9 A

- 1

APPENDIX 9 A : SOCIO

- DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTE RISTICS OF POPULATIO NS IN CORE BASED STATIS TICAL AREAS WITH OZO NE MONITORS EXCEEDIN G PROPOSED OZONE STAND ARDS

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 (20 11

- 2013) design value exceeding the proposed range of ozone standard levels, 65 to 70 parts per b illion (pp b ). This analysis does not include a quantitative assessment of exposure and/or risk for specific populations of potential interest from an environm ental 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. Th is appendix describes the technical approach
used in the a nalysis, 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), di rects 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 Stat es.

. 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 1 2866, 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) h as conducted a limited analysis of population demographics in some areas that may be affected by the proposed revisions to the N ational A mbient A ir Q uality S tandards (NAAQS) for ozone.9 A

- 2

The EPA Administrator is proposing to revise the NAAQS for ozone from t he current
level of 75 pp b to within the range of 65 to 70 pp b , while also soliciting comment on retaining
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 r evisions 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 populat ion, 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, t T he Agency has elected to conduct a limited analysis of key socio

- demographic characterist ics 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 leve ls ( 65 to 70 ppb ), and also including individual counties not included in a CBSA with a design value exceeding the proposed range of
standards.

9 A. 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 conta ined 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 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 rang e of proposed standard level s 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 level s of 70 ppb , this resulted in 707

coun ties being analyzed, 680 in 182 CBSAs and 27 outside CBSAs. The demographic variables9 A

- 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 c ompare 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 analysi s 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 regula tion. 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 i ndigenous 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

- 2 4 in S ection 9A

- 3

.

9 A. 1

. 1 Demographic Variables Included in Analysis This analysis includes race, ethnicity, and age data derived from the 2010 Census SF1
dataset i 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 i ndictors 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 Hispanics Total Population less White Population Age 0 to 4 Number of people age 0 to 4 Formatted Table

Formatted Table
Formatted Table9 A

- 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) sho rt 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 leve l 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: Left9 A

- 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 , d D ata on race, ethnici ty 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 P1 2. 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.fact finder.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, Cen tral 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 Hisp anic as
a race but as an eth nicity, t T he race m M inority /Non

- White Hispa n ic 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 r ace minority field count. The9 A

- 6

“Minority/Hispanic” field is used as one of the social vulnerability indicators. Compared to non

populations 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

cont aminants, 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 beh avior 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 child ren 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 mortal ity
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 r elevant 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 mort ality. xviii In particular, this association was established after examining the relationship between an increase in particulate matter and mortality among persons with lower education. xix9 A

- 7

The percentage of residents experiencing linguistic isolation is consi dered 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 resp ond 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 impac t 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 e nvironmental effects on minority or low

income populations because it increases the level of environmental protectio n 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).

9 A. 3 Presentation of Results This section presents a summary of the r esults for the assessment of d emogr aphic

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 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 Formatted: Font: Italic
Formatted: Space After: 6 pt9 A

- 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

prop osed range of standard levels (i.e., 65 ppb to 70 ppb) correspond well to the natio nal averages. Table 9A

- 2 4 presents these results and the raw data used in this assessment. The population totals and subtotals by demographic group as well as the percentag es 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 differen ce is between the national and study area percentages for the Minority/ Non

- White Hispanic demographic group and that is a difference of only 5 4 %. Overall, these qualitative results support the determination that the proposed rule will tend to benefit geog raphic areas that have a higher proportion of minority and low income residents than the national average not have disproportionate human health or environmental impacts on any population. Perhaps more importantly these results provide EPA
much needed insi ght 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 9 A

- 4 2 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 Hispanic a 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% 37 28 %

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 Bold9 A

- 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 Vulnerabil ity: Race, Class, and Catastrophe. Understanding Katrina. Social Sciences Research Council. June 11. http://understandingkatrina.ssrc.org/Cutter/ ; Gold, Diane R. and Rosalind Wright. 2005. Popul ation 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. Env iron 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 Lu ng 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: Gr assroots 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 V ulnerability: Race, Class, and Catastrophe. Understanding Katrina. Social Sciences Research Council. June 11. http://understandingkatrina.ssrc.org/Cutter/ ; Jiang Y, Hesser JE. 2009. Using Item R esponse 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.9 A

- 10

http://www.americanhe art.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 Pers pect. 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, Offic e 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/healt h/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?de id=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 Su bjects 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 Impai red 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. Heal th, 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. 199 3. 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.b iomedcentral.com/1471

- 2458/10/369 ; American Heart Association. Air Pollution, Heart Disease and Stroke. http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4419 ; National Inst itute 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 ; Nati onal 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. A ssociation 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.scientifi cintegrityinstitute.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. Env iron 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. Indi vidual

- 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=sear ch.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.9 A

- 11 xviii DeWalt, Darren A., Marylee H. Dilling, Marjori e 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.nl m.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.c om/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 As sessment: 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; Krew ski 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 I nstitute. 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; Mal ig 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. Individual

level modifiers of the effec ts 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 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

. xxii 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

. 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/