By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
 
On April 11, 2023, a bipartisan group of legislators led by Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) sent a letter to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), urging it to strengthen the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) by maintaining the blending requirements for 2023; denying all pending Small Refinery Exemptions (SRE); eliminating proposed retroactive cuts to the renewable volume obligations (RVO); and setting RFS volumes at the statutory levels. According to Klobuchar’s April 14, 2023, press release, the letter states that the RFS “creates competition in the marketplace, keeping fuel costs low for consumers while bringing down carbon emissions.” By taking the suggested steps, EPA “can set the RFS on a path that provides stability and growth for the U.S. biofuel sector.” This would guarantee that this “essential program” continues to function as intended by reducing emissions, driving economic growth in rural communities, keeping gas prices low, and “bolstering national security by promoting an essential homegrown energy source.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
 
On February 16, 2023, Representative Randy Feenstra (R-IA) introduced a legislative package that includes bills regarding researching the potential of biofuels to power jet engines and developing a commercially viable fuel cell system for cars and trucks powered exclusively by biofuels. The package includes:

• The Comparison of Sustainable Transportation (COST) Act would direct the Comptroller General of the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the U.S. Secretary of Energy to compare the financial and environmental costs between replacing the entire federal gasoline-powered fleet with either electric vehicles or E-85 capable flex-fuel cars and trucks;
   
• The Biojet Fuel Research Act would direct the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to establish a working group focused on identifying research and development needs to produce biojet fuel. The working group would consist of the Bioenergy Technologies Office of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), biorefinery stakeholders, agriculture research universities, and others; and
   
• The Biofuel Cell Research Act would direct the DOE Secretary to establish a research, development, and demonstration program for a commercially viable fuel cell system that uses biofuels as the main fuel source.

Feenstra introduced similar legislation in the 117th Congress.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
 
The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works held a hearing on February 15, 2023, on “The Future of Low Carbon Transportation Fuels and Considerations for a National Clean Fuels Program.” The Committee heard from the following witnesses:

• Michael J. Graff, Chair and Chief Executive Officer (CEO), American Air Liquide Holdings Incorporated;
• Geoff Cooper, President and CEO, Renewable Fuels Association; and
• Chris Spear, President and CEO, American Trucking Association.

In his opening statement, Senator Tom Carper (D-DE) noted that when exploring ways to improve federal policies, he often looks to see what works well at the state level. According to Carper, “states have learned from the federal government’s mistakes when it comes to programs like the Renewable Fuel Standard” (RFS). States such as California and Oregon have implemented, or are considering implementing, technology-neutral low carbon fuel standards. Carper stated that unlike the RFS, “existing state programs often focus more on emissions reduction potential when determining what qualifies as a clean fuel. In addition to reducing the number of questions the states have to ask when determining which fuels qualify for a clean fuels program, this structure allows multiple options for obligated parties to comply.” Carper concluded his opening statement by expressing his hope “that today’s hearing is the first of many conversations on how we can bring together industry, environmental groups, agriculture and other stakeholders to further decarbonize our nation’s transportation fuels, while also supporting job creation across our nation.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
 
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced on January 31, 2023, that it has extended the deadline for public comment on its Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims (Green Guides) to April 24, 2023. FTC states in its December 14, 2022, news release that it seeks to update the Green Guides “based on increasing consumer interest in buying environmentally friendly products.” FTC expects “many public comments” on the following specific issues:

• Carbon Offsets and Climate Change: The current Green Guides provide guidance on carbon offset and renewable energy claims. FTC invites comments on whether the revised Green Guides should provide additional information on related claims and issues;
   
• The Term “Recyclable”: Among other things, FTC seeks comments on whether it should change the current threshold that guides marketers on when they can make unqualified recyclable claims, as well as whether the Green Guides should address in more detail claims for products that are collected (picked up curbside) by recycling programs but not ultimately recycled;
   
• The Term “Recycled Content”: FTC requests comments on whether unqualified claims about recycled content -- particularly claims related to “pre-consumer” and “post industrial” content -- are widely understood by consumers, as well as whether alternative methods of substantiating recycled content claims may be appropriate; and
   
• The Need for Additional Guidance: FTC also seeks comment on the need for additional guidance regarding claims such as “compostable,” “degradable,” “ozone-friendly,” “organic,” and “sustainable,” as well as those regarding energy use and energy efficiency.

More information and an insightful commentary are available in our December 16, 2022, memorandum.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
 
On January 12, 2023, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) announced the release of A Framework for Federal Scientific Integrity Policy and Practice, “a roadmap that will help strengthen scientific integrity policies and practices across the federal government.” The framework builds on the assessment of federal scientific integrity policies and practices described in the January 2022 report, Protecting the Integrity of Government Science, and draws from extensive input from federal agencies, as well as from across sectors, including academia, the scientific community, public interest groups, and industry. According to OSTP, the framework has several key components that federal departments and agencies will use to improve scientific integrity policies and practices, including:

• A consistent definition of scientific integrity for all federal agencies;
• A model scientific integrity policy to guide agencies as they build and update their policies; and
• A set of tools to help agencies regularly assess and improve their policies and practices.

The framework requires all agencies to designate a Scientific Integrity Official (SIO) and agencies that fund, conduct, or oversee research to designate a Chief Science Officer (CSO), and it establishes the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) Subcommittee on Scientific Integrity to oversee implementation of the framework and evaluate agency progress. Agencies are directed to adopt the following timeline:

• Within 60 days from public posting of the framework: Agencies should submit new or updated agency and department draft scientific integrity policies for review by OSTP and the Subcommittee via the mailbox .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address);
• Within 120 days from public posting of the framework: OSTP and the Subcommittee will complete the reviews using the framework’s critical policy features for assessment;
• Within 180 days after public posting of the framework: Each agency should provide an opportunity for public input on its scientific integrity policies and practices, such as through a listening session or request for comment on its draft policy;
• Within 270 days from public posting of the framework: Final policies are due to OSTP. OSTP will compile and make public all agency policies, as well as all agencies’ designated CSOs and SIOs on a federal web page;
• Within 360 days from public posting of the framework and every two years thereafter: All agencies report to OSTP on their progress toward implementing the Framework; and
• For calendar year 2023 and annually thereafter: Each agency should publish, consistent with any requirements related to national security and privacy as well as any other applicable law, an annual report on the agency’s website.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
 
As reported in our September 13, 2022, blog item, on September 12, 2022, President Joseph Biden signed an Executive Order creating a National Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Initiative (NBBI) to accelerate biotechnology innovation and grow America’s bioeconomy across multiple sectors in industries such as health, agriculture, and energy. On December 20, 2022, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) published two requests for information (RFI) related to the NBBI. In the first one, OSTP, on behalf of the primary agencies that regulate the products of biotechnology -- the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) -- requests relevant data and information, including case studies, that may assist in identifying any regulatory ambiguities, gaps, inefficiencies, or uncertainties in the Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology, particularly with regard to new and emerging biotechnology products. 87 Fed. Reg. 77900. According to the RFI, the information provided will inform regulatory agency efforts to improve the clarity and efficiency of the regulatory processes for biotechnology products. The RFI includes the following questions:

1. Describe any ambiguities, gaps, inefficiencies, or uncertainties regarding statutory authorities and/or agency roles, responsibilities, or processes for different biotechnology product types, particularly for product types within the responsibility of multiple agencies.
    
   1. Describe the impact, including economic impact, of these ambiguities, gaps, inefficiencies, or uncertainties.
       
2. Provide any relevant data or information, including case studies, that could inform improvement in the clarity or efficiency (including the predictability, transparency, and coordination) of the regulatory system and processes for biotechnology products.
    
3. Describe any specific topics the agencies should address in plain language on the regulatory roles, responsibilities, and processes of the agencies.
    
4. Describe any specific issues the agencies should consider in developing a plan to implement regulatory reform, including any updated or new regulations or guidance documents.

5. Describe any new or emerging biotechnology products (e.g., microbial amendments to promote plant growth; food plants expressing non-food substances or allergens from non-plant sources) that, based on lessons learned from past experiences or other information, the agencies should pay particular attention to in their evaluation of ambiguities, gaps, or uncertainties regarding statutory authorities and/or agency roles or processes.

6. Describe any new or emerging categories of biotechnology products on the horizon that the regulatory system and processes for biotechnology products should be preparing to address. Describe any specific recommendations for regulating these new or emerging categories of biotechnology products to guide agency preparations.

7. What is the highest priority issue for the agencies to address in the short term (i.e., within the next year) and in the long term.

OSTP, EPA, FDA, and USDA will host a virtual public listening session on January 12, 2023. The virtual listening session will allow OSTP, EPA, FDA, and USDA to hear, firsthand, from stakeholders who wish to provide feedback on any of the seven questions outlined in the RFI. Comments are due on or before 5 p.m. (EST) February 3, 2023. More information on the Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology is available in our January 9, 2017, memorandum.
 
The second RFI seeks public input on how advances in biotechnology and biomanufacturing can help achieve goals that were previously out of reach and what steps can be taken to provide the right research ecosystem, workforce, data, domestic biomanufacturing capacity, and other components to support a strong bioeconomy. 87 Fed. Reg. 77901. OSTP invites input from interested stakeholders, including industry and industry association groups; academic researchers and policy analysts; civil society and advocacy groups; individuals and organizations that work on biotechnology, biomanufacturing, or related topics; and members of the public. OSTP seeks responses to one, some, or all of the following questions:

Harnessing Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Research and Development (R&D) to Further Societal Goals

1. For any of the four categories outlined above (health, climate and energy, food and agriculture, and supply chain resilience):
    
   1. What specific bold goals can be achieved through advances in biotechnology and biomanufacturing in the short term (five years) and long term (20 years)? In your answers, please suggest quantitative goals, along with a description of the potential impact of achieving a goal. Listed below are illustrative examples of quantitative goals:
       
      1. Develop domestic bio-based routes of production, including the entire supply chain, for X percent of active pharmaceutical ingredients.
          
      2. Utilize X tons of sustainable biomass annually as input to biomanufacturing processes to displace Y percent of U.S. petroleum consumption.
         ​
   2. What R&D is needed to achieve the bold goals outlined in (a), with a focus on cross-cutting or innovative advances? How would the government support this R&D, including through existing federal programs, creation of new areas of R&D, and/or development of new mechanisms?
       
   3. How else can the government engage with and incentivize the private sector and other organizations to achieve the goals outlined in (a)?
       
2. Public engagement and acceptance are of critical importance for successful implementation of biotechnology solutions for societal challenges. How might social, behavioral, and economic sciences contribute to understanding possible paths to success and any hurdles? What public engagement and participatory models have shown promise for increasing trust and understanding of biotechnology?

Data for the Bioeconomy

3. What data types and sources, to include genomic and multiomic information, are most critical to drive advances in health, climate, energy, food, agriculture, and biomanufacturing, as well as other bioeconomy-related R&D? What data gaps currently exist?

4. How can the federal government, in partnership with private, academic, and non-profit sectors, support a data ecosystem to drive breakthroughs for the U.S. bioeconomy? This may include technologies, software, and policies needed for data to remain high-quality, interoperable, accessible, secure, and understandable across multiple stakeholder groups.

Building a Vibrant Domestic Biomanufacturing Ecosystem

5. What is the current state of U.S. and global biomanufacturing capacity for health and industrial sectors, and what are the limits of current practice?

6. What can the federal government do to expand and scale domestic biomanufacturing capacity and infrastructure? What level of investment would be meaningful, and what incentive structures could be employed?

7. What are barriers that must be addressed to enable better domestic supply chains for biomanufacturing (e.g., feedstocks, reagents, consumables)?

8. How can the federal government partner with state and local governments to expand domestic biomanufacturing capacity, with a particular focus on underserved communities?

Biobased Products Procurement

9. What are new, environmentally sustainable biobased products that the federal government could purchase through its BioPreferred Program? How can the federal government incentivize development of new categories of sustainable biobased products?

   Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Workforce

10. How can the U.S. strengthen and expand the biotechnology and biomanufacturing workforce to meet the needs of industry today and in the future? What role can government play at the local, state, and/or federal level?

11. What strategies and program models have shown promise for successfully diversifying access to biomanufacturing and biotechnology jobs -- including those involving Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU), Tribal Colleges and Universities, and other Minority Serving Institutions? What factors have stymied progress in broadening participation in this workforce?

Reducing Risk by Advancing Biosafety and Biosecurity

12. What can the federal government do to support applied biosafety research and biosecurity innovation to reduce risk while maximizing benefit throughout the biotechnology and biomanufacturing life cycles?
     
13. How can federal agencies that fund, conduct, or sponsor life sciences research incentivize and enhance biosafety and biosecurity practices throughout the United States and international research enterprises?

 Measuring the Bioeconomy

14. What quantitative indicators, economic or otherwise, are currently used to measure the contributions of the U.S. bioeconomy? Are there new indicators that should be developed?

15. How should the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) and the North American Product Classification System (NAPCS) be revised to enable characterization of the economic value of the U.S. bioeconomy? Specifically, which codes or categories do not distinguish between functionally identical biobased and fossil fuel-based commodities?

International Engagement

16. What are opportunities for the U.S. government to advance R&D, a skilled workforce, regulatory cooperation, and data sharing for the bioeconomy through international cooperation? Which partnerships and fora are likely keys to advance these priority areas?
     
17. What risks are associated with international biotechnology development and use, and how can the U.S. government work with allies and partners to mitigate these risks?

Comments are due on or before 5:00 p.m. (EST) on January 20, 2023.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
 
As reported in our September 13, 2022, blog item, on September 12, 2022, President Joseph Biden signed an Executive Order (EO) creating a National Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Initiative “that will ensure we can make in the United States all that we invent in the United States.” The White House hosted a Summit on Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing on September 14, 2022. According to the White House fact sheet on the summit, federal departments and agencies, with funding of more than $2 billion, will take the following actions:

• Leverage biotechnology for strengthened supply chains: The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) will invest $40 million to expand the role of biomanufacturing for active pharmaceutical ingredients (API), antibiotics, and the key starting materials needed to produce essential medications and respond to pandemics. The Department of Defense (DOD) is launching the Tri-Service Biotechnology for a Resilient Supply Chain program with a more than $270 million investment over five years to turn research into products more quickly and to support the advanced development of biobased materials for defense supply chains, such as fuels, fire-resistant composites, polymers and resins, and protective materials. Through the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Grand Challenge, the Department of Energy (DOE) will work with the Department of Transportation and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to leverage the estimated one billion tons of sustainable biomass and waste resources in the United States to provide domestic supply chains for fuels, chemicals, and materials.
   
• Expand domestic biomanufacturing: DOD will invest $1 billion in bioindustrial domestic manufacturing infrastructure over five years to catalyze the establishment of the domestic bioindustrial manufacturing base that is accessible to U.S. innovators. According to the fact sheet, this support will provide incentives for private- and public-sector partners to expand manufacturing capacity for products important to both commercial and defense supply chains, such as critical chemicals.
   
• Foster innovation across the United States: The National Science Foundation (NSF) recently announced a competition to fund Regional Innovation Engines that will support key areas of national interest and economic promise, including biotechnology and biomanufacturing topics such as manufacturing life-saving medicines, reducing waste, and mitigating climate change. In May 2022, USDA announced $32 million for wood innovation and community wood grants, leveraging an additional $93 million in partner funds to develop new wood products and enable effective use of U.S. forest resources. DOE also plans to announce new awards of approximately $178 million to advance innovative research efforts in biotechnology, bioproducts, and biomaterials. In addition, the U.S. Economic Development Administration’s $1 billion Build Back Better Regional Challenge will invest more than $200 million to strengthen America’s bioeconomy by advancing regional biotechnology and biomanufacturing programs.
   
• Bring bioproducts to market: DOE will provide up to $100 million for research and development (R&D) for conversion of biomass to fuels and chemicals, including R&D for improved production and recycling of biobased plastics. DOE will also double efforts, adding an additional $60 million, to de-risk the scale-up of biotechnology and biomanufacturing that will lead to commercialization of biorefineries that produce renewable chemicals and fuels that significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation, industry, and agriculture. The new $10 million Bioproduct Pilot Program will support scale-up activities and studies on the benefits of biobased products. Manufacturing USA institutes BioFabUSA and BioMADE (launched by DOD) and the National Institute for Innovation in Manufacturing Biopharmaceuticals (NIIMBL) (launched by the Department of Commerce (DOC)) will expand their industry partnerships to enable commercialization across regenerative medicine, industrial biomanufacturing, and biopharmaceuticals.
   
• Train the next generation of biotechnologists: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is expanding the Innovation Corps (I-Corps™), a biotech entrepreneurship bootcamp. NIIMBL will continue to offer a summer immersion program, the NIIMBL eXperience, in partnership with the National Society for Black Engineers, which connects underrepresented students with biopharmaceutical companies, and support pathways to careers in biotechnology. In March 2022, USDA announced $68 million through the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative to train the next generation of research and education professionals.
   
• Drive regulatory innovation to increase access to products of biotechnology: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is spearheading efforts to support advanced manufacturing through regulatory science, technical guidance, and increased engagement with industry seeking to leverage these emerging technologies. For agricultural biotechnologies, USDA is building new regulatory processes to promote safe innovation in agriculture and alternative foods, allowing USDA to review more diverse products.
   
• Advance measurements and standards for the bioeconomy: DOC plans to invest an additional $14 million next year at the National Institute of Standards and Technology for biotechnology research programs to develop measurement technologies, standards, and data for the U.S. bioeconomy.
   
• Reduce risk through investing in biosecurity innovations: DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administration plans to initiate a new $20 million bioassurance program that will advance U.S. capabilities to anticipate, assess, detect, and mitigate biotechnology and biomanufacturing risks, and will integrate biosecurity into biotechnology development.
   
• Facilitate data sharing to advance the bioeconomy: Through the Cancer Moonshot, NIH is expanding the Cancer Research Data Ecosystem, a national data infrastructure that encourages data sharing to support cancer care for individual patients and enables discovery of new treatments. USDA is working with NIH to ensure that data on persistent poverty can be integrated with cancer surveillance. NSF recently announced a competition for a new $20 million biosciences data center to increase our understanding of living systems at small scales, which will produce new biotechnology designs to make products in agriculture, medicine and health, and materials.

A recording of the White House summit is available online.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
 
On September 12, 2022, President Joseph Biden signed an Executive Order creating a National Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Initiative “that will ensure we can make in the United States all that we invent in the United States.” On September 14, 2022, the White House will host a Summit on the National Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Initiative during which cabinet agencies will announce a wide range of new investments and resources that will allow the United States to harness the full potential of biotechnology and biomanufacturing and advance the President’s Executive Order.
 
According to a White House fact sheet, the initiative will accelerate biotechnology innovation and grow America’s bioeconomy across multiple sectors in industries such as health, agriculture, and energy. It will “drive advances in biomanufacturing that substitute fragile supply chains from abroad with strong chains at home, anchored by well-paying jobs in communities all across America.” It will improve food and energy security, and promote agricultural innovation while mitigating the impacts of climate change.
 
Specifically, the initiative will:

• Grow Domestic Biomanufacturing Capacity: The initiative will build, revitalize, and secure national infrastructure for biomanufacturing across America, including through investments in regional innovation and enhanced bio-education, while strengthening the U.S. supply chain that produces domestic fuels, chemicals, and materials.
   
• Expand Market Opportunities for Biobased Products: The fact sheet notes that the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) BioPreferred Program “is the standard for sustainable procurement by government agencies, both providing an alternative to petroleum-based products and supporting good-paying jobs for American workers.” The initiative will increase mandatory biobased purchasing by federal agencies and ensure that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and USDA regularly publish progress assessments. The fact sheet states that doing so “will provide specific directions to industry about gaps in biobased product options, leading to the creation of new products and new markets.” Together, the initiative will grow and strengthen the BioPreferred Program, increase the use of renewable agricultural materials, and “position American companies to continue to lead the world in bio-innovation.”
   
• Drive Research and Development (R&D) to Solve Our Greatest Challenges: According to the fact sheet, focused government support for biotechnology can quickly produce solutions, “as seen with the first-of-their-kind mRNA vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic.” This initiative directs federal agencies to identify priority R&D needs to translate bioscience and biotechnology discoveries into medical breakthroughs, climate change solutions, food and agricultural innovation, and stronger U.S. supply chains.
   
• Improve Access to Quality Federal Data: Combining biotechnology with massive computing power and artificial intelligence can produce significant breakthroughs for health, energy, agriculture, and the environment. The Data for the Bioeconomy Initiative will ensure that biotechnology developers have streamlined access to high-quality, secure, and wide-ranging biological data sets that can drive solutions to urgent societal and global problems.
   
• Train a Diverse Skilled Workforce: The United States is facing a shortage of relevant talent spanning all levels, from community college to graduate school. The initiative will expand training and education opportunities for all Americans in biotechnology and biomanufacturing, with a focus on advancing racial and gender equity and support for talent development in underserved communities.
   
• Streamline Regulations for Products of Biotechnology: Advances in biotechnology are rapidly altering the agricultural, industrial, technological, and medical products landscape, which can create challenges for developers and innovators. The initiative will improve the clarity and efficiency of the regulatory process for products of biotechnology so that valuable inventions and products can come to market faster without sacrificing safety.
   
• Advance Biosafety and Biosecurity to Reduce Risk: The initiative will prioritize investments in applied biosafety research and incentivize innovations in biosecurity to reduce risk throughout the biotechnology R&D lifecycles.
   
• Protect the U.S. Biotechnology Ecosystem: The initiative will protect the U.S. biotechnology ecosystem by advancing privacy standards and practices for human biological data, cybersecurity practices for biological data, standards development for bio-related software, and mitigation measures for risks posed by foreign adversary involvement in the biomanufacturing supply chain.
   
• Build a Thriving, Secure Global Bioeconomy with Partners and Allies: According to the fact sheet, the initiative advances international cooperation to leverage biotechnology and biomanufacturing to tackle the most urgent global challenges -- from climate change to health security -- and to work together to ensure that biotechnology product development and use aligns with our shared democratic ethics and values, and that biotechnology breakthroughs benefit all citizens.

The White House has posted a transcript of the press call announcing the Executive Order.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
 
On July 26, 2022, Senators Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Joni Ernst (R-IA) introduced the bipartisan and bicameral Next Generation Fuels Act (S. 4621), which would aim to leverage higher-octane fuels to improve engine efficiency and performance. According to Grassley’s July 26, 2022, press release, allowing the sale of fuels with greater octane levels would increase the amount of ethanol that can be used in the fuel supply, in turn lowering prices at the pump for consumers. The press release states that due to ethanol’s high-octane rating, greater ethanol blends result in both additional fuel efficiency and significant greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction. Ethanol is also priced lower than gasoline, making it the most cost-effective octane source. Under the bill, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would be required to carry out a study of the emissions effects of ethanol-blended fuels in light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks, for the purpose of updating the Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator modeling system. The bill would establish a minimum research octane number (RON) standard of 98 for gasoline, which is higher than the typical octane rating of 91 RON today. It would also require sources of the added octane value to reduce carbon emissions by at least 40 percent compared to baseline gasoline. The bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Finance.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments

Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.’s (B&C^®) May 18, 2022, webinar “Domestic Chemical Regulation and Achieving Circularity” is now available for on-demand viewing. During this one-hour webinar, Lynn L. Bergeson, Managing Partner, B&C, moderated a timely and fascinating review of the state of sustainable chemical regulation in the United States with Kate Sellers, Technical Fellow, ERM; Mathy Stanislaus, Vice Provost, Executive Director, The Environmental Collaboratory, Drexel University; and Richard E. Engler, Ph.D., Director of Chemistry, B&C.
 
A circular economy requires new thinking about what products we make, from which materials we make them, and where products go at the end of their useful lives. An important but often overlooked aspect of new product development is an understanding of the consequences of the product’s chemical composition and the end-of-life implications of the decisions made at the front end of the process. During the webinar, Ms. Sellers outlined barriers and enablers to the circular economy, including practical challenges like supply chain limitations and industry frameworks; Dr. Engler highlighted how the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) regulates discarded substances used as feedstocks by others and articles that may contain contaminants that could affect how an article is classified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under TSCA; and Mr. Stanislaus reviewed policy issues, including waste management hierarchy, circular economy hierarchy, and other mechanisms that incentivize sustainability.
 
We encourage you to view the webinar, listen to the All Things Chemical^® episodes “Trends in Product Sustainability and Circularity — A Conversation with Kate Sellers” and “How Can Battery Production Be Greener? — A Conversation with Mathy Stanislaus,” read ERM’s report Circularity: From Theory to Practice, and subscribe to B&C’s informative blogs and newsletters.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments