1979
[44 FR 17946].
-------
ORIGIN OF REQUEST FOR EVALUATION; On June 2, 1981, the EPA received a
request from the Hopkins-Glynn Corp. for evaluation of a fuel saving
device known as the "Glynn-50". This device is claimed to reduce exhaust
emissions and save fuel.
Availability of Evaluation Report; An evaluation has been made and the
results are described completely in a report entitled: "EPA Evaluation
of the Glynn-50 Device Under Section 511 of the Motor Vehicle Information
and Cost Savings Act," report number EPA-AA-TEB-511-81-28 consisting of
22 pages including all attachments.
Copies of this report may be obtained from the National Technical
Information Service by using the above report number. Address requests
to:
National Technical Information Service
U.S. Department of Commerce
Springfield, VA 22161
Phone: Federal Telecommunications System (FTS) 737-4650
Commercial 703-487-4650
Summary of Evaluation
EPA fully considered all of the information submitted by the device
manufacturer in his application. The device description and supporting
text indicated that the device should improve combustion efficiency.
However, no test data was submitted with the application.
-------
While thorough mixing of fuel and air and even distribution will enhance
the combustion process, there is no evidence that the use of the Glynn-50
device will result in any improvements over an unmodified induction
system. The use of smaller jets in the carburetor will tend to enlean
the mixture but may cause driveability problems in some vehicles. Based
on EPA's experience with similar devices, there is no reason to support
any claims for improvements in fuel economy or exhaust emissions due to
the use of the Glynn-50.
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 Kathleen Bennett
Assistant Administrator
for Air, Noise, and Radiation
-------
EPA Evaluation of the "Glynn-50" 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 supplied
by the Applicant and the resulting EPA analysis and conclusions.
1. Marketing Identification of the Device;
Glynn-50
2. Inventor of the Device and Patents:
A. Inventor
Mr. Percy Glynn
R.D. #1
3041 Briner Road
Middletown, PA 17057
B. Patent
Applicant stated "The necessary papers are being filed by our
patent attorney."
3. Manufacturer of the Device:
The Hopkins-Glynn Corp.
140 South Main Street
Madisonville, KY 42431
4. Manufacturing Organization Principals;
Mr. Barney Q. Hopkins - President
Mr. Percy Glynn - Vice President
Mr. Jerry F. Wilbur, Jr. - Treasurer
Mr. Curtis D. McCoy, Jr. - Secretary
5. Marketing Organization in U.S. making Application:
The Hopkins-Glynn Corp.
140 South Main Street
Madisonville, KY 42431
6. Applying Organization Principals:
Mr. Barney Q. Hopkins - President
Mr. Percy Glynn - Vice President
Mr. Jerry F. Wilbur, Jr. - Treasurer
Mr. Curtis D. McCoy, Jr. - Secretary
7. Description of Device;
-------
A. Purpose of the Device (as supplied by Applicant);
"The primary purpose of the device is fuel economy and it should
produce lower exhaust emissions."
B. Theory of Operation (as supplied by Applicant);
"The theory of operation is a venturi box fits under the
carburetor with two heat sources which vaporizes the fuel better
and the carburetor jet is reduced in size and a fuel regulator to
prevent over supply of fuel. As the fuel goes down the venturi
the fuel becomes more combustive by better vaporization and
expansion of air and gasoline because of the heat sources.
Thereby reducing the amount of fuel requirement, which is
accomplished by reducing the size of the jet and the fuel pressure
regulator eliminates excessive pressure."
C. Detailed Description of Construction (as supplied by Applicant);
See attached sketch "A" (Attachment B).
8. Applicability of the Device (as supplied by Applicant);
"The device is applicable to all carbureted gas powered vehicles with
very minor adaptions."
9. Costs (as supplied by Applicant);
Not supplied.
10. Device Installation - Tools and Expertise Required (as supplied by
Applicant);
(a) "Remove the carburetor and install the device between the
carburetor and manifold; cut the gas line and install the fuel
regulator; install smaller jet.
(b) "Applies to all carbureted gas powered vehicles.
(c) "The tools required are 1/2" wrench, screwdriver, small pipe
cutter and 9/16 wrench.
(d) "No equipment necessary to check proper installation.
(e) "No adjustments necessary.
(f) "The average mechanical skill is necessary."
11. Device Operation (as supplied by Applicant);
"No instructions are necessary which pertain to its usage."
-------
8
12. Maintenance (claimed);
"Maintenance is not necessary."
13. Effects on Vehicle Emissions (non-regulated) (claimed):
"Less fuel is used therefore less emission and pollutants should
result."
14. Effects on Vehicle Safety (claimed):
"The device will not cause any unsafe condition."
15. Test Results (Regulated Emissions and Fuel Economy) (submitted by
Applicant):
The applicant stated that Automotive Testing Laboratories of East
Liberty, Ohio would test on June 8 and 9, 1981 and the results would
promptly be furnished to EPA. To our knowledge, this testing was not
performed and no test results have been supplied to EPA.
16. Analysis
A. Description of the Device;
The device is judged to be inadequately described. A brief
description is contained under Section 8, Description of Device,
of the application (Attachment B).
B. Applicability of the Device;
As stated in the application, the device is applicable to
gasoline-powered vehicles equipped with carburetors.
C. Costs:
Not supplied.
D. Device Installation - Tools and Expertise Required;
A skilled mechanic with ordinary tools should be able to install
the device, although complications could arise due to the
alteration of carburetor linkages. In some cases, the additional
height of the carburetor could also prevent the hood from closing
properly.
E. Device Operation:
The instructions were incomplete and no mention was made of any
operating instructions being required.
F. Device Maintenance:
The device does not appear to require maintenance.
-------
G. Effects on Vehicle Emissions (non-regulated);
The device is claimed to lower emissions, but no data to support
these claims were ever submitted.
H. Effects on Vehicle Safety:
One safety problem that might arise is leakage of fuel if the
pressure regulator is not installed or secured properly. There is
also the problem that the throttle linkage may not operate
correctly.
I. Test Results Supplied by Applicant;
The applicant did not submit any test data in accordance with the
Federal Test Procedure or the Highway Fuel Economy Test. The
requirement for test data following these procedures is stated in
the application test policy documents that EPA sends to potential
applicants*. The applicant did state that Automotive Testing Labs
of East Liberty, Ohio would test the device on June 8 and 9 1981
and the results would promptly be furnished to EPA. To our
knowledge, this testing was not performed.
17. Conclusions
While thorough mixing of fuel and air and even distribution will
enhance the combustion process, there is no evidence that the use of
the Glynn-50 device will result in any improvements over an
unmodified induction system. The use of smaller jets in the
carburetor will tend to enlean the mixture but may cause driveability
problems in some vehicles. Based on EPA's experience with similar
devices, there is no reason to support any claims for improvements in
fuel economy or exhaust emissions due to the use of the Glynn-50.
* From EPA 511 Application test policy documents:
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 CFR 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 CFR 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 Highway Fuel Economy Data 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).
-------
10
List of Attachments
Attachment A Letter, EPA to Mr. Hopkins of Hopkins-Glynn
Corp. January 6, 1981.
Attachment B 511 application from Mr. Hopkins to EPA, June
2, 1981.
Attachment C Letter, EPA to Mr. Hopkins, June 30, 1981.
Attachment D Letter, EPA to Mr. Hopkins, July 22, 1981.
-------
Attachment A
11
January 6, 1981
Mr. Barney Q. Hopkins
T4~tf South Main Street
Madisonville, KY 42431
Dear Mr. Hopkins;
This letter is in response to your inquiry of 1/5/81 regarding an EPA
evaluation of your device. The Environmental Protection Agency is churned by
Congressional mandate to evaluate fuel economy and emission control devices.
While ttoffi EPA does not actually "approve" cuch devices, it does conduct
evaluations! for the purpose, of Increasing the common knowledge in the area.
For this reason, the outcome of any testing by CPA becotses public information.
It is this information which may be cited although no claims can be rade that
any EPA findings constitute "approval" of the device or system.
Enclosed with this letter is a packet of materials which you will need to
apply for an EPA evaluation of your device. This packet corslets of 1) nn
application format, 2) a document entitled "EPA Retrofit and Emission Control
Device Evaluation Test Policy" and 3) a copy of the applicable Federal
Regulations.
In order for the EPA to conduct an evaluation of your device, we must have an
application. Once you have reviewed all Jthe documents In the packet, you
should prepare an application in accordance with the guidelines of the
application format. & critic*! part of the application Is the substantiating
test data. The required test results will have to be obtained at a laboratory
of your choice. Such testing would be conducted at yomr expense. A list of
laboratories which arc known to hav* the equipment and personnel to perform
acceptable tests has been included in ti«* enclosed packet. If you desire, we
con assist in the development of a satisfactory test plan.
There are, however, several aspects concerning testing at an outside
laboratory whleh I would like te bring to your attention at this
Minimum ttest Re«pj!r«a*ent8 - Although different types of devices may
requlra a siora complex t«st plan, the minimum we require involves two
vehicles and two test saaxiene«s ruo in duplicate. The vehicles should be
selected from those listed in Table 1; if possible. Each vehicle is to
vfefi. ifit -to nauiwf eetttrjQC '.«, j^tac-tiB BD«clficatiou8 for the baseline testa.
-------
12
Tho tests are conducted In a "back-to-back" manner, once with the vehicle
in baseline condition and again with the device Installed with no vehicle
adjustments between tests. If installation of the device also involves
some adjustments, e.g. timing, fuel-air mixture, choke or idle speed,
another teet sequence with only these adjustments should bo inserted
between the first and last. Also as a minimun, 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 (EFET). The details of
these tests are contained in the enclosed packet. Although only a
hot-start FTP is required to minimize the costs to you, you are
encouraged to have the entire cold-start test performed since any testing
and evaluation performed by EPA tflll be based on the complete FTP and you
may wish to know how a vehicle with your device performs over this
official test. As a final requirement, the personnel of the outside
laboratory you select should perform every element of your test plan.
This includes preparation of the test vehicle, adjustment of parameters
and installation of the device.
Submission of Data - We require that all test data obtained frora the
outside laboratories in support of your application be submitted to us.
This includes any results you have which w.ere declared void or invalid by
the laboratory. We also ask that you notify us of the laboratory you
have choeen, rjhen testing is scheduled to begin, what tests you have
decided to conduct, allow us to maintain contact with the laboratory
during the course of the testing, ond allow the test laboratory to
directly answer any questions at any time about the test program.
Coot of the Testing - The cost of the minimum teet plan (two vehicles,
two test sequences in duplicate) described above should be leos than
$2000 per vehicle and less than $4000 for the total test at any of the
laboratories on the list. You will have to contact them Individually to
obtain tbelr latest prices.
Outcome of the Teats - Although it. is impossible to accurately predict
the overall worth of a device from a small amount of testing, ve have
established some guidelines which will help you determine whether the
test reoults with your device should^ be considered encouraging. These
values have been chosen to assure both of us that a real difference in
fuel economy exists and that we are not seeing only the variability in
the results. The table below presents the minimum number of cars that
need to be tested for varying degrees of fuel economy improvement
assuming a typical amount of variability in fuel economy raeasurecent.
For a minimum test plan which was conducted on a fleet of two cars,, the
average improvement should be at least 8%. If at least en 8« difference
in average fuel economy can be shown, then we would be able to eay
stastically at the 80% confidence level that there is n real improvement.
Similarly, we would expect a minimum of 5% Improvement for a fleet of 5
vehicles. Test resulte which dioplay a significant increase in rmienion
levels should be reason for concern.
-------
13
Fuel Hcosxay TRproveoetstB versus Size of Test Fleet
Float Si go Avcraflo lynrpverosnt Required
T~ " 32
3 n
4 62
5 32
10 42
25 2%
Onco us receive your application. It will be reviewed to dotercine if it. cuetr.
tha requlTeoonto listed in the forcat. If your application is not c crap late,
we will aok you to eufcsdt further information or data. After ar;y nice in;;
Inforrcation has been submitted, your application will be reconsidered and once
it fltteto our requirenonfco, you will fca ariviauc! of our do cl a ion whether or not
EPA will per fora any corsfirEatosry testing. Any CTA testing will he perforr-ed
at no cost to you and you will be piven the opportunity to concur uith our
Coat plan. Once thle lest Ing is coiaplate, an evaluation report trill b«
vritten. If no further testing is required, ttie report Hill be written r-olcly
on the baoic of tho troinptly to Qay questions or to nubudf.
ony requeateid data. Failure to r«aopon<3 in & tituoly mannur will unduly delay
the process. In the estretna caoe, WQ ray consider lack o.f response as a
withdrawal of the application.
I hopo the information abovo end thag container! ia tho endowed
-------
Attachment B
14
June 2, 1981
140 S. Main St.
Madisonville, KY
42431
Mr. Merrill W. Korth
Environmental Protection Agency
Motor Vehicle Emmission Laboratory
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan
48105
Dear Mr. Korth:
Please consider this letter our application to the EPA to evaluate
our fuel economy retrofit device, as specified in Section 511 of the
Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act.
The following is the information you requested and in the format
you specified:
1. TITLE:
Application for Evaluation of a Fuel Economy Retrofit Device
Under Section 511 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost
Savings Act.
2. MARKETING IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEVICE:
The Glynn-50
3. IDENTIFICATION OF INVENTOR AND/OR PATENT PROTECTION:
(a) The inventor is: Mr. Percy Glynn, R.D. #1, 3041 Briner Rd,
Middletown, PA. 17057
(b) The necessary papers are being filed by our Patent Attorney.
4. IDENTIFICATION OF DEVICE MANUFACTURERS:
The device will be manufactured by:
The Hopkins-Glynn Corporation
140 South Main Street
Madisonville, Kentucky
42431
5. IDENTIFICATION OF MANUFACTURING ORGANIZATION PRINCIPALS:
Barney Q. Hopkins, President
Percy Glynn, Vice President
Jerry F: Wilbur, Jr., Treasurer
Curtis D. McCoy, Jr., Secretary
-------
15
6. IDENTIFICATION OF ORGANIZATION MAKING APPLICATION:
The Hopkins-Glynn Corporation
140 South Main Street
Madisonville, Kentucky
42431
7. IDENTIFICATION OF APPLYING ORGANIZATION'S PRINCIPALS:
Barney Q. Hopkins
Percy Glynn
Jerry F. Wilbur, Jr.
Curtis D. McCoy, Jr.
All correspondence and communication as a result of this
application is to be directed to
Barney Q. Hopkins
140 South Main Street
Madisonville, Kentucky 42431
(502)821-1985
8. DESCRIPTION OF DEVICE:
(a) The primary purpose of the device is fuel economy and it
should produce lower exaust emmissions.
(b) The theory of operation is a venturi box fits under the
carburetor with two heat sources which vaporizes the fuel
better and the carburetor jet is reduced in size and a
fuel regulator to prevent over supply of fuel. As the fuel
goes down the venturi the fuel becomes more combustive by
better vaporization and expansion of air and gasoline
because of the heat sources. Thereby reducing the amount
of fuel requirement, which is accomplished by reducing the
size of the jet and the fuel pressure regulator eliminates
excess fuel pressure.
(c) See attached sketch "A"
9. APPLICABILITY OF THE DEVICE:
The device is applicable to all carburetored gas powered vehicles
with very minor adaptions.
10. DEVICE INSTALLATION:
(a) Remove the carburetor and install the device between the
carburetor and manifold; cut the gas line and install the
fuel regulator; install smaller jet.
(b) Applies to all carburetored gas powered vehicles.
- 2 -
-------
16
(c) The tools required are V wrench, screwdriver, small
pipe cutter and 9/16" wrench.
(d) No equipment necessary to check proper installation.
(e) No adjustments necessary.
(f) The average mechanical skill is necessary.
11. DEVICE OPERATION:
No instructions are necessary which pertain to its usage.
12. DEVICE MAINTENANCE:
Maintenance is not necessary.
13. EFFECTS OF VEHICLE EMMISSIONS:
Less fuel is used therefore less emmissioh and pollutants should
result.
14. EFFECTS ON VEHICLE SAFETY:
The device will not cause any unsafe condition.
15. TEST RESULTS:
Automotive Testing Laboratories of East Liberty, Ohio will con-
duct test on June 8 and 9, 1981 and the results will promptly
be furnished to the EPA Laboratory in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Mr. Korth, if there are any further requirements I would appreciate
it very much if you would promptly get in touch with me at the above
address and phone. I will look forward to meeting you in the near fu-
ture.
Sincerely,
Barney^Q. Hopkins
BQH/reh
- 3 -
-------
17
s
'A
g=an
-------
Attachment C'
18
> UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
' ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN 48105
JUne 3°> 1981 OFFICE OF
AIR, NOISE AND RADIATION
Mr. Barney Q. Hopkins
180 South Main Street
Madisonville, KY 42431
Dear Mr. Hopkins:
We have received your recent application for an EPA evaluation of "The
Glynn-50", a fuel economy retrofit device. We have made a preliminary
review of your application and will undertake a complete review upon
receipt of appropriate test data in accordance with the provisions of my
original letter to you. Our preliminary comments are as follows.
1. Section No. 8(c) does not provide sufficient descriptive informa-
tion for the following parameters.
a. Fuel pressure regulator: Does one size/design apply to all
engines?
b. Fuel metering jets: Does one size/design fit all carbure-
tors? How much is the diameter of the jet reduced?
c. Venturi: Does one size/design fit all engines? How much is
the inside diameter of the venturi throat reduced?
d. Heat source: Does one size/design fit all engines? What is
the method of operation (e.g. electric, exhaust gas, etc.)?
Is the heat source operating continuously or intermittantly?
If electric, what is/are the power rating(s)? Is data avail-
able which would show the change in temperature of the air-
fuel mixture as a result of the heat source? If so, please
provide such data.
2. Section No. 13 does not address non-regulated pollutants ade-
quately. Please identify which pollutants were measured and
provide the specific results.
3. Section No. 14 states "the device will not cause any unsafe
condition". Because "The Glynn-50" is changing the air-fuel
mixture ratio and the engine's volumetric efficiency, EPA is
concerned the drivability characteristics of a vehicle may he
adversely affected. Does the statement within Section No. 14
take into consideration the driveability aspect? With respect to
the affect on driveability, has an evaluation been made for the
vast number of engine/vehicle calibrations available on late
model vehicles? Is test data available which would provide
assurance that the statement, is applicable to all vehicles? If
so, please provide such data.
4. Section No. 15 indicates that "The Glynn-50" will be tested by
Automotive Testing Laboratories (ATL) of East Liberty, Ohio.
-------
19
Following are a few points regarding the testing I would like to
stress.
First, to assure the test vehicles are fully broken in, we ask
that each vehicle have at least 4000 miles accumulated prior to
start of testing. Selected test vehicles should a) be typical of
most vehicles being driven today, b) be in good mechanical condi-
tion and, c) have a representative history of use. Please refer
to the list of suitable makes and models I provided to you
earlier.
Second, the minimum test requirements consist of at least two
vehicles. Each vehicle is subjected to baseline tests which
consist of a Federal Test Procedure (FTP) followed by a Highway
Feul Economy Test (HFET). The FTP and HFET test sequence is then
repeated, thus resulting in four baseline tests per vehicle. The
retrofit device is then installed and the same test sequence is
repeated, thereby giving a total of four FTP and four HFET per
vehicle. Of course, this does not include void tests. If
installation of the device also involves some adjustments, (e.g.,
timing, fuel-air mixture, choke or idle speed), another test
sequence with only these adjustments should be inserted between
the baseline test sequence and the installation of the device.
Third, all test data should include test location (e.g., test
facility name), test cell number, test number, and test date.
This will facilitate EPA's tracking of data during the evaluation.
Fourth, your supporting test data should include a detailed
description of each test vehicle used in the test program. This
includes, but is not limited to the following information:
(1.) Vehicle Identification Number
(2.) Model Year
*(3.) Model
*(4.) Body Style (e.g., 2 door with hatchback)
*(5.) Curb Weight
(6.) Engine Displacement
(7.) Engine Family (from the emission sticker in the engine
compartment)
(8.) Fuel System type (e.g., 2 barrel carburetor)
(9.) Ignition System Type (e.g., high energy breaker-less)
(10.) Emission Control System Type (e.g., air injection
reactor (AIR), exhaust gas recirculation (EGR))
-------
20
(11.) Transmission Type (e.g., automatic, manual)
(12.) Number of transmission gears (noting overdrive or lock
up features)
(13.) Drive axle ratio
(14.) Tire type, size, air pressures and brand name.
*Please refer to 40 CFR 86.079-2 and 40 CFR 86.080-2 titled: "Defini-
tions". Copies of the regulations containing these sections are
enclosed. We would like to comment on your test plan before testing
begins.
In order for EPA to process our evaluations efficiently, we have estab-
lished a schedule for each. I ask that you respond to this letter by
July 17 and plan to submit the required test data by August 3. If you
have any questions or require further information, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Merrill W. Korth, Device Evaluation Coordinator
Test and Evaluation Branch
Enclosures v^
cc: S. Syria
-------
Attachment D
21
..>•*-' '->v-.
* «j.
;x^> '> UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY -
\-\'^ y
-OV,|i^i- ;? ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN
OFFICH OF
AIR AND WASTE MANAGEMENT
July 22, 1981
Mr. Barney Q. Hopkins
180 South Main Street
Madisortville, KY 42431
Dear Mr. Hopkins:
In a letter dated June 30, 1981, we asked for additional information on
your application for an EPA evaluation of "The Glynn-50". Ue also asked
that you respond to our request by July 17.
We have not yet received your response. If you are still interested in
pursuing an EPA evaluation, I ask that you contact me by August 6. Other-
wise, we will complete our evaluation based on the information we have.
My telephone number is (313) 668-4299. I am looking forward to hearing
from you.
Sincerely, •
Merrill W. Korth, Device Evaluation Coordinator
Emission Control Technology Division
------- |