PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 21, 2009
Antifreeze Bittering Act of 2009 - Requires engine coolant or antifreeze that is manufactured six months after the enactment of this Act, and that contains more than 10% ethylene glycol, to include denatonium benzoate at a minimum of 30 parts per million and a maximum of 50 parts per million as a bittering agent so as to render the coolant or antifreeze unpalatable.
Requires a coolant or antifreeze manufacturer to maintain records of compliance with this Act.
Limits the liability of manufacturers, distributors, recyclers, or sellers of engine coolant or antifreeze who are in compliance with the requirements of this Act for personal and property loss or damage to the environment that results from the inclusion of denatonium benzoate in any coolant or antifreeze.
Declares this Act inapplicable to: (1) the sale of a motor vehicle that contains engine coolant or antifreeze; or (2) wholesale containers of engine coolant or antifreeze containing 55 gallons or more of engine coolant or antifreeze.
People & committees
Rep. Ackerman, Gary L. [D-NY-5] · D–NY
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 Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection.
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 14, 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.615 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.615 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.615 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.615 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.