OMB Watch recently reported on an EPA decision to revise its process for assessing human exposure and associated health risks of industrial chemicals. Under the revised process, EPA will give the White House, specifically the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), an opportunity to alter or delay scientific results at nearly every stage of the chemical assessment process. By attacking the scientific basis for future regulatory decisions, OMB will be able to erode the foundations upon which public protection standards are built.

In reality, OMB has already been tinkering with EPA's chemical assessments, according to a new Government Accountability Office report. The report hasn't been officially released, but the Associated Press has obtained a copy, and report H. Josef Hebert wrote an article published last night discussing some of the results:

The GAO said many of the deliberations over risks posed by specific chemicals "occur in what amounts to a black box" of secrecy because the White House claims they are private executive branch deliberations.

Such secrecy "reduces the credibility of the ... assessments and hinders the EPA's ability to manage them," the GAO report said. …

"Unless there is concurrence by other agencies, ... things don't go forward. It means we stop what we are doing," said the scientist, speaking on condition of anonymity because of fear of endangering his career.

"The (EPA) scientists feel as if they have lost complete control of the process, that it's been taken over by the White House and that they're calling the shots," the scientist said.

In addition to outright interference, OMB is also able to achieve its anti-regulatory goals by delaying chemical assessments indefinitely. The report mentions at least four chemicals for which EPA has yet to determine carcinogenicity, despite widespread use and evidence of risk. They are naphthalene, trichloroethylene, perchloroethylene, and formaldehyde, according to the AP article.

Now, under the revised process EPA recently announced, OMB will have even more opportunities to meddle in EPA science, and even more incidences of interference, suppression, and delay are likely to occur. Unfortunately, because EPA has mandated this process occur behind closed doors, these incidences may never come into the light of day.

Check back here later today, Reg•Watch will post the GAO report when it becomes available electronically. Update: Here is the link to the GAO report.

In a story that has garnered little media attention, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has announced it will ban certain forms of cattle feed in order to reduce the risk of mad cow disease. The announcement came after the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) had stalled the rule for months. (Click here for more on the delay of the rule.)

FDA's new rule adds to the list of substances that cannot be fed to cattle. Allowing cattle to feed on the rendered meat, bones, or blood of other cattle raises the risk of mad cow, also known as Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE). According to the agency, "FDA believes that the final rule would effectively remove about 90 percent of any remaining BSE infectivity from possible spread through the animal feed system."

FDA's announcement came as a bit of a surprise since OMB seemed content to allow the rule to languish under its review while the cattle industry continued to avoid further regulation. The turning point came at a meeting between U.S. and South Korean officials on trade. According to The Wall Street Journal, "South Korea last week agreed to lift restrictions on U.S. beef and, according to one U.S. government official, the country did so on the condition that the U.S. strengthen its livestock feed rules."

Since late 2003, when a U.S. cow was diagnosed with mad cow disease, some foreign nations have been reluctant to import U.S. beef. In fact, when identifying potential benefits of the rule, FDA argued, "The U.S. economy may also benefit from increased exports to the extent that the rule persuades foreign governments to import U.S. beef products."

Nonetheless, it's a sad commentary that the Bush White House is more responsive to the concerns of the South Korean government (and the domestic producers who will benefit from increased exports) than to its own food safety agency or considerations of public health. The rule is fairly typical of Bush's cronyism approach to regulation: "Fight tooth-and-nail against government intervention, unless it would help out my buddies."

But bottom line, new policies are now in place that could prevent an outbreak of mad cow disease. The rule takes effect in April 2009.

Yesterday, the National Academy of Sciences' National Research Council (NRC) released a report citing "strong evidence" that exposure to ozone, or smog, contributes to premature mortality. According to BNA news service (subscription), "John Bailar, who led the National Research Council team, told BNA the agency is 'quite sure there is an effect, but not knowing how big it is, that's the challenge for the EPA. They have to find out the size of the problem.' "

The report says that, if there is any threshold at which exposure to ozone is safe, it is likely below the level EPA recently announced as the new national air quality standard (0.075 parts per million).

The NRC report should close the book once and for all on any uncertainty surrounding the link between ozone exposure and premature death. During the recent debate over the ozone standard, independent scientists, public health advocates, and EPA all recognized the potentially deadly effects of ozone and endorsed tight standards.

The last remaining deniers reside mostly in the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB). In fact, when EPA was preparing to propose its new standard for ozone, OMB edited a supporting document in order to downplay the relationship between ozone and premature mortality.

The original document read, "There is considerable variability in the magnitude of the ozone-related mortality association reported in the scientific literature." OMB altered the language to, "There is considerable uncertainty in the magnitude of the association between ozone and premature mortality." [Emphasis added.]

The nonprofit group Environmental Defense came up with another example of OMB interference. In a rulemaking that would limit emissions from small engines, OMB objected to EPA's assertion that ozone is related to premature death:

The EPA response to OMB's objection states: "We have removed all references to quantified ozone benefits (including mortality) in the most recent version of the [economic impact statement]." The EPA document in question was, in fact, finalized with the monetized benefits of reducing ozone removed. Meanwhile, EPA has yet to finalize the clean air standards for these high-polluting engines.

The NRC report says that policy makers "should give little or no weight" to arguments like the one advanced by OMB.

As Reg•Watch blogged last week, federal researchers have released a draft report which calls into question the safety of Bisphenol-A, a common chemical substance found in certain hard plastics and the linings of food cans.

Meanwhile, studies conducted by the Canadian government has led the country to ban the sale of baby bottles containing Bisphenol-A. A Canadian health minister said, "We believe it is our responsibility to ensure families, Canadians and our environment are not exposed to a potentially harmful chemical," according to The Washington Post.

Because of the Canadian ban and the U.S. study, retailers in both countries are beginning to pull products containing Bisphenol-A from store shelves. From the Post article:

Wal-Mart Canada began pulling all baby products containing BPA from its shelves this week, and the chain said it plans to stop selling products containing BPA in U.S. stores by next year. Playtex said it would offer free non-BPA bottles to parents and will stop using BPA in all products by year's end. Nalgene, the maker of reusable water bottles that are popular among athletes, said yesterday it would discontinue production of bottles made with the chemical and recall existing products already in its stores.

Henry Waxman (D-CA), Chair of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, subpoenaed the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) requesting all documents related to its role in EPA's recent revision to the national air quality standard for ozone, or smog. In that rule, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson tightened the standard but did not go as far as its staff and scientific advisors had recommended.

Waxman is targeting OMB because some documents already available to the public show that the White House, not Johnson, was responsible for the decision to set a standard inconsistent with the body of scientific evidence. (See this OMB Watch statement for more on the White House's interference in the rule.)

Waxman's subpoena isn't likely to turn up much information, and not just because the White House has about as much respect for congressional subpoenas as it does for letters from Publishers' Clearinghouse. The evidence of OMB interference is already in the rulemaking record, and all the players' positions are pretty well staked out: EPA's staff and advisors wanted a tighter standard that what was ultimately settled on; Industry lobbyists, President Bush, and Susan Dudley (head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs) wanted EPA to set an unjustifiable, weak standard; and EPA Administrator Johnson wants to cater to the White House's every demand.

Some rigorous questioning might turn up more information or at least force White House officials to answer for their sins. For example, why does the White House believe the views of a handful of industry lobbyists are more important than the well-being of millions of Americans — particularly children, the elderly, asthmatics, and those at risk for heart disease?

More pointedly, did OMB know, or care, that their interference would subject the new rule to legal challenges? Do Bush and Dudley have any respect for the Clean Air Act, or do they merely view it as an obstacle thrown in their path upon them by pesky congresses past? (Waxman has announced his intention to hold a hearing on this issue.)

The White House foisted its own opinion on EPA, ignored the scientific evidence in support of a tighter standard for ozone, and, because Dudley and Bush are typically sympathetic of the views of industry lobbyists, may have urged EPA to consider compliance costs. With that evidence, even Lionel Hutz could make a case that the new standard is in violation of the Clean Air Act.

Of course, the White House would probably pay no concern to a legal challenge to the rule. The new standard will make some progress in the area of reducing ozone exposure, and polluters will incur compliance costs to meet the rule's requirements. Since litigation can mire regulations for years, Bush may be able to secure a legacy of regulatory delay even after his time in office has expired. Now there's a scary thought.

The Bush administration continues to delay a rule that could protect the public from being exposed to mad cow disease. The Food and Drug Administration rule would prohibit farms from using certain animal by-products as feed for cattle. (FDA rules already prohibit some similar kinds of feed. The current FDA proposal would strengthen existing regulations.)

Allowing cattle to feed on the rendered meat, bones, or blood of other cattle raises the risk of mad cow, also known as Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE). According to the agency, "FDA believes that the final rule would effectively remove about 90 percent of any remaining BSE infectivity from possible spread through the animal feed system. The U.S. economy may also benefit from increased exports to the extent that the rule persuades foreign governments to import U.S. beef products. While we are unable to quantify these benefits, they are potentially large…"

Even though FDA believes the benefits to be "potentially large," the White House is likely more concerned about the potential costs to the agriculture industry. The FDA rule has been stuck at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the White House Office of Management and Budget since November. Under Executive Order 12866, agencies must submit significant rules to OIRA for a review period; but OIRA is supposed to finish up its review within 90 days and may extend the review period once by only 30 days. That time limit expired in early March.

While reviewing the rule, OIRA and FDA have met with industry representatives on two occasions. A January 17 meeting included representatives from the American Meat Institute and the National Cattleman's Beef Association which opposes the rule as it is currently written.

The delay is emblematic of the Bush administration's policy on preventing mad cow disease. Since the first U.S. case of mad cow was discovered in December 2003, the administration's policy has been one of inaction and broken promises. The administration has also shied away from an animal identification system that could speed up the response time of public health officials in the event of an emergency.

For more on the Bush administration's policies on mad cow disease, read the OMB Watch, Center for Science in the Public Interest, and Consumer Federation of America paper "Cow Sense: The Bush Administration's Broken Record on Mad Cow Disease."

Reg•Watch Update: "With White House Blessing, FDA Finalizes Mad Cow Rule"

The National Institutes of Health's National Toxicology Program (NTP) released a report today that acknowledges adverse health effects associated with exposure to Bisphenol-A, according to The Washington Post. Bisphenol-A is a chemical substance common in plastics and in the lining of food cans.

According to the Post, the report, released in draft form, "Says exposure to the chemical may be linked to breast cancer, prostate cancer, early puberty in girls and such behavioral changes as hyperactivity."

NTP's findings are significant because, until now, the federal government has downplayed the effects of Bisphenol-A. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration — which, like the National Institutes of Health, is part of the Department of Health and Human Services — has said Bisphenol-A does not pose a "safety concern at the current exposure level."

But an ongoing investigation by the House Energy and Commerce Committee has shown that FDA relied on industry-funded studies to make its determination. Meanwhile, public health advocates and scientists outside of government have raised concern for years about the safety of Bisphenol-A.

Unfortunately, because NTP cannot regulate chemicals, FDA still holds all the power on this issue. Stay tuned to Reg•Watch to see if FDA issues a response.

Reg•Watch Update: In Response to Bisphenol-A Studies, Retailers Will Remove Products"

The USDA is preparing to finalize a rule that would help consumers identify grocery stores that recalled meat has been sold to. Typically, under current regulations, neither USDA nor slaughterhouses and processors disclose the names of retailers who have received potentially contaminated meat. USDA does disclose the brand and type of meat but, by failing to name retailers, leaves consumers in the dark as to whether their community might be at risk.

While the rule would be a step in the right direction, the devil is in the details (as it so often is with the Bush administration). Insiders say the new rule may only apply to Class I recalls. USDA classifies recalls based on the potential risk to public health; Class I recalls are for products which pose the highest risk, Class II and III recalls are for products which pose lower risks.

Most meat recalls are Class I (50 of 58 in 2007), but consumers have a right — and a need — to know about Class II and III recalls as well. For example, USDA classified an April 2007 recall of more than 5,000 pounds of salami as a Class II recall but also called the health risk "high."

February's record-breaking recall of 143 million pounds of beef was also deemed a Class II recall. USDA and Hallmark/Westland Meat Packing Co. recalled the meat because "the cattle did not receive complete and proper inspection" and nonambulatory, or downer, cows were allowed into the food supply. Downer cows are at greater risk for carrying mad cow disease. USDA's new policy would still leave consumers uninformed if a similar incident occurred in the future.

USDA has sent the rule to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) at the White House Office of Management and Budget for review. OIRA is friendly with lobbyists from the meat producing and packaging industries who oppose USDA's rule. Seattle Post-Intelligencer reporter Andrew Schneider has more:

The pressure on the agencies to conceal the retailers is coming from industry lobbyists for food chains, meat packers and importers. In fact, USDA first proposed a regulation requiring disclosure of where dangerous recalled food is being sold in February 2005. Nothing has happened since.

Tony Corbo of public advocacy group Food & Water Watch told me, "The main impediment has been the White House Office of Management and Budget which is responsible for clearing major regulation changes.

"The food industry has effectively lobbied OMB thus far to prevent the implementation of this rule."

As the clock runs out on the Bush presidency, OIRA may finally let USDA finalize the rule in its weakest form possible for fear that a new administration may push for tougher regulations. Stay tuned to Reg•Watch for updates.

The Environmental Protection Agency has announced it will allow political considerations to infiltrate its Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) — one of the most important sources of information on human exposure to potentially toxic chemicals. IRIS is a database which contains risk assessment documents covering more than 540 contaminants, according to Environment News Service.

IRIS assessments can inform regulatory action (or inaction) intended to protect humans from the harmful effects of certain substances. "Through IRIS, EPA provides the highest quality, science-based, human-health assessments to support EPA's policymaking activities," according to the agency.

Yesterday, EPA announced changes to IRIS. EPA is altering a number of aspects of the process, but one of the biggest, and most troubling, is the decision to include the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in the scientific assessment process.

Under the revised process, EPA will perform a qualitative assessment of a chemical which will include potential health risks, susceptible populations, and potential uncertainties. After a public review period, EPA will then perform a draft toxicological review of the chemical. The toxicological review will include quantitative assessments of the chemical and attempt to give policy makers and the public a more concrete understanding of the risks associated with exposure to the chemical under review.

Unfortunately, under the revised process, EPA will then have to submit the draft toxicological review to OMB — the Executive Branch's graveyard for scientific thought.

Granting political appointees at OMB the opportunity to censor, alter, or suppress human health assessments may lead to weaker public protections. Instead of attacking policies during the regulatory review period, as OMB currently has the power to do under Executive Order 12866, OMB will now be able to destroy the very foundations on which these regulations are built.

When EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson and the White House get together to talk about environmental regulations, it seems they often decide to blatantly ignore federal law. Recently, EPA has refused to let California regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles and set a new standard for ozone that dismisses the advice of the agency's scientific advisors. Both decisions ignore plain language provisions in the Clean Air Act, and both were made under pressure from the White House Office of Management and Budget.

In our system of our government, we have the courts to intervene and interpret the law correctly. The courts will strike down regulations that do not follow the letter of the law and instruct agencies to write ones that do.

Indeed, EPA hasn't had much luck defending in federal court some of its particularly faulty decisions. A letter from Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) to Johnson presses the administrator on the issue and mentions a number of challenges EPA has lost, including a recent court decision which rejected a trading system for mercury emissions.

"I am concerned that these cases indicate that your agency is disregarding unambiguous statutory directives when the law requires action that differs from the Administration's policy preferences," Waxman writes. "In almost all cases, the EPA rules and decisions overturned by the courts benefited polluting industries at the expense of human health and the environment."

But while democracy may continue to function as envisioned, the decisions to ignore law in the first place are not without consequence. Important rules to protect the public from air and water pollution or global warming are delayed when litigation and regulatory mulligans ossify the process.

Another problem is the drain on agency staff time and resources. Because EPA has produced so many rules in clear violation of federal law, Waxman wants to know, What is the cumulative cost to taxpayers? He requests EPA "identify the amount of agency resources in money and personnel … expended to date to develop and defend the rule or decision that was challenged."

EPA knowingly spends time on legally indefensible rulemakings and then spends even more time defending them, leaving Americans with unnecessarily dirty air and water. Meanwhile, taxpayers are funding the whole process. It seems Americans are getting hosed on both ends.

Sunday's Cleveland Plain Dealer ran an article by Stephen Koff highlighting a problem OMB Watch has been focusing on for the past few months: declining budgets and staffing levels at federal regulatory agencies.

As a result, agencies are finding it difficult to fulfill their missions, and regulatory failures like collapsing mines, recalled toys, and contaminated food dominate headlines. From the article:

The broader safety net - protecting children from dangerous toys, adults from tainted spinach and beef, factory workers from chemical dust that can sicken or explode, miners from underground passageways that collapse - has frayed, they say. The government's own records and statistics bear this out in many ways, showing shrinking agency budgets, personnel rosters that don't keep pace with inspection demands, and White House rejection of proposed safety rules.

As agency budget and staffing levels have shrunk, regulated entities have grown. In 1981, the Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) — the federal regulator in charge of meat, poultry, and egg products — employed about 190 workers per billion pounds of meat and poultry inspected and approved. By 2007, FSIS employed fewer than 88 workers per billion pounds, a 54 percent drop.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has also been unable to keep up with its responsibility to enforce safety regulations in the workplace. In 1980, OSHA had approximately three staff members for every 100,000 American workers. By 2006, it had only 1.5 staff members. In 1980, OSHA and state regulators conducted 1.77 inspections per 100,000 workers. By 2005, OSHA and the states conducted only 0.668 inspections per 100,000 workers — a 62 percent drop.

The resource shortfalls of the Consumer Product Safety Commission have been well-documented; but the situation appears even worse when comparing the agency's budget and staffing levels to one of the fastest-growing yet most dangerous products it regulates — all-terrain vehicles. In 1988, when CPSC began regulating ATVs after settling a lawsuit with manufacturers, the agency employed more than 36 staff members for every 100,000 four-wheel ATVs in use. By 2004, CPSC employed fewer than seven staff members for every 100,000 ATVs. Meanwhile, old regulations have expired and the Bush administration has stalled the development of new standards.

As Koff points out, the decisions by multiple presidents and congresses to shortchange federal agencies has undermined a long-standing national focus on public protection:

The result: The era of government as consumer protector, born of 1960s and '70s activism, has faded.

Find out more through OMB Watch's Bankrupting Government project.

Today, a House hearing spotlighted recent lapses in regulatory oversight of airlines. "Federal Aviation Administration inspectors and managers told lawmakers Thursday that the agency's top officials endangered passenger safety by being too cozy with the airlines they oversee," according to CQ.com.

The House Transportation Committee scheduled the hearing after an audit showed three unnamed airlines missed inspection deadlines. Witnesses included one of two FAA inspectors who blew the whistle when their bosses ignored safety concerns they raised about Southwest jets. (See the Project on Government Oversight blog for more.)

Rigorous aircraft inspection is critical to the safety of millions of passengers. Aircraft safety is one area where the American public seems to unequivocally accept the need for our federal government to play a strong role and intervene when necessary.

Reg•Watch believes Americans should start expecting government to play a similarly strong role in the areas of environmental protection, food and drug safety, and on other issues that impact us everyday, but over which we have little control.

On last night's Colbert Report, during a segment on FAA inspections, Stephen Colbert poked fun at those who would argue against any role for government: "These FAA inspectors get paid to ruin our vacations. If I want to fly cheap on a plane that might not have all the 'parts,' that's my choice. I say let the free market decide which wires are necessary to deploy wheels for landings."

Colbert's point sounds ridiculous in the context of aircraft safety, but it is the same argument anti-government lobbyists use to counter pollution controls, import inspection programs, worker safety rules, and other protections that would benefit the health and welfare of Americans.

The House yesterday took a step toward regulating tobacco products, as the Energy and Commerce Committee voted 32-12 in favor of giving oversight authority to the Food and Drug Administration.

Among other things, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (H.R. 1108) would allow FDA to set standards for nicotine content in cigarettes and to exert control over the marketing and advertising of tobacco products. The bill would not permit FDA to ban nicotine outright. The bill would allow FDA to collect user fees — a controversial process whereby regulated companies pay the federal government to inspect and oversee their products — in order to fund a new tobacco regulation office. (More info here.)

The federal government can regulate lots of products that have the potential to do harm including food, pharmaceuticals, and vehicles. Yet on tobacco, a product certain to do harm, government is completely powerless.

Industry pressure has kept tobacco off the government's regulatory radar, as a New York Times editorial states this morning: "For years, the industry greedily fought off regulation with mendacious denials and addictive donations to lawmakers' re-election kitties."

This time around, the tobacco industry is divided. Phillip Morris has expressed support for the bill, but Reynolds American is opposed. Reynolds claims that FDA is ill-equipped to handle the additional regulatory challenge.

If you're waiting for FDA to set the record straight on its ability to regulate tobacco, don't hold your breath. FDA Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach said last year that placing tobacco under the agency's purview would be a burden, according to The Wall Street Journal (subscription). The Journal also reports President Bush may veto the bill if Congress finalizes it this year.

FDA is an underfunded agency, and the lack of funding has made it difficult for FDA to fulfill its mission. However, the user fee program should provide a steady source of income. According to the Journal, "The House panel estimates that the FDA will collect $85 million from tobacco companies in the first year and eventually assess fees of $712 million in the next decade."

Moreover, FDA should not shy away from the responsibility to regulate tobacco because it cannot afford to do so. Instead, it should embrace tobacco regulation, then zealously push Congress to provide robust funding for all the agency's activities.

An investigation by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel examines a little-known EPA program which is supposed to study the effects of common chemicals on children's health. Journal Sentinel reporters Susanne Rust and Meg Kissinger found major flaws.

Among other things, the investigation finds the program (the Voluntary Children's Chemical Evaluation Program) is relying on advisory panels stacked with industry scientists, has had little luck in getting chemical makers to cooperate with requests for data, and has been broke since August.

Instead of regulating the chemical companies, the EPA invited them to interpret and present data to a panel of scientists on the risks and exposures of chemicals they made. The approach was hailed by chemical company lobbyists as "breathtakingly significant." …

The format was simple. Companies were to present data about their chemicals' toxic properties and likely exposure to a panel of scientists. That panel would then determine if the chemical was safe to use around children. If not enough was known, the EPA would ask the company to provide more information. …

The voluntary nature of the program has proved to be a problem with enforcing safety, children's health advocates say. Although the EPA can request more information about a chemical from the compound makers, companies are not required to answer. And many don't.

"The EPA has no hammer," said Melanie Marty, chairwoman of the EPA's Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee.

The investigation also finds a gross lack of transparency in the program. EPA does not publicly announce the dates of meetings, and the agency does not separate out the program's budget, making it nearly impossible to determine the program's cost to taxpayers.

Jay Berkelhamer, former president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, last year urged EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson to abandon the program in favor of "a mandatory program with stricter deadlines and a more transparent, accountable review system." Meanwhile, Johnson "repeatedly points to the program in public statements as proof that his agency is committed to protecting children," according to the Journal Sentinel.

Yesterday, EPA announced a new standard for exposure to lead paint debris created during home renovations. The agency missed a statutory deadline by only 12 years.

The Los Angeles Times has the scoop on the new rule:

The EPA's rule, which will take effect in April 2010, covers all pre-1978 houses, apartments, child-care facilities and schools occupied by children under 6 or pregnant women.

Builders, painters, electricians and others will have to be trained and certified in lead abatement procedures. They will be prohibited from using sandblasters, torches or other power tools that stir up lead dust, and they must post warning signs, keep residents out of work areas and contain and clean up dust and debris.

In 1992, Congress passed a law charging EPA with the responsibility of developing regulations which would require renovators to be adequately trained in the dangers of lead paint and the proper methods for removing or painting over it. According to the law, EPA was to finish work on the regulation by 1996.

The delay has real consequences. According to Patrick MacRoy, Executive Director of the Alliance for Healthy Homes, "In the 16 years since we've been waiting for this rule, at least 17 million children have been exposed to harmful levels of lead unnecessarily, permanently losing IQ points as a result."

After such a protracted rulemaking, one would hope the final rule would hit the nail on the head. But critics say the new standard is too weak. From the LA Times:

After the EPA proposed its rule in 2006, many physicians and other experts, including an EPA scientific advisory panel and the American Academy of Pediatricians, said it didn't go far enough. They said that contractors should be required to verify that no lead dust remained in the homes and that the requirements should apply to all pre-1978 homes, not just ones with children under 6.