PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 499.
Congressional Research Service
Version 18 · Reported to House amended, Part I · Dec 12, 2014
(Sec. 2) Requires the Assistant Administrator of the Office of Research and Development at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to:
enter into an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences to make a comprehensive assessment of research on the implications of using mid-level ethanol blends, comparing mid-level ethanol blends to gasoline blends containing 10% and 0% ethanol; and
report on assessment findings and whether the EPA Administrator agrees or disagrees with each of them.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Defines a mid-level ethanol blend as an ethanol-gasoline blend containing greater than 10% and up to and including 20% ethanol by volume that is intended to be used in any conventional gasoline-powered onroad, nonroad, or marine engine, or onroad or nonroad vehicle.
Nullifies waivers granted under the Clean Air Act before the enactment of this Act that allow the introduction into commerce of mid-level ethanol blends for use in motor vehicles, and prohibits the Administrator from granting any new waivers until after the report is submitted.
Requires the assessment to include: (1) an evaluation of the environmental, safety, durability, and performance effects of the introduction of mid-level blends on onroad, nonroad, and marine engines, onroad and nonroad vehicles, and related equipment; and (2) an identification of areas of research, development, and testing necessary to ensure that existing motor fuel infrastructure is not adversely impacted by mid-level ethanol blends and to reduce the risk of misfueling by users at various points in the distribution and supply chain.
Requires the evaluation to review all available scientific evidence and identify gaps in understanding and research needs related to tailpipe emissions, evaporative emissions, engine and fuel system durability, onboard diagnostics, emissions inventory and other modeling effects, materials compatibility, operability and drivability, fuel efficiency, fuel economy, consumer education and satisfaction, cost-effectiveness for the consumer, catalyst durability, and durability of storage tanks, piping, and dispensers for retail.
(Sec. 3) Directs the Administrator to use certain funds made available to the EPA for science and technology, including research and development activities, to carry out this Act.
People & committees
Rep. Sensenbrenner, F. James, Jr. [R-WI-5] · R–WI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 499.
Committee on Energy and Commerce discharged.
Committee on Energy and Commerce discharged.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. H. Rept. 113-667, Part I.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. H. Rept. 113-667, Part I.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 18 - 17.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Environment.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Power.
Referred to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
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: Apr 7, 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.875 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.875 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.875 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.875 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.