Commenters expressing the latter view variously cite CASAC recommendation and figures from the WREA cumulative evaluation of USFS biosite knowledge with WREA W126 index value estimates. The EPA disagrees that solely a reduction in cumulative mrs always right couple all over print face mask exposures to W126 index values under 10 ppm-hrs will have an effect on the occurrence or extent of visible foliar harm. In so doing, we note that
mrs always right couple all over print face mask
typically focused on consideration of visible foliar harm. The CASAC recommendation on levels of the W126 index on which to focus for public welfare safety really helpful a stage within the vary of 7 ppm-hrs to fifteen ppm-hrs (Frey, 2014c, p. iii). We observe, nevertheless, as summarized in section IV.E.three of the proposal, that this recommendation was provided within the context of the CASAC evaluate of the second draft PA, which concluded that a spread from 7 to 17 ppm-hrs was applicable to contemplate. In mrs always right couple all over print face mask considering the upper end of this range, the CASAC consulted Table 6-1 of the second draft PA which indicated for a W126 index worth of 17 ppm-hrs an RBL estimate of 6%, a magnitude that CASAC described as “unacceptably high” and that contributed to an absence CASAC support for W126 exposures values larger than 15 ppm-hrs (Frey, 2014c, p. 14; U.S. EPA 2014d, Table 6-1). As famous in part IV.E.three of the proposal, revisions to the RBL estimate desk in the ultimate PA, which had been made in consideration of other CASAC feedback, have resulted in modifications to the median species RBL estimate related to every W126 index worth, such that the median species RBL estimate for a W126 index value of 17 ppm-hrs on this table in the ultimate PA was 5.three%, rather than the “unacceptably excessive” worth of 6%.
Additionally, the CASAC acknowledged that the Administrator may, as a policy matter, favor to make use of a three-yr average, and acknowledged that in that case, the vary of ranges should be revised downward (Frey, 2014c, p. iii-iv). To more fully handle the comments associated to this WREA analysis, we’ve drawn several further observations from the WREA dataset, re-presenting the identical data in a special format in a technical memorandum to the docket . Contrary to the implication of the statements from the commenters and CASAC that no reduction within the incidence of visible foliar damage can be achieved with exposures above 10 ppm-hrs, each the proportion of information with injury and the common biosite index are lower for teams of data with W126 index estimates at or under 17 ppm-hrs compared to the group for the highest W126 index range. This is true when thought-about regardless of soil moisture situations , in addition to for dry, normal and moist information, separately . The pattern of the two measures across record teams with lower W126 index values differs with moisture stage, with the wetter than normal information usually displaying decreasing proportions of injured sites and decreasing common biosite index with lower W126 index values, whereas little difference in these measures is seen among the many center W126 values though they are decrease than the best W126 index group and higher than the lowest W126 index group . In abstract, the EPA disagrees with commenters, noting that the obtainable data, together with extra observations from the WREA dataset, indicate declines in the occurrence of seen foliar damage across decreasing W126 index values that are larger than 10 ppm-hrs. Public feedback have been usually split between two views, both that visible foliar injury was not applicable to contemplate in decisions regarding the usual, based on variously identified reasons, or that it ought to be considered and it will lead the EPA to focus on a W126 worth below approximately 10 ppm-hrs. Comments of the former type are discussed in part IV.B.2 above, with, in some cases, additional detail in the Response to Comments document.