9A-1

APPENDIX 9A: SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF POPULATIONS 

IN CORE BASED STATISTICAL AREAS WITH OZONE MONITORS EXCEEDING 

PROPOSED OZONE STANDARDS

Overview

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 areas with an ozone monitor with a current (2011-2013) design value 

exceeding the proposed range of ozone standard levels, 65 to 70 parts per billion (ppb). This 

analysis does not include a quantitative assessment of exposure and/or risk for specific 

populations of potential interest from an environmental justice (EJ) perspective, and therefore it 

cannot be used to draw any conclusions regarding potential disparities in exposure or risk across 

populations of interest from an EJ perspective. This appendix describes the technical approach 

used in the analysis, discusses uncertainties and limitations associated with the analysis, and 

presents results.

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 law, 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 low-income populations in the United States. . In addition, Executive 

Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) is determined to be “economically 

significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health 

or safety risk that the EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children.

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 proposed revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) for ozone.
9A-2

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

level of 75 ppb to within the range of 65 to 70 ppb, while also soliciting comment on retaining 

the current standard and levels down to 60 ppb. 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, as 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 environmental 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 NAAQS will not have any adverse impacts on any population group, tThe 

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 Core Based Statistical Area 

(CBSA) with at least one 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.

9A.1 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 ppb) as well as counties not in a CBSA with a current (2011-2013) 

design value above the proposed range of standard levels (65 ppb to 70 ppb). The areas of 

interest were designed to try to capture population and communities most likely 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 levels of 65 ppb, this definition of the 

areas of interest resulted in 953 counties being analyzed, 888 in 265 CBSAs and 65 outside 

CBSAs. At the upper end of the range of proposed standard levels of 70 ppb, this resulted in 707 

counties being analyzed, 680 in 182 CBSAs and 27 outside CBSAs. The demographic variables 
9A-3

used in this analysis include race, ethnicity, age, economic and education data. Details on these 

demographic groups are provided in the following section (9A.1.1). 

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 are most likely to experience reductions in ozone 

concentrations 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 communities 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 subpopulation 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 listed in Table 9A-24 in Section 9A-3.

9A.1.1 Demographic Variables Included in Analysis

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

dataseti and economic and education data from the Census Bureau’s 2006-2010 American 

Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates.ii This data is summarized in Table 9A-1, with 

Table 9A-2 notating the six socioeconomic indictors of social vulnerability used within this 

report.

Table 9A-1. Census Derived Demographic Data

Race, Ethnicity, 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)

Minority/Non-white Hispanic Number of HispanicsTotal Population less White Population

Age 0 to 4 Number of people age 0 to 4

Formatted Table

Formatted Table

Formatted Table
9A-4

Age 0 to 17 Number of people age 0 to 17

Age 65 and up Number 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

Education level Adults without a high school diploma

*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 9A-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 9A-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 subgroups 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 use of 

vulnerability indicators in environmental justice-related analyses. 

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.iii 

Data for the Virgin Islands and other island territories (Guam, American Samoa, and the 

Formatted Table

Formatted: Left
9A-5

Northern Marianas) were retrieved from similar tables, which are available through the Census’ 

American Fact Finder internet portal, www.factfinder.census.gov. 

As shown in Table 9A-3, dData on race, ethnicity and age for all census blocks in the 

country except for the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Marianas were 

obtained from the 2010 Census SF1 dataset.iv 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.v 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.vi Data for the 

Virgin Islands and other island 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. 

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 recognition). Because the Census Bureau does not classify Hispanic as 

a race but as an ethnicity, tThe race mMinority/Non-White Hispanic field is computed by 

subtracting the white population from the total population. A separate “Minority/Hispanic” field 

is calculated by adding the number of white Hispanics to the race minority field count. The 
9A-6

“Minority/Hispanic” field is used as one of the social vulnerability indicators. Compared to nonpopulations live in closer proximity to pollution sources, experience worse health, and have less 

ability to participate in environmental decision making. vii 

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.x The reasons for children’s increased sensitivity to air 

pollution 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 breathing rates compared to adults.xi These factors lead to 

increased morbidity and mortality risks for children from exposure to air pollutants.xii 

Furthermore, minority and low-income children are at even greater risk, as the increased 

susceptibility for each of these demographic groups compounds such a child’s overall 

vulnerability.xiii 

The percentage of residents of age 65 years and over is considered a sensitive 

subpopulation for many forms of environmental contamination, including air pollution.xiv The 

increased susceptibility of this subpopulation stems not only from their age, but also from their 

poorer health and lower fitness levels.xv 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 

increased morbidity risks including cardiovascular illness and respiratory disease.xvi 

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.xvii 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.xviii In particular, this association was established after 

examining the relationship between an increase in particulate matter and mortality among 

persons with lower education.xix 
9A-7

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.xx 

Studies have revealed that counties with higher concentrations of immigrants and linguistically 

isolated households have more hazardous waste generators and more proposed Superfund sites, 

compared to other counties.xxi 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.xxii Finally, immigrants may encounter discrimination and prejudice 

which impact vulnerability.

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

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 lowincome populations because it increases the level of environmental protection for all affected 

populations.

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).

9A.3 Presentation of Results 

This section presents a summary of the results for the assessment of demographic 

characteristics of populations in areas with ozone monitors with measured values greater than the 

levels of the proposed range of ozone standards. The results are also provided in tabular form. As 

stated previously, the EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or lowincome populations because it increases the level of environmental protection for all affected 

Formatted: Font: Italic

Formatted: Space After: 6 pt
9A-8

populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

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 national 

averages. Table 9A-24 presents these 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. Most of the sub-populations are within a few 

percentage points of the national average. The largest difference is between the national and 

study area percentages for the Minority/Non-White Hispanic demographic group and that is a 

difference of only 54%. Overall, these qualitative results support the determination that the 

proposed rule will tend to benefit geographic areas that have a higher proportion of minority and 

low income residents than the national averagenot 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 involvement in the rulemaking process. 

Table 9A-42 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/

Non-White 

Hispanica

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

86,456,051

% of 

National Total 72% 13% 1% 14% 3728%

a The race Minority/Non-White Hispanic field is computed by subtracting the white population from the total 

population.

Formatted: Superscript

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman Bold,

Superscript

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman Bold, 10 pt,

Not Bold, Superscript

Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Not Bold

Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Not Bold, Italic

Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Not Bold
9A-9

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%

i 2010 Census Summary File 1 Delivered via FTP, http://www2.census.gov/census_2010/04-Summary_File_1/

ii U.S. Census Bureau 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 

http://www.census.gov/acs/www/data_documentation/2010_release/

iii U.S. Census Bureau 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 

http://www.census.gov/acs/www/data_documentation/2010_release/

v American Fact Finder, 

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U&_program=DEC&_lan

g=en

vi U.S. Census Bureau 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 

http://www.census.gov/acs/www/data_documentation/2010_release/

vii 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 Research 

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 Immunol. 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, January, pp. 22-25.; Gwynn, R. Charon, and George D. Thurston. 2001. The Burden of Air Pollution: 

Impacts among Racial Minorities. Environ Health 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. 

Toolkit for Assessing Potential Allegations 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. March.

viii U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. Frequently Asked Questions Related to the Poverty Guidelines 

and Poverty. http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/faq.shtml

ix USEPA. Office of Environmental Justice. 2004. 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 Research 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 Dis. 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 Pollution, Heart Disease and Stroke. 

 
9A-10

 

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 Engines and Marine Compression Ignition Engines Less than 30 Liters Per Cylinder. 

EPA420-R-08-001a, p. 2-57.

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

http://www.lungusa.org/assets/documents/PROTECT_THE_AIR_WE_BREATHE.pdf.

xi 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 Assessment; 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

xii USEPA. 2004. Air Quality 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 Associations Between 

Fine and Coarse Particles and Cardiorespiratory Hospitalizations in Six French Cities. Occup Environ Med; Mar TF; 

et al. 2004. An Analysis of the Association Between Respiratory Symptoms in Subjects with Asthma and Daily Air 

Pollution in Spokane, 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: 721-728; Peel JL; et 

al. 2005. Ambient Air Pollution and Respiratory Emergency 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; 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; 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&#articleTop; 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.

xiii 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 Illness 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.

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

xv USEPA. Framework for Cumulative Risk Assessment.

xvi Gerber et al. 2010. Cumulative Exposure to Air Pollution and long term outcomes 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 Cardiovascular, 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. 2007. 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.scientificintegrityinstitute.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 

Study. 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?action=search.view&reference_id=88749.

xvii USEPA. 2004. National Environmental Justice Advisory Council. Ensuring Risk Reduction in Communities with 

Multiple Stressors: Environmental Justice and Cumulative Risks/Impacts.
9A-11

 

xviii DeWalt, Darren A., Marylee H. Dilling, Marjorie 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.ncbi.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):2037-45; Nagel, 

Gabriele, Richard Peter, Stefanie Braig, Silke Hermann, Sabine 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.biomedcentral.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 Risk 

Assessment: A Case Study of Power Plants Near Washington, DC. Environmental Health Perspectives, Dec. 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12460806 .

xix Krewski D, Burnett RT, Goldberg MS, Hoover 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; 

Broadwin 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 impact 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. Individuallevel modifiers of the effects of particulate matter on daily mortality. Am J Epidemiol, 163: 849-859.

xx 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 of Health and Social Behavior, 35 (4):370-384. December; Arias, 

Beatriz. 2007. School Desegregation, Linguistic Segregation and Access to English for Latino Students. Journal of 

Education Controversy 2(1) Winter. http://www.wce.wwu.edu/Resources/CEP/eJournal/v002n001/a008.shtml.

xxi 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 Study 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 Symposium. 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 Hazards. International Migration Review. 34(2): pp. 

460-488. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2675910.

xxii Pastor, Manuel, James Sadd, Rachel Morello-Frosch. 2007. Still Toxic After All These Years: Air Quality and 

Environmental Justice in the San Francisco Bay Area. Center for Justice, Tolerance & Community. February. 

http://cjtc.ucsc.edu/docs/bay_final.pdf.

xxiii 2010 Census Summary File 1 Delivered via FTP, http://www2.census.gov/census_2010/04-Summary_File_1/

xxiv American Fact Finder, 

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U&_program=DEC&_lan

g=en

xxv U.S. Census Bureau 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 

http://www.census.gov/acs/www/data_documentation/2010_release/