PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Apr 6, 2005
Boutique Fuels Elimination Act of 2005 - Amends the Clean Air Act (CAA) to authorize the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to temporarily waive controls or prohibitions on the use of a fuel or fuel additive regulated under specified provisions of that Act or prescribed in an applicable State Implementation Plan (SIP) if the Administrator determines that: (1) extreme and unusual circumstances exist in a State or region that prevent distribution of an adequate supply of the fuel or fuel additive to consumers; (2) such circumstances are the result of a natural disaster, an Act of God, a pipeline or refinery equipment failure, or another unforeseeable event; and (3) it is in the public interest to grant the waiver. Permits such a waiver only if specified requirements are met.
States that the Administrator shall have no authority, when considering a SIP or SIP revision regarding State controls or prohibitions on motor vehicle fuel or fuel additives, to approve any fuel: (1) if doing so would increase the total number of approved fuels as of September 1, 2004, in all SIPs; and (2) unless that fuel was approved and fully implemented in at least one SIP in the applicable Petroleum Administration for Defense District (with the exception of fuels with a specified summertime Reid Vapor Pressure).
Requires the Administrator to: (1) determine the total number of fuels approved as of September 1, 2004, in all SIPs; (2) publish a list of such fuels for public review and comment; and (3) remove fuels from such list in specified circumstances (but the total number of authorized fuels shall not be reduced).
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Expresses the sense of Congress that States should seek to maximize the environmental benefits available from approved fuels.
Requires the Administrator and the Secretary of Energy jointly to study and report to Congress on the effects of SIPs adopted pursuant to CAA provisions regarding State controls or prohibitions on motor vehicle fuel or fuel additives.
People & committees
Rep. Blunt, Roy [R-MO-7] · R–MO
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 15, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1493 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1493 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1493 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1493 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.