This has been explained to you over and over again that the EPA would not be aware of HLNT testing or products as any testing is done via independent testers and not the EPA itself. Stop trying to make issues of trouble or confusion where none exist.
"EPA can't be sure if is a fuel additive or an after market device or something else entirely."
Bad grammar, bad research and paragraphs that do not even go together. Also, I clecked on several of the links and they either went nowhere or showed nothing even remotely relevant.
Good luck with your short interest .. I'm staying long.
The post has some interesting issues in it. For starters, take the statement "Hasn’t this “science” been debunked in the past" which is actually phased as a question. NASA proved the science. This 'question' is a generalization, and cannot be applied to each and every instance of the developments in the technology. While many have tried to market their own HHO systems, they have not been provable and have failed. This does not mean that all systems do not work. And as of yet, HLNT's systems have not been proven by the EPA to not work. It is a false conclusion to state that because the EPA has not approved HLNT's systems, it therefore does not work. Although this was acknowledged in post #69769, it wasn't clear in the original post to which this response refers.
Another interesting issue, several of the links provided generate errors, the (http://epa.gov/cleandiesel/verification/) generates the following: "The requested item was not found." It is further explained that the information may have possibly have been moved. Not very helpful, and confusing, coming from the EPA representative. Or how about this link, (http://www.epa.gov/oms/regs/fuels/cff/memo-1a.txt). It generates a page that has the following: "Thanks for the Error Report." While the EPA is a governmental organization and may be changing its links to various parts of the websites it maintains, this is not very good at instilling confidence in our EPA representatives.
Generally, for legal purposes, governmental agencies are not allowed to comment on the progress of any application towards some service provided by the government, except as required by law and where posted in such a place as the Federal Register. It is good to see that Ms Russo has neither confirmed or denied that HLNT has an application or is involved in the process of obtaining registration for the National Clean Diesel Campaign. This statement from Ms. Russo may seem appropo: "I am not familiar with Highline Technology or their "Wildcat" series. From reading over their website, www.highlineinnovations.com/, I'm not entirely sure what their product does. It is unclear if a hydrogen tank is carried onboard the vehicle and the hydrogen gas is injected into the engine. EPA can't be sure if is a fuel additive or an after market device or something else entirely." But even these comments are premature to ascertaining the complete information about the HLNT HHO units.
And this issue, "There are many advertisements about using the energy from your car’s battery to split water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen gas which is then burned with your fuel. EPA has received no credible and complete data showing a positive fuel economy benefit from these devices." This is a statement of a situation at a point in time. The day Ms. Russo's email was generated. Again, it neither confirms or denies that HLNT is in the process of providing such information.
Also, "Installation instructions for some of these devices call for adjustments that EPA would consider to be tampering. The Clean Air Act prohibits tampering with your car’s emissions control system. Tampering violations are punishable by significant fines (EPA, Office of Enforcement www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/civil/caa/mobile/vehicleengine-penalty-policy.pdf (PDF) (33 pp, 1.4M, January 16, 2009). Any instructions that request you adjust the air/fuel ratio on your vehicle, or adjust a knob and listen for the engine to misfire, referred to as feeling vibrations or stuttering, are in violation of the prohibition against tampering." HLNT has no instructions in its installation that fit into this statement, and therefore the emphasis on the word "some". The reference to the penalty policy is an interesting read, and especially the part about "Actual or potential harm." It appears the EPA is concerned about actions that increase the amount of emissions (pollutants) in their enforcement practices, and since HLNT's units reduce emissions, it is not conceivable that that the penalty policy would apply.
The EPA's penalty policy is aimed more at those engines or systems that defeat the emissions controls, resulting in additional harmful emissions, and which provide the violator an economic benefit by over riding the emission controls. HLNT's systems do not override emissions controls, do not tamper with such controls, and actually improve upon emissions.
The information provided in post #69760 provides a warning about EPA enforcement practices, and that invokes due diligence on investigation of the information, but once such due diligence is done, the information is simply filed away.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
