Appendix

– Socio

- demographic Characteristics of Populations in Core Based Statistical

Areas with Ozone Monitors Exceeding Proposed Ozone Standards

This appendix describes a limited screening

- level analysis of the socio

- demographic characteristics of populations living in counties within Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSA) with at least one county having an ozone monitor with a current (2011

- 2013) des ign value exceeding the proposed range of ozone standard levels, 65 to 70 parts per b illion (pp b ). Th is appendix describes the technical approach used in the analysis, discusses uncertainties and limitations associated with the analysis, and presents resu lts.

1.0 Introduction

Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low

- Income Populations (59 FR 7629; Feb. 16, 1994), directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by l aw, to make environmental justice (EJ) part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and lo w

- income populations in the United States. Accordingly, the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) has conducted a limited analysis of population demographics in some areas that may be affected by the p roposed revisions to the N ational A mbient A ir Q uality S tandards (NAAQS)
for ozone.

The EPA Administrator is proposing to revise the NAAQS for ozone from the current level of 75

pp b to within the range of 65 to 70 pp b , while also soliciting comment on reta ining the current
standard and levels down to 60 pp b . This proposed rule will establish uniform national standards for ozone in ambient air. The proposed revisions would improve public health protection for at

risk groups, especially children. Therefore, a s stated in the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low

- income populations because it increases the
level of enviro nmental protection for all affected populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low

- income population. Although EPA believes that the proposed

ozone N AAQS will not have any adverse impacts on any population group, the Agency has elected to conduct a limited analysis of key socio

- demographic characteristics of populations living in areas of interest, defined for this analysis as any CBSA with at least on e county having an ozone monitor with a current (2011

- 2013) design value exceeding the proposed range of

ozone standard levels ( 65 to 70 ppb ), and also including individual counties not included in a CBSA with a design value exceeding the proposed range of standards.

2.0 Design of Analysis

To gain a better understanding of the populations within the areas of interest, the EPA conducted an analysis at the county level for areas of interest for this ozone NAAQS review. The areas of interest for these analyses were defined as all counties contained within any CBSA with at least one monitor with a current (2011

- 2013) design value above the proposed range of standard levels( 65 to 70 pp b ) as well as counties not in a CBSA with a current (2011

- 2013) design value above

the proposed range of standard levels ( 65 ppb70 ppb65 to 70 ppb ). The areas of interest were
de signed to try to capture population and communities most l ikely to benefit from improved air quality resulting from implementation of the proposed ozone NAAQS revisions

.

At the lower end of the range of proposed standard level s of 65 ppb , this definition of the areas of interest resulted in 953 counties being an alyzed, 888 in 265 CBSAs and 65 outside CBSAs. At
the upper end of the range of proposed standard level s of 70 ppb , this resulted in 707 counties being analyzed, 680 in 182 CBSAs and 27 outside CBSAs. The demographic variables used in this analysis include race, ethnicity, age, economic and education data. Details on these demographic groups are provided in the following section (2.1).

To compare the demographic data in the areas of interest to the national data, the data from the
identified counties were aggregated to represent the areas of interest identified by the lower and upper end of the proposed range of standard levels. This analysis identifies, on a limited basis, the subpopulations that may experience reductions in ozone concentrati ons as a result of actions taken to meet the proposed range of standard levels and thus are expected to benefit most from this regulation. This analysis does not identify the demographic characteristics of the most highly affected individuals or communiti es nor does it quantify the level of risk faced by those individuals or communities. To the extent that any minority, low

- income or indigenous subpopulation is disproportionately impacted by ozone levels because they reside in an area of interest, that sub population also stands to see increased environmental and health benefit from meeting the more protective proposed standard levels.

The aggregated demographic sub

- population values across the areas of interest are compared to
the national data and are li sted in Table 4 in section 4.0

2.1 Demographic Variables Included in Analysis

This analysis includes race, ethnicity, and age data derived from the 2010 Census SF1 dataset 1

and economic and education data from the Census Bureau’s 2006

- 2010 American Commu nity Survey (ACS) 5

- Year Estimates. 2 This data is summarized in Table 1, with Table 2 notating the six socioeconomic indictors of social vulnerability used within this report.

Table 1 . Census Derived Demographic Data Race, Ethnici ty, and Age Data (Census 2010 block

- level SF1 data)*

Parameter Definition Population Total population

White Number of whites (may include Hispanics)

African Americans Number of African Americans (may include Hispanics)

Native Americans Number of Native Americas (may include Hispanics)

Other and multiracial Number of other race and multiracial (may include Hispanics) Hispanic Number of Hispanics Age 0 to 4 Number of people age 0 to 4 Age 0 to 17 Number of people age 0 to 17Age 65 and up Numbe r of people age 65 and up

Economic and Education Date (2006

- 2010 ACS)*

Parameter Definition

Poverty Number of people living in households with income below the poverty line

2 x Poverty Number of people living in households with income below
twice the poverty line Linguistic isolation Number of people linguistically isolated *Census 2010 does not currently report this data for the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Marianas; Census 2000 data are used for these areas.

Table 2. Social Vulnerability Data Social Vulnerability Indicators (Census 2010 data):

 Minority/Hispanic (%)

 Low Income (%)

 Under Age 5 (%)

 Age 65 and up (%)

 Adults without a high school diploma (%)

 Linguistically isolated (%)

The EPA uses the six socioeconomic demographic parameters shown in Table 2 from the 2010 Census as indicators of social vulnerability. The economic and education indicators used in this group were derived from the Census Bureau’s 2006

- 2010 ACS 5

- Year Estimates. These six subg roups of the population are included as social vulnerability indicators because there exists a substantive and easily

- understood relationship between the indicator and the concept of vulnerability, which is consistent with the EPA guidance regarding the us e of vulnerability indicators in environmental justice

- related analyses.

“Minority” means a person, as defined by the U.S. Bureau of Census, who is a: (1) Black American (a person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa); (2) Hispanic person (a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race); (3) Asian American or Pacific Islander (a person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, or the Pacific Islands); or (4) American Indian or Alaskan Native (a person having origins in any of the original people of North America and maintain cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community recogniti on). Because the Census Bureau does not classify Hispanic as a race but as an ethnicity, the race minority field is computed by subtracting the white population from the total population. A separate “Minority/Hispanic” field is calculated by adding the

n umber of white Hispanics to the race minority field count. The “Minority/Hispanic” field is used as one of the social vulnerability indicators. Compared to non

- minority (white) populations in the U.S., numerous studies have found that minority population s live in closer proximity to pollution sources, experience worse health, and have less ability to participate in environmental decision making. 3

The percentage of people living below the national poverty line is defined by the Census as the
percentage of residents whose median household income is at or below the poverty guidelinesupdated periodically in the Federal Register by the U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services under the authority of 42 U.S.C. 9902(2). 4 Low income has been linked in man y studies to poor health, lack of access to health care, closer proximity to pollution sources, and greater susceptibility to illnesses caused by exposure to air pollution. 5 Low income in this appendix is defined as 2 X poverty line.

The percentage of residents whose age is less than 5 years includes infants and children

– all of whom are considered a sensitive subpopulation for many forms of environmental contaminants, including air pollution. 6 The reasons for children’s increased sensitivity to air p ollution are
manifold and include: still

- developing respiratory and other bodily systems; smaller body size in proportion to inhaled contaminants; and varying behavior patterns including longer durations spent outdoors at high breat hing rates compared to a dults. 7 These factors lead to increased morbidity and mortality risks for children from exposure to air pollutants. 8 Furthermore, minority and low

- income children are at even greater risk, as the increased susceptibility for each of these demographic gr oups compounds such a child’s overall vulnerability. 9

The percentage of residents of age 65 years and over is considered a sensitive subpopulation for many forms of environmental contamination, including air pollution. 10 The increased susceptibility of this subpopulation stems not only from their age, but also from their poorer
health and lower fitness levels. 11 Those age 65 years and up have a higher mortality risk

— both long

- term and short

- term

— than other populations from air pollution, as well as incr eased morbidity risks including cardiovascular illness and respiratory disease. 12

The percentage of residents lacking a high school diploma is considered a relevant indicator of vulnerability because lack of education may indirectly increase the effects of environmental contamination, including air pollution. Low education may decrease access to health care and information about environmental risks and how to respond appropriately to such risks. 13 Studies have revealed that low education appears to be a factor in health disparities, multi

- morbidity, and mortality in general; and lower education may increase the relative risk of air pollution and premature mortality. 14 In particular, this association was established after examining the relationship betwee n an increase in particulate matter and mortality among persons with lower
education. 15

The percentage of residents experiencing linguistic isolation is considered a relevant indicator of vulnerability because linguistic isolation may render households less able to identify and mitigate environmental harms by limiting both access to health care and access to information about environmental risks and how to respond appropriately to those risks. 16 Studies have revealed that counties with higher concentrat ions of immigrants and linguistically isolated households have more hazardous waste generators and more proposed Superfund sites, compared to other
counties. 17 For example, a significant cancer risk was found between linguistically isolated
households and exposure from Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) releases in the San Francisco Bay

area. 18 Finally, immigrants may encounter discrimination and prejudice which impact vulnerability.

As noted above, the EPA uses population data collected by the 2010 Census. Ta ble 3 summarizes where precisely the social vulnerability indicator data is located within the Censusresults, including the level of geographic resolution in the original census data set. All data is

stored at the block level. For those indicators avail able from the Census at the block group, but not block level, the EPA assigns a block the same percentage as the block group of which it is a part. For example, a block is assigned the same percentage of people living below the national poverty line as th e block group in which it is contained. Nationally, a census block contains about 50 people on average; and a block group contains about 26 blocks on average, or about 1,350 people. (For comparison, a census tract is larger than a block group, with each t ract containing an average of 3 block groups, or about 4,300 people)

. For this analysis the data was aggregated to the county level.

As shown in Table 3, data on race, ethnicity and age for all census blocks in the country except for the Virgin Islands, G uam, American Samoa, and the Northern Marianas were obtained from
the 2010 Census SF1 dataset. 19 This dataset gives a breakdown of the population for each census block among different racial and ethnic classifications, including: White, African American or Black, Hispanic or Latino, American Indian or Native Alaskan, Asian, Native Hawaiian or other South Pacific Islander, other race, and two or more races. Race, ethnicity, and age data for census blocks in the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Marianas are from the 2000 Census, and were derived from the year 2000 “Island Surveys” which were available through the Census Bureau’s American FactFinder. 20

Table 3 . Summary of Social Vulnerability Indicators provided by Census 2010

Parameter Source of Census Data Level of Geographic
Resolution (Census Block or Block Group) Minority/Hispanic Population ab SF1 Tables P1 and P3 Block

People < 18 years of age b SF1 Table P12 Block

People ≥ 65 years of age b SF1 Table P12 Block

Low Income 2006

- 2010 ACS Block Group

Adults without a High School diploma 2006

- 2010 ACS Block Group

Linguistically Isolated People 2006

- 2010 ACS Block Group

a Minority/Hispanic population = Total population (P0010001) minus white population (P0030003)

b Census 2010 does not currently report this data for the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Marianas; Census 2000 data are used for these ar eas.

Data on age distributions in the U.S. and Puerto Rico were obtained at the census block level from the 2010 Census of Population and Housing Summary File 1 (SF1) short form, Table P12.SF1 contains the information compiled from the questions asked of all people about every

housing unit. Data on poverty status, education level, and linguistic isolation in the U.S. and Puerto Rico were obtained at the block group level from the Census Bureau’s 2006

- 2010 ACS. 21 Data for the Virgin Islands and other is land territories (Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Marianas) were retrieved from similar tables, which are available through the Census’ American Fact Finder internet portal, www.factfinder.census.gov.

3.0 Considerations in Evaluating and Interpreting Results

As noted above, EPA has determined that the proposed rule would provide more protective uniform national standards for ozone in ambient air and that this proposed rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low

income populations because it increases the level of environmental protectio n for all affected populations.

This analysis characterizes the socio

- demographic attributes of populat ions located in areas defined by a county or a CBSA containing a county with a monitor DV greater than 65 ppb and 70 ppb . Therefore, the results of this analysis can only be used to inform whether there are differences in the composition of populations res iding within these areas relative to the nation as a whole. As noted earlier, the purpose of the analysis is to determine whether populations of interest from an EJ perspective have a higher representation in areas that exceed the proposed range of ozone standard levels, and thus may be more affected by strategies to attain alternative standards. This analysis does not include a quantitative assessment of exposure and/or risk for specific populations of potential interest from an EJ

- perspective, and theref ore it cannot be used to draw any conclusions regarding potential disparities in exposure or risk across populations of interest from an EJ perspective. Nor can it be used to draw conclusions about any disparities in
the health and environmental benefits that result from strategies to attain alternative ozone
standards.

In order to clearly identify disparities in risk between populations of interest, we would need to conduct rigorous site

- specific population

- level exposure and risk assessments, that take into
account short

- term mobility (daily patterns of travel linked for example to school or work) or long

- term mobility (families moving into or out of specific block groups).

4.0 Presentation of Results

This section presents a summary of the r esults for the assessment of d emographic c haracteristics
of p opulations in a reas with o zone m onitors with measured values greater than the levels of the

p roposed range of o zone s tandards

. The results are also provided in tabular form. As stated previously, the EPA h as determined that this proposed rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low

- income populations because it increases the level of environmental protection for all affected populations with out having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low

- income population. As a whole, the demographic distributions within the areas of interest estimated for the proposed range of standard levels (i.e., 65 ppb to 70 ppb ) correspond well to the natio nal average s . Table 4presents the se results and the raw data used in this assessment. The population totals and

subtotals by demographic group as well as the percentages of the demographic groups for the
nation and for the lower and upper end of the proposed range of standard levels ( 65 ppb and 70 ppb ) are shown . M ost of the sub

- populations are within a few percentage points of the national

average. The largest difference is bet ween the national and study area percentages for the Minority/Hispanic demographic group and that is a difference of only 5%. Overall, these qualitative results support the determination that the proposed rule will not have disproportionate
human health or environmental impacts on any population. Perhaps more importantly these results provide EPA much needed insight into how and with whom to best target efforts to inform communities about the proposed rule and otherwise ensure their meaningful involvemen t in the rulemaking process.

Table 4

- Summary of Population Totals and Demographic Categories for Areas of Interest
and National Perspective
Demographic Summary Population White African
American Native

American Other or

Multiracial Minority /

Hispanic

Area of Interest Total 65 ppb 221,431,286 153,706,027 30,429,108 1,726,110 35,570,041 67,725,259 70 ppb 193,316,836 132,112,738 27,193,155 1,488,364 32,522,579 61,204,098

% of Area of Interest Total 65 ppb 69% 14% 1% 16% 31% 70 ppb 68% 14% 1% 17% 32%

National

Total 312,861,256 226,405,205 39,475,216 2,952,087 44,028,748 115,989,918

% of
National

Total 72% 13% 1% 14% 37%

Demographic Summary Linguistically

Isolated Age 0

- 4 Age 0

- 17 Age 65+ Without a
HS Diploma Low

Income

Area of Interest Total 65 ppb 13,072,109 14,695,948 54,008,810 27,163,990 20,914,891 67,027,700 70 ppb 12,179,896 12,849,637 47,296,147 23,518,071 18,495,474 58,296,224

% of Area of Interest Total 65 ppb 6% 7% 24% 12% 14% 30% 70 ppb 6% 7% 24% 12% 15% 30%

National

Total 19,196,507 20,465,065 75,217,176 40,830,262 30,952,789 101,429,436

% of
National

Total 6% 7% 24% 13% 15% 32%1 2010 Census Summary File 1 Delivered via FTP, http://www2.census.gov/census_2010/04

- Summary_File_1/

2 U.S. Census Bureau 2006

- 2010 American Community Survey 5

- Year Estimates, http://www.census.gov/acs/www/data_documentation/2010_release/

3 Brulle, Robert J. and David N. Pellow. 2006. Environmental Justice: Human Health and Environmental Inequalities. Annu. Rev. Public Health

27:103

– 24. http://publhealth.annualreviews.org ; Cutter, Susan. 2006. The Geography of Social Vulnerability: Race, Class, and Catastrophe. Understanding Katrina. Social Sciences R esearch Council. June 11. http://understandingkatrina.ssrc.org/Cutter/ ; Gold, Diane R. and Rosalind Wright. 2005. Population Disparities in Asthma. Annu. Rev. Public Health 26:89

– 113; Nelson DA, Johnson CC, Divine GW, Strauchman C, Joseph CL, Ownby DR. 1997. Ethnic Differences in the Prevalence of Asthma in Middle Class Children. Ann. Allergy Asthma Immun ol. 78:21

– 26; O’Neill et al., 2003. Health, Wealth, and Air Pollution: Advancing Theory and Methods, 111 Environmental Health Perspectives 16: 1861, 1865, http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2003/6334/abstract.html ; Friebele, E. 1996. The Attack of Asthma. Env. Health Persp. 104:1, J anuary, pp. 22

- 25.; Gwynn, R. Charon, and George D. Thurston. 2001. The Burden of Air Pollution: Impacts among Racial Minorities. Environ He alth Perspect. 109 (Suppl 4): 501

– 506 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1240572/pdf/ehp109s

- 000501.pdf ; American Lung Association. 2007. State of Lung Disease in Diverse Communities. August.; USEPA. 2004. Office of Environmental Justice. Toolk it for Assessing Potential A llegations of Environmental Injustice. November 3; Bullard, Robert D. and et al. 2007. Toxic Wastes and Race at Twenty
1987

- 2007: Grassroots Struggles to Dismantle Environmental Racism in the United States. Cleveland: The United Church of Christ. Ma rch.

4 U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. Frequently Asked Questions Related to the Poverty Guidelines and Poverty. http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/faq.shtml

5 USEPA. Office of Environmental Justice. 200 4. Toolkit for Assessing Potential Allegations of Environmental Injustice. November 3; Cutter, Susan. 2006. The Geography of Social Vulnerability: Race, Class, and Catastrophe. Understanding Katrina. Social Sciences Res earch Council.
June 11. http://understandingkatrina.ssrc.org/Cutter/ ; Jiang Y, Hesser JE. 2009. Using Item Response Theory to Analyze the Relationship
Between Health

- Related Quality of Life and Health Risk Factors. Prev Chronic Di s. 6(1); Brulle, Robert J. and David N. Pellow. 2006. Environmental Justice: Human Health and Environmental Inequalities. 27:103

– 24. http://publhealth.annualreviews.org ; American Heart
Association. Air Po llution, Heart Disease and Stroke. http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4419 ; Friebele E. 1996. The Attack of Asthma. Env. Health Persp. 104:1, January, pp. 22

- 25; Gwynn, R. Charon, and George D. Thurston. 2001. The Burden of Air Pollution: Impacts among Racial Minorities. Environ Health Perspect. August; 109 (Suppl 4):501

– 506 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1240572/pdf/ehp109s

- 000501.pdf ; USEPA. 2008. Assessment and Standards Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality. Regulatory Impact Analysis: Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from Locomotive Engi nes and Marine Compression Ignition Engines Less than 30 Liters Per Cylinder. EPA420

- R

- 08

- 001a, p. 2

- 57.

6 American Lung Association. 2009. Protect the Air we Breathe. February. http://www.lungusa.org/assets/documents/PROTECT_THE_AIR_WE_BREATHE.pdf

. 7 USEPA. 2004. Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter. RTP, NC. EPA/600/P

- 99/002aF

- bF. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=87903 ; USEPA. Factors for Identifying and Assessing Disproportionate Environmental Health Impacts; USEPA. Framework for Cumulative Risk A ssessment; National Resources Defense Council. Our Children at Risk: The 5 Worst
Environmental Threats to Their Health. http://www.nrdc.org/health/kids/ocar/chap4.asp

8 USEPA. 2004. Air Qualit y Criteria for Particulate Matter. Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA/600/P

- 99/002aF

- bF. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=87903 ; Host S; et al. 2007. Short

- term Asso ciations Between Fine and Coarse Particles and Cardiorespiratory Hospitalizations in Six French Cities. Occup Environ Med; Mar TF; et al. 2004. An Analysis of the Assoc iation Between Respiratory Symptoms in Subjects with Asthma and Daily Air Pollution in S pokane, Washington. Inhal Toxicol 16:809

- 815; Mauad T; et al. 2008. Chronic Exposure to Ambient Levels of Urban Particles Affects Mouse Lung Development. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 178: 72 1

- 728; Peel JL; et al. 2005. Ambient Air Pollution and Respiratory Em ergency Department Visits. Epidemiology, 16:164

- 174; Pinkerton KE; et al. 2004. Reduced Lung Cell Proliferation Following Short

- Term Exposure to Ultrafine Soot and Iron Particles in Neonatal Rats: Key to Impaired Lung
Growth? Inhal Toxicol 1:73

- 81; Nationa l Resources Defense Council. Our Children at Risk: The 5 Worst Environmental Threats to Their Health. http://www.nrdc.org/health/kids/ocar/chap4.asp ; Gauderman, et al. 2004. The Effect of Air Pollution on Lung Development from 10 to 18 Years of Age. N Engl J Med 351:1057

- 1067. September 9. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa040610?ck=nck&#articleT op ; Neidell, Matthew J. 2004. Air Pollution, Health, and Socio

- economic Status: the Effect of Outdoor Air Quality on Childhood Asthma. Journal of Health Economics 23: pp.1209

– 1236.

9 O’Neill et al. 2003. Health, Wealth, and Air Pollution: Advancing Theory and Methods. Environmental Health Perspectives 16: pp.1861, 1865. http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2003/6334/abstract.html ; Gold, et al. 1993. Race and Gender Differences in Respiratory I llness Prevalence and Their Relationship to Environmental Exposures in Children 7 to 14 Years of Age. Am Rev Respir Dis.148(1):10

- 8; Neidell, Matthew J. 2004. Air Pollution, Health, and Socio

- economic Status: the Effect of Outdoor Air Quality on Childhood Asthma. Journal of Health Economics 23: pp.1209

– 1236.

10 American Lung Association. 2009. Protect the Air we Breathe. February.

11 USEPA. Framework for Cumulative Risk Assessment.

12 Gerber et al. 2010. Cumulative Exposure to Air Pollution and long term outco mes after first acute myocardial infarction: A population

- based cohort study. BMC Public Health 10:369. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471

- 2458/10/369 ; American Heart Association. Air Pollution, Heart
Disease and Stroke. http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4419 ; National Institute of Environmental Health and Sciences. Elderly Have Higher Risk for Card iovascular, Respiratory Disease From Fine Particle Pollution. http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/mar2006/niehs

08.htm ; National Resources Defense Council. Our Children at Risk: The 5 Worst Environmental Threats to Their Health. http://www.nrdc.org/health/kids/ocar/chap4.asp ; Franklin M; Zeka A; Schwartz J. 2 007. Association Between PM2.5 and All

- Cause and Specific

Cause Mortality in 27 US Communities. Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology, 17:279

- 87.; http://www.sci entificintegrityinstitute.org/JESEE2005.pdf ; Ostro B, et al. 2006. Fine Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality in Nine California Counties: Results from CALFINE. Environ Health Perspect, 114:29

- 33.; http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/hero/index.cfm?action=search.view&reference_id=87991 ; Samoli E; et al. 2008. Acute Effects of Ambient Particulate Matter on Mortality in Europe and North America: Results From the APHENA Stud y. Environ Health Perspect 116:1480

- 1486.http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/hero/index.cfm?action=search.view&reference_id=188455 ; Zeka A; Zanobetti A; Schwartz J. 2006 . Individual

- Level

Modifiers of the Effects of Particulate Matter on Daily Mortality. Am J Epidemiol, 163:849

- 859. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/hero/index.cfm?actio n=search.view&reference_id=88749

. 13 USEPA. 2004. National Environmental Justice Advisory Council. Ensuring Risk Reduction in Communities with Multiple Stressors: Environmental Justice and Cumulative Risks/Impacts.

14 DeWalt, Darren A., Marylee H. Dilling, M arjorie S. Rosenthal, and Michael P. Pignone. 2007. Low Parental Literacy Associated with Worse Asthma Care Measures in Children. Ambul Pediatr 7(1): 25

– 31. http://www.n cbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1797805/pdf/nihms17216.pdf ; Banks J, Marmot M, Oldfield Z, Smith JP. 2006. Disease and disadvantage in the United States and in England. JAMA 295(17):20 37

- 45; Nagel, Gabriele, Richard Peter, Stefanie Braig, Silke Hermann, S abine Rohrmann and Jakob Linseisen. 2008. The Impact of Education on Risk Factors and the Occurrence of Multimorbidity in the EPIC

- Heidelberg Cohort. BMC Public Health 8:384. http://www.biomedcen tral.com/1471

- 2458/8/384 ; Adler NE, and K Newman. 2002. Socioeconomic Disparities in Health: Pathways and Policies. Heath Aff (Millwood) 21(2):60

- 76; Kan, et al. 2008. Season, Sex, Age, and Education as Modifiers of the Effects of Outdoor Air Pollution on Daily Mortality in Shanghai, China: The Public Health and Air Pollution in Asia (PAPA) Study. Environ Health Perspect, 116:1183

- 1188; Levy, Jonathon I., Susan L. Greco, John D. Spengler. 2002. The Importance of Population Susceptibility for Air Pollution R isk Assessment: A Case Study of Power Plants Near Washington, DC. Environmental Health Perspectives, Dec. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12460806

. 15 Krewski D, Burnett RT, Goldberg MS, Hoove r K, Siemiatycki J, Jerrett M, et al. 2000. Reanalysis of the Harvard Six Cities Study and the American Cancer Society Study of Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality. Health Effects Institute. Cambridge, MA; Krewski D; Jerrett M; Burnett RT; Ma R; Hughes E; Shi Y; Turner MC; Pope AC III; Thurston G; Calle EE; Thun MJ. 2009. Extended follow

- up and spatial analysis of the American Cancer Society study linking particulate air pollution and mortality. Health Effects Institute. Cambridge, MA . 140; Ostro B;

Br oadwin R; Green S; Feng W

- Y; Lipsett M. 2006. Fine particulate air pollution and mortality in nine California counties: results from CALFINE. Environ Health Perspect, 114:29

- 33.; Ostro BD; Feng WY; Broadwin R; Malig BJ; Green RS; Lipsett MJ. 2008. The imp act of components of fine particulate matter on cardiovascular mortality in susceptible subpopulations. Occup Environ Med, 65: 750

- 756; Zeka A; Zanobetti A; Schwartz J. 2006. Individual

- level modifiers of the effects of particulate matter on daily mortalit y. Am J Epidemiol, 163: 849

- 859.

16 Asian Pacific Environmental Network. Environmental Justice and API Issues. http://www.apen4ej.org/issues_api.htm ; West Coast Poverty

Center. 2010. Ethnic Residential Clustering and Health in West Coast States. Dialogues on Research and Policy. No. 2, March. http://depts.washington.edu/wcpc/sites/default /files/DIALOGUE%20No.%202.Ethnic%20Enclaves.webFN_.pdf ; LeClere, E B., L. Jensen and A. E. Biddlecom. 1994. Health Care Utilization, Family Context, and Adaptation among Immigrants to the United States. Journal o f Health and Social Behavior, 35 (4):370

- 3 84. December; Arias, Beatriz. 2007. School Desegregation, Linguistic Segregation and Access to English for Latino Students. Journal of Education Controversy 2(1) Winter. ht tp://www.wce.wwu.edu/Resources/CEP/eJournal/v002n001/a008.shtml

. 17 San Francisco Department of Public Health. 2004. Unaffordable Housing: the Costs to Public Health. June. http://www.sfphes.org/publications/reports/UnaffordableHousingJune04.pdf ; Pinderhughes, Racquel Rivera. 1996. Social and Economic Inequality in San Francisco: A Case Stu dy of Environmental Risks in the City's Mission District. Based on a presentation made at the Conference on Urban Environmental Issues in the Bay Area. Hastings West

- Northwest Journal of Environmental Law and Policy. Second Annual Environmental Law Sympos ium. March 23. http://bss.sfsu.edu/raquelrp/pub/1996_march_pub.html ; Hunter, Lori M. 2000. The Spatial Association between U.S. Immigrant Residential Concentration and Environmental Hazar ds. International Migration Review. 34(2): pp. 460

- 488. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2675910

. 18 Pastor, Manuel, James Sadd, Rachel Morello

- Frosch. 2007. Still Toxic After All These Years: Air Quality and E nvironmental Justice in the San Francisco Bay Area. Center for Justice, Tolerance & Community. February. http://cjtc.ucsc.edu/docs/bay_final.pdf

. 19 2010 Census Summary File 1 Delivered via FTP, http://www2.census.gov/census_2010/04

- Summary_File_1/

20 American Fact Finder, http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U&_program=DEC&_lang=en

21 U.S. Census Bureau 2006

- 2010 American Community Survey 5

- Year Estimates, http://www.census.gov/acs/www/data_documentation/2010_release/