PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Health and Environment.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 5, 1999
Amends the Clean Air Act to waive, in ozone nonattainment areas, a certain requirement that reformulated gasoline have an oxygen content equal to at least 2.0 percent by weight if reformulated gasoline that contains less than such percentage and meets all other requirements will achieve an equivalent or greater reduction in total actual emissions of ozone precursors, particulate matter, and potency-weighted toxic air pollutants than that resulting from the the gasoline that meets such percentage requirement. Requires certain regulations regarding motor vehicle fuels to prohibit the use of methyl tertiary butyl ether as a fuel additive. Directs the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to enter into arrangements with the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study of all oxygenates used as gasoline additives and their combustion byproducts to determine their effects on public health and the environment and the availability of alternatives. Makes study results available to the public.
People & committees
Rep. Pallone, Frank, Jr. [D-NJ-6] · D–NJ
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 Health and Environment.
Referred to the House Committee on Commerce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jun 3, 2026. 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.1705 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.1705 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.1705 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.1705 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.