PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 29, 2004
Boutique Fuels Reduction Act of 2004 - Amends the Clean Air Act (CAA) to authorize the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 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 it: (1) applies to the smallest necessary geographic area; (2) is effective for 20 days or the shortest practicable time period; (3) permits a transitional period after the termination of the temporary waiver to allow wholesalers and retailers to blend down their inventory; (4) applies to all persons in the motor fuel distribution system; and (5) is preceded by public notice to all parties in the distribution system, local and State regulators, public interest groups, and consumers in the State or region covered by the waiver.
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 and fully implemented 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).
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the Administrator and the Secretary of Energy jointly to study and report to Congress on the effects on air quality, number of fuel blends, fuel availability, fuel fungibility, and fuel costs 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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 18, 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.5165 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.5165 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.5165 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.5165 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.