H.R. 875: To provide for a comprehensive assessment of the scientific and technical research on the implications of the use of mid-level ethanol blends, and for other purposes.

113th Congress · introduced 2013-02-27 · Energy · Latest: Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 499.

federal

Follow this bill, step by step

Where it came from: introduced 2013-02-27 · official record
Who proposed it: Rep. Sensenbrenner, F. James, Jr. [R-WI-5] · what a sponsor is
What happened next: no floor votes in our records yet. Why?
Where it stands now: Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 499. Not final yet: this can still change. We check for updates every day.
If it becomes law and spends money: follow the money to money laws, then agencies and contracts and grants.

What does this mean?

Official title

To provide for a comprehensive assessment of the scientific and technical research on the implications of the use of mid-level ethanol blends, and for other purposes.

Plain summary

(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. 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.

Congressional Research Service summary (Reported to House amended, Part I), quoted unchanged (nonpartisan). Read the source.

What a vote does

A “Yea” vote

If it passes both chambers and is signed, it becomes law.

A “Nay” vote

If it is not passed, current law stays as it is.

PSI Sci description of the legislative step (not an opinion).

What does this mean? (plain words)

Official text

To provide for a comprehensive assessment of the scientific and technical research on the implications of the use of mid-level ethanol blends, and for other purposes.

Source: Congressional Research Service summary (Reported to House amended, Part I)

AI explanation – may be wrong, check the official text

No AI explanation yet. It takes up to a minute to write and is then saved for everyone.

Limited to a few requests an hour per person.

The strongest published arguments

Arguments for (supporters)

Needs sources: no published arguments on this side yet. We only show items backed by a published source. Suggest one.

Arguments against (opponents)

Needs sources: no published arguments on this side yet. We only show items backed by a published source. Suggest one.

Alternatives

Needs sources: no published alternatives yet (for example a different bill, a law instead of an amendment, or keeping current law). We only show items backed by a published source. Suggest one.

How did my representative vote? · This bill's floor votes

Officials and money

Sponsor: Rep. Sensenbrenner, F. James, Jr. [R-WI-5] · 24 cosponsors

Cost estimate: No cost estimate published yet.

Cosponsors on this site

Tim Walberg (R-MI), Andy Harris (R-MD), James Lankford (R-OK), Joe Wilson (R-SC), Scott Perry (R-PA), Eric A. "Rick" Crawford (R-AR)

No linked floor roll calls in our collected records yet. This does not mean the bill has never had a vote. Check the official bill history.

Sources

Congressional Research Service summary (Reported to House amended, Part I)
Congress.gov
Data: GovInfo BILLSTATUS bulk data (Library of Congress), BILLSTATUS-113hr875.xml <https://www.govinfo.gov/bulkdata/BILLSTATUS/113/hr>

Record fed-us-cong113-hr875 · catalog fed-us-congress-bills-cong113 · updated 2026-11-15 by psicol fed-bills-cong113