Testimony issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "Biomonitoring, which measures chemicals in people's tissues or body fluids, has shown that the U.S. population is widely exposed to chemicals used in everyday products. Some of these have the potential to cause cancer or birth defects. Moreover, children may be more vulnerable to harm from these chemicals than adults. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is authorized under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to control chemicals that pose unreasonable health risks. One crucial tool in this process is chemical risk assessment, which involves determining the extent to which populations will be exposed to a chemical and assessing how this exposure affects human health This testimony, based on GAO's prior work, reviews the (1) extent to which EPA incorporates information from biomonitoring studies into its assessments of chemicals, (2) steps that EPA has taken to improve the usefulness of biomonitoring data, and (3) extent to which EPA has the authority under TSCA to require chemical companies to develop and submit biomonitoring data to EPA."

Correspondence issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "We recently reported that Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) workers applied for U.S. Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) occupational disability benefits at a rate 12 times higher than workers from the other commuter railroads covered under the Railroad Retirement Act. RRB provides an occupational disability benefit to eligible workers whose physical or mental impairments prevent them from performing their specific railroad jobs. For example, a railroad engineer who cannot frequently climb, bend, or reach, as required by the job, may be found occupationally disabled. On March 18, 2009, Congress asked us to conduct a systematic review of RRB's occupational disability program. Per our discussions following the release of our September 2009 report on LIRR and commuter rail workers' experience with the program, Congress refined its request. It told us that its primary interest was quickly determining whether unusual patterns in claims like those exhibited at LIRR exist elsewhere across the rail industry, including class I, II, and III railroads. This letter formally conveys the information we provided during a briefing with Congress on December 2, 2009. In summary, we found that no other rail employers in our analysis had …