The EPA’s responses to these feedback rely heavily on the method established in the ISA for assessing the evidence, and on country girl for hunter camo all over printed shirt CASAC recommendation obtained as part of this evaluate of the O3 NAAQS. In particular, the Administrator notes that lung function supplies an objective measure of the
country girl for hunter camo all over printed shirt
and the proposal, there are elements of the publicity assessment that, thought of by themselves, may end up in either overestimates or underestimates of the incidence of O3 exposures of concern. Commenters tended to spotlight the elements of the assessment that supported their positions, together with features that had been discussed in the HREA and/or the PA and that have been considered by CASAC. In distinction, commenters tended to disregard the aspects of the assessment that didn’t assist their positions. The EPA has rigorously described and assessed the significance of the assorted uncertainties within the publicity analysis (U.S. EPA, 2014a, Table 5-10), noting that, in most situations, the uncertainties could lead to both overestimates or country girl for hunter camo all over printed shirt underestimates of exposures and that the magnitudes of the impacts on publicity outcomes were both “low,” “low to reasonable,” or “average” (U.S. EPA, 2014a, Table 5-10). Administrator from relying on those studies to inform her selections on the first O3 normal. While the EPA agrees that there are uncertainties related to deciphering the O3 epidemiologic evidence, as mentioned above and elsewhere on this preamble, we disagree with commenters’ assertion that these uncertainties should preclude the use of the O3 epidemiologic proof generally, or the research by Silverman and Ito, Strickland, or Mar and Koenig specifically, as part of the premise for the Administrator’s decision to revise the current main normal. As a basic level, when contemplating the potential importance of uncertainties in epidemiologic research, we depend on the broader body of proof, not restricted to these three studies, and the ISA conclusions based mostly on this proof.
The evidence, the ISA’s interpretation of particular studies, and the use of information from these research within the HREA and PA, was thought-about by CASAC in its evaluation of drafts of the ISA, HREA, and PA. Based on the assessment of the proof in the ISA, and CASAC’s endorsement of the ISA conclusions, in addition to CASAC’s endorsement of the approaches to using and considering info from epidemiologic research in the HREA and PA (Frey, 2014c, p. 5), we don’t agree with these commenters’ conclusions regarding the usefulness of the epidemiologic studies by Strickland et al. , Silverman and Ito , and Mar and Koenig . research by Strickland et al. , Silverman and Ito , and Mar and Koenig . These commenters highlighted what they thought-about to be key uncertainties in decoding these studies, together with uncertainties due to the potential for confounding by co-pollutants, aeroallergens, or the presence of higher respiratory infections; and uncertainties in the interpretation of zero-day lag models (i.e., particularly for Mar and Koenig, 2009). This part discusses key comments on the EPA’s assessment of the epidemiologic evidence and offers the Agency’s responses to these feedback. The focus on this section is on overarching comments associated to the EPA’s approach to assessing and decoding the epidemiologic evidence as a whole. Detailed comments on specific studies, or specific methodological or technical points, are addressed within the Response to Comments doc. As discussed above, lots of the issues and concerns raised by commenters on the interpretation of the epidemiologic evidence are primarily restatements of issues raised in the course of the growth of the ISA, HREA, and/or PA, and in many instances were thought-about by CASAC within the improvement of its recommendation on the present normal.