[Federal Register: June 7, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 109)]
[Notices]
[Page 33029-33030]
[DOCID:fr07jn06-147]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53924; File No. SR-NYSE-2006-40]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Relating to NYSE Rule 476

June 1, 2006.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on May 22, 2006, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Exchange filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders the
proposed rule change effective upon filing with the Commission. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    NYSE is proposing to amend NYSE Rule 476 in order to make technical
changes to the text of the second paragraph of NYSE Rule 476(k).
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site (http://www.nyse.com), at the Exchange's Office of the

Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    On March 27, 2006, the Exchange filed SR-NYSE-2006-23 \5\ (``NYSE-
2006-23'') with the Commission to reconcile recent amendments to the
text of NYSE Rules 475 and 476.\6\ NYSE-2006-23 deleted inadvertently
inserted text from previously approved changes made to NYSE Rule 476(l)
\7\ and incorporated the corrected paragraph of NYSE Rule 476(l) \8\
into NYSE Rule 476(k). Further, NYSE-2006-23 made technical changes to
the rules and rendered the rules gender neutral.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53575 (March 30,
2006), 71 FR 17537 (April 6, 2006) (SR-NYSE-2006-23). NYSE-2006-23
became effective upon filing with the Commission pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 53124 (January 13,
2006), 71 FR 3595 (January 23, 2006) (SR-NYSE-2005-37) (which became
operative on April 1, 2006), and 53382 (February 27, 2006), 71 FR
11251 (March 6, 2006) (SR-NYSE-2005-77). Telephone conversation
between Deanna Logan, Director, NYSE, and Jan Woo, Attorney,
Division of Market Regulation, Commission, on May 25, 2006.
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53382 (February 27,
2006), 71 FR 11251 (March 6, 2006) (SR-NYSE-2005-77).
    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, in NYSE-2006-23, the Exchange failed to remove superfluous
text in the second paragraph of NYSE Rule 476(k). Currently the
paragraph reads:

    Any member, member organization or allied of a member
organization who shall not pay a fine, or any other sums due to the
Exchange, within forty-five days after the same shall become
payable, shall be reported by the Exchange Treasurer to the Chairman
of the Exchange Board of Directors and, after written notice mailed
to such member, member organization or allied member of such
arrearages, may be suspended by the Exchange Board of Directors
until payment is made.

    The Exchange seeks to delete the words ``of a'' after the first
reference to ``allied'' in the paragraph and the word ``organization''
that follows the third reference to the word ``member'' so that the
phrase reads ``* * * allied member who shall not * * *.'' The class of
membership governed by this rule is an allied member and the Exchange
seeks this amendment in order accurately reflect that class of
membership.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirement under Section 6(b)(5) of

the Act \9\ that an exchange have rules that are designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
these objectives in that it enables the Exchange to further enhance the
process by which securities are allocated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (1)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (2) impose any significant burden on competition; and (3) by
its terms, become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was
filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest,
the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) \10\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \11\ normally
may not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \12\ permits the Commission to designate
a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The NYSE has requested that the
Commission waive the 5-day pre-filing notice requirement and the 30-day
operative delay, which would make the rule change effective and
operative upon filing. The Commission believes that waiver of the 5-day
pre-filing notice and the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest.\13\ The Commission
notes that such waiver would allow the Exchange to implement the
proposed rule change immediately and thus to avoid any potential
confusion in the class of membership governed by the rule. Accordingly,
the Commission designates that the proposed rule change effective and
operative upon filing with the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \13\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/.
 rules/sro.shtml); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File No. SR-NYSE-2006-40 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2006-40. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NYSE-2006-40 and should be submitted on or before June
28, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 7 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
J. Lynn Taylor,
Assistant Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-8800 Filed 6-6-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


MEMORANDUM

To:	Patricia Rowley, Lucie Audette, and Ken Davidson, USEPA

From:	Arlene Rosenbaum, Jeffrey Hoye, Mark Bethoney, Ed Mieman

Date:	September 28, 2007

Re:	Estimation of diesel particulate matter population exposure near selected harbor areas and rail yards (revised)

BACKGROUND

At the present time, there is evidence that people living in close proximity to major transportation sources like roads experience higher exposure to pollutants that are directly emitted by motor vehicles. At least one study suggests that people living near major rail terminals are also exposed to significantly higher concentrations of directly emitted pollutants. Likewise, another study suggests that nearby residents of marine harbor areas are exposed to significantly higher concentrations of pollution, including particulate matter.

The purpose of this work assignment is to collect population data that EPA will need to evaluate potential impacts of higher pollution exposures on populations living near large sources of diesel exhaust, i.e., locomotives and Class 1, 2, and 3 marine engines. The major areas for study include (1) marine harbor areas, and (2) rail terminals and rail yards.  This study is a screening level analysis, and as such, is an inexact tool and not appropriate for regulatory decision-making; it is used for illustrative purposes only.

INTRODUCTION

In a previous memorandum we summarized the methodology used to identify and digitize diesel particulate matter (DPM) concentration isopleths surrounding 47 US harbors and 37 US rail yards and terminals. The isopleths were selected to correspond to two DPM concentrations above urban background, 2.0 µg/m3 and 0.2 µg/m3.

As explained in the previous memorandum, EPA believes that areas of the U.S. that have relatively higher annual exposure levels for diesel exhaust, certainly those areas with annual

average exposure levels above 2.0 µg/m3, should be aware of EPA’s scientific findings regarding elevated risks.

The isopleths were estimated with air dispersion modeling for marine harbor areas, and a process for scaling from published rail yard modeling reports for rail yards and terminals. Both estimation methods are subject to important uncertainties that are discussed in the previous memorandum. However, because of the relatively larger uncertainties in the method used to make the rail yard concentration estimates, both high and low estimates are provided.

In this memorandum we summarize the methodology for assessing the size and characteristics of populations and households that reside within the area encompassed by the two DPM concentration isopleths above urban background, 2.0 µg/m3 and 0.2 µg/m3, and present the results.

METHODS

In order to estimate the populations and households residing within each concentration isopleth, a “Geospatial Process Model” (GPM) was created. This GPM is a small program that models the GIS analysis process and implements the process in a visual manner that enables the user to quickly and efficiently rerun the model as the process evolves. GPM ensures that the final product is defensible, dependable, repeatable, and visual.

All population analysis, including the demographic analysis discussed below, was conducted at the Census Block Group level of spatial resolution.

The GPM:

Selects the US Census Block Groups that intersect the isopleths;

performs a proportional overlay function on those Census Block Groups that are not completely within the isopleth;

extracts the Census Block Group population and household variables (see Demographic Categories section);

and sums the Census Block Group populations and households within each isopleth.

DEMOGRAPHIC CATEGORIES

In addition to the total population and number of households residing within each isopleth, the demographic compositions are also of interest for the purposes of assessing potential environmental justice and children’s health issues.

The primary demographic categories of interest are:

Age,

Income level, and

Race/ethnicity.

Age

The populations for the following age groupings were calculated for this analysis by combining Census Block Group data from the indicated variables extracted from the 2000 US Census Summary File 3.

0-4 	(P008003-P008007, P008042-P008046)

5-17 	(P008008-P008020, P008047-P008059)

18-64 	(P008021-P008034, P008050-P008073)

65+ 	(P008035- P008040, P008074-P008079)

Household Income

The households for the following annual income groupings (1999) were calculated for this analysis by combining Census Block Group data from the indicated variables extracted from the 2000 US Census Summary File 3.

Total Households		(P052001)

Less than $10,000		(P052002)

$10,000 - $29,999		(P052003-P052006)

$30,000 or more		(P052007-P052017)

Race/Ethnicity

The following race/ethnicity variables were extracted from the 2000 US Census Summary File 3.

Total Population 							(P007001)

Non-Hispanic White alone 					(P007003)

Non-Hispanic Black or African-American alone 			(P007004)

Non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native alone 		(P007005)

Non-Hispanic Asian alone 					(P007006)

Non-Hispanic Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander alone 	(P007007)

Some other non-Hispanic race alone				(P007008)

Two or more non-Hispanic races 				(P007009)

Hispanic or Latino 						(P007010)

RESULTS

The results of this analysis are summarized in Tables 1 through 6 for harbor areas and Table 7 through 12 for rail yards and terminals.

In addition, pie charts showing the age, income, and racial/ethnic compositions of the aggregate affected populations compared to the composition of the overall US population are presented in Figures 1 through 3 for harbor areas and Figures 4 through 6 for rail yards and terminals.

Similar pie charts for individual harbor areas and rail yards are presented in Appendix G and Appendix H, respectively. The age, income, and racial/ethnic compositions of the corresponding

metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) are also included for comparison with affected populations of facilities located in an MSA.

Total Populations

Marine Harbor Areas. The results suggest that more than 330,000 people are exposed to annual average DPM concentrations exceeding 2.0 µg/m3 above urban background levels due to harbor emissions from the 47 selected US marine harbor areas. However, most of the exposures occur at a small number of marine harbor areas, i.e., 45% at the Port of New York, about 16% at the Port of New Orleans (pre-Hurricane Katrina), and about 12% each at the Ports of Miami and Seattle. Eighteen marine harbor areas show no such exposures, and another 3 areas show less than 10 exposures each.

For the 0.2 µg/m3 DPM concentration level, the results suggest that nearly 13,000,000 people are exposed. Again, the great majority of the exposures occur at a small number of marine harbor areas: about 52% at the Port of New York, 8% at the Port of Miami, 6% at the Port of Long Beach, and 5% at the Port of Seattle.

Rail Yards. As explained above, the population analysis for the 37 selected rail yards and terminals provides an estimate only of the range of people who may be exposed due to activities at each yard (i.e., a “low-end” estimate and a “high-end” estimate), because the information available about the rail yards is limited. The single exception is the JR Davis Yard in Roseville, CA, for which air dispersion modeling results have been reported by CARB.

For the 2.0 µg/m3 concentration level, the “low-end” estimate of exposures is uniformly zero for the 36 rail yards (JR Davis Yard excluded). The aggregate “high-end” estimate (including the JR Davis Yard) is approximately 26,000. Although this number is substantially lower than the exposure estimate for marine harbor areas, it should be noted that the 37 rail yards included in this study comprise only a fraction of the total number of rail yards and terminals in the US. The yards with the 2 largest “high-end” estimates are the Proviso Yard (11%) and the Clearing Yard (10%), both in the Chicago MSA.

For the 0.2 µg/m3 DPM concentration level, the estimated number of people exposed ranges from more than 26,000 to nearly 1,500,000. Again the yards with the two largest “high-end” estimates are Chicago’s Proviso Yard (9%) and Clearing Yard (22%).

Age Composition

For both marine harbor areas and rail yards at both concentration levels, the age composition of the aggregate affected population matches closely the age composition of the overall US population.

However, for some individual facilities the young and/or the elderly are over-represented in the affected population compared to the overall US population. For example, for harbor area emissions for the Ports of Mobile AL and Port Arthur TX at the 2.0 µg/m3 concentration level, the 65+ population comprises approximately double the proportion of the affected population as it does of the non-affected population. This over-representation of 65+ populations also occurs for rail yard emissions (“high-end” estimate) from the Locomotive Maintenance Yard in Alliance, NE.

Household Income Composition

For both marine harbor areas and rail yards and terminals at both concentration levels, low income households are over-represented in the aggregate affected population compared to the overall US population. For example, for the 2.0 µg/m3 concentration level, households with 1999 incomes below $10,000 comprise a proportion of the affected population that is about 80% higher for harbors and 40% higher for rail yards (“high-end” estimate) than their proportion of the overall US population.

For the 0.2 µg/m3 concentration level, which covers a larger area, the differences in proportions of the affected population and the overall US population are smaller.

Many individual harbors and rail yards and terminals show even more pronounced over-representation of households with incomes below $10,000 and between $10,000 and $29,999, than does the aggregate affected populations. For example, the proportions of the affected populations are approximately four times as high as the proportion in the overall US population for the Ports of Corpus Christi, TX, Baton Rouge, LA, and Texas City, TX, and the DeButts Rail Yard in Chattanooga, TN.

Racial/Ethnic Composition

For both marine harbor areas and rail yards and terminals at both concentration levels, both non-Hispanic Blacks and Hispanics are over-represented in the aggregate affected population compared to the overall US population. For example, for the 2.0 µg/m3 concentration level, non-Hispanic Blacks comprise a proportion of the affected population that is about 50% higher for harbors and twice as high for rail yards (“high-end” estimate) than their proportion of the overall US population. The corresponding values for Hispanics is more than twice as high for harbors and about 50% higher (“high-end” estimate) for rail yards. This disproportionate representation in the affected population occurs for the 0.2 µg/m3 concentration level as well.

Many individual harbors and rail yards show even more pronounced over-representation of non-Hispanic Blacks and Hispanics, with proportions of the affected populations up to more than seven times as high as the proportion in the overall US population (e.g. Ports of Gary, IN and Port Arthur, TX, Barr Rail Yard, DeButts Rail Yard, JR Davis Rail Yard, Madison Rail Yard, and Moncreif Rail Yard).

SUMMARY

The population analysis suggests that about one-third of a million Americans are exposed to annual average DPM concentrations exceeding 2.0 µg/m3 above urban background due to emissions from 47 selected marine harbor areas. However, 85% of those exposures can be attributed to four marine harbor areas: New York, New Orleans (pre-Katrina), Miami, and Seattle. Eighteen marine harbor areas are estimated to have no such exposures.

The number of people estimated to be exposed to DPM concentrations exceeding 2.0 µg/m3 above urban background due to emissions from the 37 selected rail yards ranges from approximately 200 to more than 26,000.

The population analysis suggests that nearly 13 million Americans are exposed to annual average DPM concentrations exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 above urban background due to emissions

from 47 selected marine harbor areas. In this case about 70% of the exposures can be attributed to four harbor areas: New York (more then half), Miami, Long Beach, and Seattle.

The number of people estimated to be exposed to DPM concentrations exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 above urban background due to activities at the 37 rail yards ranges from more than 26,000 to nearly 1,500,000.

For both marine harbor areas and rail yards and terminals at both concentration levels, low income households, non-Hispanic Blacks, and Hispanics are over-represented in the aggregate affected population compared to the overall US population. The over-representation ranges from 40% to 100% larger. At some individual facilities the over-representation of these populations is even more pronounced than for the aggregate populations.

Table 1. Population exposed to residential DPM concentration exceeding 2.0 µg/m3 due to harbor emissions: age composition.

Harbor	Total PopulationExposed	Age

0-4	Age

5-17	Age

18-64	Age

65+

UNITED STATES	 	7%	19%	62%	12%

TOTAL	331,883	6%	16%	66%	12%

Baltimore MD	16,641	6%	18%	58%	18%

Boston MA	1,348	5%	9%	69%	17%

Charleston SC	3,978	8%	21%	58%	12%

Chicago IL	0

Cincinnati OH	0

Cleveland OH	0

Corpus Christi TX	283	10%	22%	56%	12%

Detroit MI	0

Duluth MN	0

Freeport TX	0

Gary IN	0

Helena AR	11	7%	20%	61%	12%

Houston TX	0

Jacksonville FL	0

Lake Charles LA	4	7%	21%	62%	10%

Long Beach CA	4,435	10%	20%	66%	4%

Los Angeles CA	6,173	12%	29%	53%	6%

Louisville KY	142	10%	21%	57%	12%

Miami FL	39,609	6%	14%	64%	15%

Mobile AL	276	6%	13%	55%	26%

Mount Vernon IN	624	6%	21%	59%	14%

Nashville TN	0

New Orleans LA	51,786	6%	16%	65%	13%

New York NY	148,457	7%	17%	65%	11%

Norfolk Harbor VA	2,958	6%	12%	76%	6%

Oakland CA	6,768	9%	26%	56%	9%

Panama City FL	9	5%	14%	76%	5%

Paulsboro NJ	0

Philadelphia PA	0

Pittsburgh PA	0

Port Arthur TX	23	5%	16%	55%	24%

Port Everglades FL	0

Portland ME	620	6%	16%	69%	9%

Portland OR	0

Port of Baton Rouge LA	117	3%	21%	73%	3%

Port of Plaquemines LA	407	10%	24%	57%	9%

Richmond CA	0

Savannah GA	1,360	7%	16%	60%	17%

Seattle WA	38,948	3%	6%	78%	13%

South Louisiana LA	0

St Louis MO	2,425	5%	14%	73%	8%

Tacoma WA	3,151	9%	21%	64%	6%

Tampa FL	393	6%	13%	66%	15%

Texas City TX	26	5%	25%	53%	17%

Tulsa OK	113	9%	23%	60%	8%

Two Harbors MN	614	8%	17%	58%	18%

Wilmington NC	185	7%	13%	69%	12%

Table 2.  Population exposed to residential DPM concentration exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 due to harbor emissions: age composition.

Harbor	Total PopulationExposed	Age

0-4	Age

5-17	Age

18-64	Age

65+

UNITED STATES	 	7%	19%	62%	12%

TOTAL	12,858,482	6%	17%	64%	12%

Baltimore MD	330,415	6%	19%	61%	14%

Boston MA	273,315	6%	14%	68%	13%

Charleston SC	67,423	6%	15%	66%	13%

Chicago IL	32,543	9%	24%	57%	10%

Cincinnati OH	38,855	7%	17%	68%	9%

Cleveland OH	5,919	8%	20%	62%	9%

Corpus Christi TX	16,874	8%	19%	58%	15%

Detroit MI	5,579	9%	23%	59%	10%

Duluth MN	8,809	6%	13%	65%	17%

Freeport TX	6,137	10%	27%	56%	7%

Gary IN	39,649	9%	21%	55%	15%

Helena AR	2,442	9%	26%	53%	11%

Houston TX	113,162	9%	24%	59%	8%

Jacksonville FL	4,375	6%	23%	60%	10%

Lake Charles LA	17,095	7%	20%	60%	14%

Long Beach CA	793,177	8%	22%	61%	8%

Los Angeles CA	381,438	7%	21%	61%	11%

Louisville KY	3,425	9%	22%	58%	10%

Miami FL	1,042,679	6%	17%	62%	15%

Mobile AL	59,115	8%	22%	56%	13%

Mount Vernon IN	7,630	6%	20%	60%	15%

Nashville TN	823	8%	19%	60%	14%

New Orleans LA	496,724	6%	19%	62%	12%

New York NY	6,715,287	6%	17%	65%	12%

Norfolk Harbor VA	144,983	7%	16%	67%	11%

Oakland CA	397,745	6%	17%	66%	11%

Panama City FL	114	5%	14%	74%	7%

Paulsboro NJ	55,010	8%	25%	58%	9%

Philadelphia PA	351,327	5%	16%	65%	13%

Pittsburgh PA	71,825	5%	14%	66%	15%

Port Arthur TX	8,261	7%	20%	55%	18%

Port Everglades FL	26,760	4%	10%	71%	15%

Portland ME	43,403	5%	12%	70%	13%

Portland OR	107,133	5%	12%	73%	10%

Port of Baton Rouge LA	62,193	8%	22%	61%	10%

Port of Plaquemines LA	2,606	9%	24%	59%	8%

Richmond CA	20,958	9%	20%	62%	9%

Savannah GA	59,458	7%	19%	61%	13%

Seattle WA	648,947	5%	12%	71%	12%

South Louisiana LA	8,621	7%	21%	59%	13%

St Louis MO	43,650	8%	20%	61%	11%

Tacoma WA	258,249	8%	20%	63%	9%

Tampa FL	46,774	6%	14%	67%	14%

Texas City TX	17,956	7%	22%	58%	13%

Tulsa OK	2,448	8%	23%	60%	8%

Two Harbors MN	2,695	7%	16%	56%	21%

Wilmington NC	14,478	7%	16%	59%	18%

Table 3.  Households exposed to residential DPM concentration exceeding 2.0 µg/m3 due to harbor emissions: income composition.

Harbor	Total Households Exposed	Income

<$10,000	Income

$10,000-$29,999	Income

>=$30,000

UNITED STATES	 	10%	26%	65%

TOTAL	140,033	18%	28%	54%

Baltimore MD	7,183	13%	33%	54%

Boston MA	695	12%	21%	67%

Charleston SC	1,528	24%	27%	49%

Chicago IL	0

	Cincinnati OH	0

	Cleveland OH	0

	Corpus Christi TX	102	39%	36%	25%

Detroit MI	0

	Duluth MN	0

	Freeport TX	0

	Gary IN	0

	Helena AR	4	22%	39%	39%

Houston TX	0

	Jacksonville FL	0

	Lake Charles LA	2	7%	30%	63%

Long Beach CA	1,596	17%	36%	47%

Los Angeles CA	1,638	27%	43%	30%

Louisville KY	52	23%	27%	50%

Miami FL	16,616	36%	30%	34%

Mobile AL	125	37%	33%	30%

Mount Vernon IN	257	8%	29%	63%

Nashville TN	0

	New Orleans LA	23,194	20%	30%	50%

New York NY	57,424	15%	26%	59%

Norfolk Harbor VA	714	4%	40%	56%

Oakland CA	2,214	30%	35%	35%

Panama City FL	2	16%	34%	50%

Paulsboro NJ	0

	Philadelphia PA	0

	Pittsburgh PA	0

	Port Arthur TX	11	32%	45%	23%

Port Everglades FL	0

	Portland ME	287	9%	42%	49%

Portland OR	0

	Port of Baton Rouge LA	41	39%	38%	23%

Port of Plaquemines LA	128	25%	27%	48%

Richmond CA	0

	Savannah GA	528	7%	32%	61%

Seattle WA	22,667	11%	23%	66%

South Louisiana LA	0

	St Louis MO	1,310	17%	30%	52%

Tacoma WA	1,107	4%	12%	83%

Tampa FL	191	5%	28%	67%

Texas City TX	11	39%	41%	20%

Tulsa OK	41	12%	26%	63%

Two Harbors MN	285	12%	35%	54%

Wilmington NC	83	12%	36%	52%

Table 4.  Households exposed to residential DPM concentration exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 due to harbor emissions: income composition.

Harbor	Total Households Exposed	Income

<$10,000	Income

$10,000-$29,999	Income

>=$30,000

UNITED STATES	 	10%	26%	65%

TOTAL	4,880,955	14%	26%	60%

Baltimore MD	130,106	14%	31%	55%

Boston MA	115,123	13%	24%	63%

Charleston SC	27,814	15%	23%	62%

Chicago IL	10,661	19%	32%	50%

Cincinnati OH	17,813	33%	35%	33%

Cleveland OH	2,304	29%	36%	35%

Corpus Christi TX	6,005	32%	41%	27%

Detroit MI	2,009	17%	36%	47%

Duluth MN	4,651	27%	42%	31%

Freeport TX	1,902	11%	31%	58%

Gary IN	15,322	25%	35%	40%

Helena AR	824	26%	42%	32%

Houston TX	34,876	11%	32%	57%

Jacksonville FL	1,552	13%	29%	58%

Lake Charles LA	6,627	11%	27%	62%

Long Beach CA	255,758	12%	28%	60%

Los Angeles CA	123,780	9%	24%	68%

Louisville KY	1,288	24%	33%	42%

Miami FL	375,561	18%	32%	49%

Mobile AL	22,346	30%	36%	34%

Mount Vernon IN	3,098	13%	27%	60%

Nashville TN	369	22%	37%	41%

New Orleans LA	197,027	20%	33%	47%

New York NY	2,533,102	14%	23%	63%

Norfolk Harbor VA	52,307	18%	33%	49%

Oakland CA	157,837	12%	24%	64%

Panama City FL	29	12%	34%	54%

Paulsboro NJ	17,550	24%	34%	41%

Philadelphia PA	146,437	21%	30%	48%

Pittsburgh PA	30,090	21%	36%	43%

Port Arthur TX	3,377	34%	41%	26%

Port Everglades FL	12,396	9%	26%	65%

Portland ME	21,076	14%	30%	56%

Portland OR	51,215	17%	31%	52%

Port of Baton Rouge LA	22,128	25%	39%	36%

Port of Plaquemines LA	816	21%	24%	55%

Richmond CA	7,685	12%	24%	64%

Savannah GA	22,720	22%	37%	41%

Seattle WA	289,489	9%	23%	68%

South Louisiana LA	2,990	18%	28%	54%

St Louis MO	19,012	23%	36%	41%

Tacoma WA	96,673	9%	25%	66%

Tampa FL	22,041	13%	23%	63%

Texas City TX	6,494	12%	35%	53%

Tulsa OK	853	7%	18%	75%

Two Harbors MN	1,163	10%	29%	61%

Wilmington NC	6,659	21%	40%	39%

Table 5. Population exposed to residential DPM concentration exceeding 2.0 µg/m3 due to harbor emissions: racial/ethnic composition.

Harbor	Total PopulationExposed	White, non-Hispanic	Black, non-Hispanic Native Amer,

non-Hispanic	Asian,

non-Hispanic	Pacific Islander,

non-Hispanic	Other,

non-Hispanic	Hispanic

UNITED STATES	 	69%	12%	1%	4%	0%	2%	13%

TOTAL	331,883	45%	19%	0%	4%	0%	3%	29%

Baltimore MD	16,641	77%	19%	0%	1%	0%	1%	1%

Boston MA	1,348	81%	3%	0%	4%	0%	2%	11%

Charleston SC	3,978	44%	51%	0%	0%	0%	2%	2%

Chicago IL	0

Cincinnati OH	0

Cleveland OH	0

Corpus Christi TX	283	22%	30%	0%	0%	0%	1%	46%

Detroit MI	0

Duluth MN	0

Freeport TX	0

Gary IN	0

Helena AR	11	57%	34%	0%	0%	0%	0%	9%

Houston TX	0

Jacksonville FL	0

Lake Charles LA	4	95%	0%	0%	0%	0%	2%	3%

Long Beach CA	4,435	20%	15%	1%	5%	1%	4%	55%

Los Angeles CA	6,173	6%	6%	1%	1%	0%	2%	82%

Louisville KY	142	84%	13%	0%	0%	0%	2%	0%

Miami FL	39,609	15%	24%	0%	1%	0%	1%	58%

Mobile AL	276	35%	63%	1%	0%	0%	0%	1%

Mount Vernon IN	624	94%	5%	0%	0%	0%	1%	0%

Nashville TN	0

New Orleans LA	51,786	53%	41%	0%	1%	0%	2%	3%

New York NY	148,457	40%	11%	0%	5%	0%	4%	40%

Norfolk Harbor VA	2,958	55%	25%	1%	10%	0%	3%	6%

Oakland CA	6,768	5%	66%	0%	7%	0%	3%	19%

Panama City FL	9	70%	26%	0%	0%	0%	0%	4%

Paulsboro NJ	0

Philadelphia PA	0

Pittsburgh PA	0

Port Arthur TX	23	6%	92%	0%	0%	0%	0%	2%

Port Everglades FL	0

Portland ME	620	90%	2%	0%	3%	0%	2%	3%

Portland OR	0

Port of Baton Rouge LA	117	14%	81%	0%	3%	0%	1%	0%

Port of Plaquemines LA	407	44%	51%	1%	0%	0%	1%	2%

Richmond CA	0

Savannah GA	1,360	65%	32%	0%	0%	0%	1%	2%

Seattle WA	38,948	81%	4%	1%	6%	0%	4%	4%

South Louisiana LA	0

St Louis MO	2,425	61%	33%	0%	0%	0%	4%	2%

Tacoma WA	3,151	73%	6%	2%	9%	1%	5%	4%

Tampa FL	393	76%	3%	1%	2%	0%	1%	17%

Texas City TX	26	8%	68%	0%	0%	0%	0%	24%

Tulsa OK	113	75%	2%	9%	1%	0%	9%	5%

Two Harbors MN	614	93%	0%	5%	0%	0%	0%	1%

Wilmington NC	185	84%	8%	2%	0%	0%	3%	3%

Table 6. Population exposed to residential DPM concentration exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 due to harbor emissions: racial/ethnic composition.

Harbor	Total PopulationExposed	White, non-Hispanic	Black, non-Hispanic Native Amer,

non-Hispanic	Asian,

non-Hispanic	Pacific Islander,

non-Hispanic	Other,

non-Hispanic	Hispanic

UNITED STATES	 	69%	12%	1%	4%	0%	2%	13%

TOTAL	12,858,482	41%	23%	0%	9%	0%	3%	23%

Baltimore MD	330,415	57%	38%	0%	1%	0%	1%	2%

Boston MA	273,315	66%	5%	0%	7%	0%	4%	17%

Charleston SC	67,423	73%	24%	0%	1%	0%	1%	1%

Chicago IL	32,543	13%	43%	0%	0%	0%	1%	42%

Cincinnati OH	38,855	51%	42%	0%	3%	0%	2%	2%

Cleveland OH	5,919	55%	32%	0%	0%	0%	3%	10%

Corpus Christi TX	16,874	15%	13%	0%	0%	0%	1%	70%

Detroit MI	5,579	68%	18%	0%	0%	0%	3%	11%

Duluth MN	8,809	86%	3%	5%	1%	0%	3%	2%

Freeport TX	6,137	36%	11%	0%	0%	0%	1%	51%

Gary IN	39,649	2%	94%	0%	0%	0%	1%	2%

Helena AR	2,442	20%	78%	0%	0%	0%	0%	1%

Houston TX	113,162	34%	10%	0%	1%	0%	1%	54%

Jacksonville FL	4,375	55%	39%	0%	1%	0%	1%	4%

Lake Charles LA	17,095	78%	17%	0%	1%	0%	1%	3%

Long Beach CA	793,177	23%	16%	0%	12%	1%	3%	44%

Los Angeles CA	381,438	29%	10%	0%	15%	1%	3%	41%

Louisville KY	3,425	86%	12%	0%	0%	0%	2%	0%

Miami FL	1,042,679	15%	17%	0%	1%	0%	2%	65%

Mobile AL	59,115	19%	79%	0%	0%	0%	1%	1%

Mount Vernon IN	7,630	96%	2%	0%	0%	0%	1%	1%

Nashville TN	823	44%	48%	0%	1%	0%	4%	3%

New Orleans LA	496,724	43%	51%	0%	1%	0%	1%	4%

New York NY	6,715,287	41%	22%	0%	11%	0%	4%	21%

Norfolk Harbor VA	144,983	43%	48%	0%	2%	0%	2%	4%

Oakland CA	397,745	31%	25%	0%	19%	1%	4%	19%

Panama City FL	114	73%	24%	0%	0%	0%	0%	3%

Paulsboro NJ	55,010	17%	50%	0%	1%	0%	1%	30%

Philadelphia PA	351,327	50%	33%	0%	7%	0%	2%	8%

Pittsburgh PA	71,825	64%	31%	0%	1%	0%	2%	1%

Port Arthur TX	8,261	2%	93%	0%	0%	0%	1%	4%

Port Everglades FL	26,760	74%	12%	0%	1%	0%	1%	11%

Portland ME	43,403	91%	2%	1%	2%	0%	2%	2%

Portland OR	107,133	69%	11%	1%	5%	0%	5%	9%

Port of Baton Rouge LA	62,193	17%	80%	0%	1%	0%	1%	1%

Port of Plaquemines LA	2,606	47%	44%	5%	0%	0%	2%	2%

Richmond CA	20,958	15%	52%	0%	8%	0%	3%	22%

Savannah GA	59,458	29%	67%	0%	1%	0%	1%	2%

Seattle WA	648,947	66%	9%	1%	13%	1%	5%	6%

South Louisiana LA	8,621	53%	44%	0%	0%	0%	1%	1%

St Louis MO	43,650	42%	50%	1%	2%	0%	3%	3%

Tacoma WA	258,249	65%	9%	2%	9%	1%	6%	8%

Tampa FL	46,774	66%	18%	0%	1%	0%	2%	12%

Texas City TX	17,956	51%	19%	0%	1%	0%	1%	27%

Tulsa OK	2,448	80%	1%	7%	1%	0%	8%	3%

Two Harbors MN	2,695	97%	0%	2%	0%	0%	0%	1%

Wilmington NC	14,478	53%	41%	1%	0%	0%	2%	3%

Table 7.  High Estimate of population exposed to residential DPM concentration exceeding 2.0 µg/m3 due to rail yard emissions: age composition.

Railyard	City	Total PopulationExposed	Age

0-4	Age

5-17	Age

18-64	Age

65+

	UNITED STATES	 	7%	19%	62%	12%

TOTAL

26,382	8%	19%	61%	12%

Argentine	Kansas City, KS 	1,224	9%	19%	57%	16%

Avon 	Indianapolis, IN 	144	7%	18%	65%	10%

Bailey 	North Platte, NE 	939	7%	22%	58%	12%

Barr	Chicago, IL 	406	12%	35%	49%	4%

Barstow	Barstow, CA 	459	10%	22%	58%	10%

Bellevue 	Bellevue, OH 	197	5%	14%	67%	14%

Bensenville	Bensenville, IL 	1,176	8%	21%	59%	11%

Blue Island	Blue Island, IL 	599	11%	24%	56%	9%

Boyle	Birmingham, AL 	42	6%	21%	61%	12%

Buckeye	Columbus, OH 	585	11%	18%	69%	2%

Clearing	Chicago, IL 	2,622	9%	20%	58%	13%

Conway	Conway, PA 	1,176	6%	16%	57%	21%

Corwith	Chicago, IL 	1,517	10%	20%	60%	10%

DeButts	Chattanooga, TN 	825	12%	26%	50%	13%

Frontier	Buffalo, NY 	1,158	6%	18%	56%	20%

Frontier Intermodal 	Buffalo, NY 	597	6%	17%	59%	19%

Galesburg 	Galesburg, IL 	877	6%	8%	70%	16%

Hinkle	Hermiston, OR 	158	8%	22%	61%	9%

Inman	Atlanta, GA 	826	5%	11%	74%	10%

J.R. Davis2	Roseville, CA 	197	10%	24%	51%	15%

Jenks Shop	N Little Rock, AR 	105	8%	21%	63%	8%

Locomotive Maintenance	Alliance, NE 	18	8%	15%	53%	25%

Locomotive Repair	Topeka, KS 	360	8%	18%	62%	12%

Madison	E St. Louis, IL 	156	7%	24%	56%	12%

Moncrief 	Jacksonville, FL 	783	6%	22%	56%	16%

Philadelphia PA 	Philadelphia, PA 	1	2%	7%	84%	7%

Pig's Eye 	Minneapolis, MN 	1,480	3%	5%	89%	3%

Proviso	Chicago, IL 	2,885	6%	21%	59%	14%

Queensgate	Cincinnati, OH 	774	8%	24%	61%	7%

Radnor	Nashville, TN 	719	7%	15%	65%	14%

Rice	Waycross, GA 	290	7%	22%	59%	12%

Schille 	Schiller Park, IL 	425	6%	17%	65%	13%

Selkirk	Selkirk, NY	316	5%	21%	62%	13%

Shaffers	Roanoke, VA 	833	8%	23%	56%	13%

Spencer	Linwood, NC 	43	4%	19%	67%	9%

Stanley/Walbridge 	Toledo, OH 	150	7%	16%	64%	13%

West Colton	West Colton, CA 	1,319	9%	27%	56%	8%

Table 8.  Low and high estimates of population exposed to residential DPM concentration exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 due to rail yard emissions: age composition.

Railyard	City	Total Population Exposed	Age

0-4	Age

5-17	Age

18-64	Age

65+

	UNITED STATES

7%	19%	62%	12%

Low	High	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High

TOTAL

26,492	1,459,695	7%	7%	19%	19%	62%	62%	12%	12%

Argentine	Kansas City, KS 	602	30,717	9%	9%	19%	21%	56%	60%	16%	10%

Avon 	Indianapolis, IN 	69	11,204	6%	8%	18%	21%	65%	64%	10%	7%

Bailey 	North Platte, NE 	445	21,896	7%	7%	22%	19%	59%	59%	12%	15%

Barr	Chicago, IL 	198	40,378	12%	9%	35%	24%	49%	59%	4%	8%

Barstow	Barstow, CA 	229	15,906	11%	7%	20%	22%	60%	58%	10%	12%

Bellevue 	Bellevue, OH 	91	8,401	5%	7%	13%	20%	68%	59%	15%	14%

Bensenville	Bensenville, IL 	555	49,083	9%	7%	22%	18%	60%	62%	10%	12%

Blue Island	Blue Island, IL 	266	32,564	11%	9%	24%	25%	56%	58%	9%	8%

Boyle	Birmingham, AL 	19	1,835	6%	6%	21%	23%	60%	58%	12%	14%

Buckeye	Columbus, OH 	285	33,355	11%	9%	18%	18%	69%	67%	2%	7%

Clearing	Chicago, IL 	1,051	322,881	8%	8%	20%	21%	58%	59%	13%	12%

Conway	Conway, PA 	575	23,081	6%	6%	16%	16%	57%	58%	21%	20%

Corwith	Chicago, IL 	730	85,287	10%	10%	20%	22%	60%	61%	10%	8%

DeButts	Chattanooga, TN 	402	27,759	13%	6%	26%	18%	49%	62%	12%	14%

Frontier	Buffalo, NY 	527	46,162	6%	8%	19%	20%	56%	56%	20%	15%

Frontier Intermodal 	Buffalo, NY 	276	28,490	6%	6%	17%	15%	59%	57%	18% 23%

Galesburg 	Galesburg, IL 	406	27,117	6%	6%	8%	16%	70%	60%	16%	17%

Hinkle	Hermiston, OR 	77	4,193	8%	9%	22%	21%	61%	60%	9%	10%

Inman	Atlanta, GA 	373	79,166	5%	6%	11%	14%	73%	72%	10%	7%

Jenks Shop	N Little Rock, AR	89	20,780	9%	8%	24%	20%	52%	57%	15%	15%

J.R. Davis	Roseville, CA	14,311	14,311	8%	8%	20%	20%	63%	63%	8%	8%

Locomotive Maintenance	Alliance, NE 	9	387	8%	8%	15%	17%	53%	53%	25%	22%

Locomotive Repair	Topeka, KS 	161	14,484	8%	8%	18%	18%	62%	61%	12%	13%

Madison	E St. Louis, IL 	73	5,751	7%	9%	25%	24%	56%	53%	12%	14%

Moncrief 	Jacksonville, FL 	364	31,815	5%	7%	22%	24%	57%	55%	16%	14%

Philadelphia 	Philadelphia, PA 	0	34,644	2%	6%	7%	18%	84%	59%	7%	17%

Pig's Eye 	Minneapolis, MN 	674	58,942	3%	4%	6%	8%	88%	80%	3%	8%

Proviso	Chicago, IL 	1,322	136,876	6%	8%	21%	21%	59%	60%	14%	11%

Queensgate	Cincinnati, OH 	344	93,686	8%	7%	22%	18%	63%	66%	6%	9%

Radnor	Nashville, TN 	363	29,400	7%	6%	15%	15%	65%	63%	14%	16%

Rice	Waycross, GA 	139	11,739	6%	7%	22%	21%	59%	58%	12%	14%

Schille 	Schiller Park, IL 	205	11,047	6%	6%	17%	16%	65%	66%	13%	12%

Selkirk	Selkirk, NY	155	11,491	5%	6%	21%	22%	62%	61%	13%	11%

Shaffers	Roanoke, VA 	392	32,683	8%	7%	23%	17%	56%	61%	13%	15%

Spencer	Linwood, NC 	21	1,643	4%	6%	19%	20%	67%	65%	9%	9%

Stanley

Walbridge 	Toledo, OH 	71	5,026	7%	6%	16%	16%	64%	60%	13%	18%

West Colton	West Colton, CA 	627	55,510	9%	10%	27%	26%	56%	57%	8%	7%

Table 9. High estimate of households exposed to residential DPM concentration exceeding 2.0 µg/m3 due to rail yard emissions: income composition.

Rail Yard	City	Total Households

Exposed	Income

<$10,000	Income

$10,000-$29,999	Income

>=$30,000

	UNITED STATES	 	10%	26%	65%

TOTAL

9,204	14%	32%	54%

Argentine	Kansas City, KS 	462	17%	35%	49%

Avon 	Indianapolis, IN 	54	5%	12%	83%

Bailey 	North Platte, NE 	376	13%	39%	48%

Barr	Chicago, IL 	110	20%	32%	49%

Barstow	Barstow, CA 	181	24%	47%	29%

Bellevue 	Bellevue, OH 	94	4%	30%	66%

Bensenville	Bensenville, IL 	309	5%	22%	73%

Blue Island	Blue Island, IL 	201	17%	39%	45%

Boyle	Birmingham, AL 	15	11%	30%	58%

Buckeye	Columbus, OH 	242	3%	19%	78%

Clearing	Chicago, IL 	828	6%	22%	72%

Conway	Conway, PA 	471	9%	35%	56%

Corwith	Chicago, IL 	454	9%	31%	60%

DeButts	Chattanooga, TN 	307	39%	40%	22%

Frontier	Buffalo, NY 	522	17%	38%	45%

Frontier Intermodal 	Buffalo, NY 	264	14%	36%	50%

Galesburg 	Galesburg, IL 	301	22%	44%	34%

Hinkle	Hermiston, OR 	54	5%	33%	62%

Inman	Atlanta, GA 	245	22%	31%	47%

J.R. Davis3	Roseville, CA 	72	27%	38%	35%

Jenks Shop	N Little Rock, AR 	40	8%	25%	67%

Locomotive Maintenance	Alliance, NE 	8	10%	34%	56%

Locomotive Repair	Topeka, KS 	134	14%	48%	38%

Madison	East St. Louis, MO 	58	27%	37%	36%

Moncrief 	Jacksonville, FL 	299	24%	35%	40%

Philadelphia PA 	Philadelphia, PA 	1	15%	37%	48%

Pig's Eye 	Minneapolis, MN 	517	19%	38%	43%

Proviso	Chicago, IL 	927	4%	21%	75%

Queensgate	Cincinnati, OH 	211	32%	39%	29%

Radnor	Nashville, TN 	315	7%	34%	59%

Rice	Waycross, GA 	115	32%	35%	33%

Schille 	Schiller Park, IL 	153	6%	25%	69%

Selkirk	Selkirk, NY	122	2%	21%	77%

Shaffers	Roanoke, VA 	315	25%	42%	32%

Spencer	Linwood, NC 	16	8%	19%	73%

Stanley/Walbridge 	Toledo, OH 	66	10%	27%	62%

West Colton	West Colton, CA 	347	8%	31%	60%

Table 10. Low and high estimates of households exposed to residential DPM concentration exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 due to rail yard emissions: income composition.

Rail Yard	City	Total Households

Exposed	Income

<$10,000	Income

$10,000-$29,999	Income

>=$30,000

	UNITED STATES

10%	26%	65%

Low	High	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High

TOTAL

9,634	523,277	13%	13%	29%	29%	58%	58%

Argentine	Kansas City, KS 	228	11,367	17%	14%	35%	35%	48%	51%

Avon 	Indianapolis, IN 	26	4,080	6%	3%	12%	13%	82%	84%

Bailey 	North Platte, NE 	179	9,046	13%	10%	39%	33%	48%	57%

Barr	Chicago, IL 	54	13,605	20%	14%	32%	28%	49%	58%

Barstow	Barstow, CA 	92	5,792	25%	12%	48%	31%	27%	57%

Bellevue 	Bellevue, OH 	45	3,339	4%	6%	30%	27%	66%	67%

Bensenville	Bensenville, IL 	142	16,500	4%	6%	22%	19%	74%	74%

Blue Island	Blue Island, IL 	89	10,864	16%	11%	39%	30%	45%	59%

Boyle	Birmingham, AL 	7	693	11%	18%	31%	37%	58%	45%

Buckeye	Columbus, OH 	118	13,700	3%	5%	19%	21%	77%	75%

Clearing	Chicago, IL 	340	104,111	6%	8%	23%	24%	71%	68%

Conway	Conway, PA 	230	9,548	9%	11%	35%	34%	56%	56%

Corwith	Chicago, IL 	219	22,134	8%	9%	31%	29%	60%	62%

DeButts	Chattanooga, TN 	148	10,348	41%	24%	39%	38%	20%	38%

Frontier	Buffalo, NY 	235	19,365	17%	23%	38%	37%	45%	40%

Frontier Intermodal 	Buffalo, NY 	122	12,791	14%	13%	36%	38%	50%	50%

Galesburg 	Galesburg, IL 	140	11,060	22%	12%	45%	36%	34%	52%

Hinkle	Hermiston, OR 	26	1,501	5%	6%	32%	33%	62%	61%

Inman	Atlanta, GA 	112	28,283	23%	19%	30%	29%	47%	52%

Jenks Shop	N Little Rock, AR	32	8,633	22%	22%	40%	35%	37%	43%

J.R. Davis	Roseville, CA	5,378	5,378	6%	6%	21%	21%	73%	73%

Locomotive Maintenance	Alliance, NE 	4	166	9%	10%	35%	33%	56%	57%

Locomotive Repair	Topeka, KS 	61	5,885	14%	19%	49%	42%	37%	39%

Madison	E St. Louis, IL 	27	2,199	27%	29%	37%	35%	36%	37%

Moncrief 	Jacksonville, FL 	139	11,820	25%	22%	35%	41%	40%	37%

Philadelphia 	Philadelphia, PA 	0	13,553	15%	15%	37%	32%	48%	54%

Pig's Eye 	Minneapolis, MN 	226	24,335	19%	19%	37%	33%	44%	48%

Proviso	Chicago, IL 	425	45,096	4%	6%	21%	20%	75%	75%

Queensgate	Cincinnati, OH 	90	40,111	33%	28%	38%	35%	29%	37%

Radnor	Nashville, TN 	159	13,182	8%	8%	34%	29%	58%	63%

Rice	Waycross, GA 	55	4,610	33%	25%	34%	41%	33%	35%

Schille 	Schiller Park, IL 	74	4,008	6%	7%	25%	23%	69%	70%

Selkirk	Selkirk, NY	60	4,232	2%	2%	21%	18%	77%	81%

Shaffers	Roanoke, VA 	148	13,874	25%	19%	42%	38%	32%	43%

Spencer	Linwood, NC 	8	594	8%	7%	19%	23%	73%	70%

Stanley

Walbridge 	Toledo, OH 	31	2,184	10%	9%	27%	30%	63%	61%

West Colton	West Colton, CA 	165	15,289	8%	9%	31%	29%	60%	62%

Table 11. High estimate of population exposed to residential DPM concentration exceeding 2.0 µg/m3 due to rail yard emissions: racial/ethnic composition.

Rail Yard	City	Total PopulationExposed	White, non-Hispanic	Black, non-Hispanic	Native Amer,

non-Hispanic	Asian,

non-Hispanic	Pacific Islander,

non-Hispanic	Other,

non-Hispanic	Hispanic

	UNITED STATES	 	69%	12%	1%	4%	0%	2%	13%

TOTAL

26,382	50%	24%	0%	3%	0%	2%	21%

Argentine	Kansas City, KS 	1,224	52%	1%	0%	1%	0%	1%	46%

Avon 	Indianapolis, IN 	144	98%	1%	0%	0%	0%	1%	0%

Bailey 	North Platte, NE 	939	91%	1%	0%	0%	0%	1%	6%

Barr	Chicago, IL 	406	3%	92%	0%	0%	0%	2%	3%

Barstow	Barstow, CA 	459	34%	6%	2%	4%	0%	3%	51%

Bellevue 	Bellevue, OH 	197	93%	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%	6%

Bensenville	Bensenville, IL 	1,176	37%	0%	0%	14%	0%	4%	45%

Blue Island	Blue Island, IL 	599	16%	69%	0%	0%	0%	3%	12%

Boyle	Birmingham, AL 	42	84%	13%	0%	0%	0%	0%	3%

Buckeye	Columbus, OH 	585	84%	5%	0%	4%	0%	2%	4%

Clearing	Chicago, IL 	2,622	49%	4%	0%	2%	0%	4%	41%

Conway	Conway, PA 	1,176	96%	3%	0%	0%	0%	1%	0%

Corwith	Chicago, IL 	1,517	28%	2%	0%	3%	0%	1%	65%

DeButts	Chattanooga, TN 	825	11%	86%	1%	0%	0%	2%	1%

Frontier	Buffalo, NY 	1,158	78%	19%	0%	1%	0%	1%	1%

Frontier Intermodal 	Buffalo, NY 	597	97%	1%	0%	1%	0%	1%	0%

Galesburg 	Galesburg, IL 	877	79%	9%	0%	3%	0%	3%	5%

Hinkle	Hermiston, OR 	158	72%	0%	1%	1%	0%	1%	25%

Inman	Atlanta, GA 	826	22%	72%	0%	0%	0%	0%	5%

J.R. Davis4	Roseville, CA 	197	7%	89%	0%	0%	0%	3%	1%

Jenks Shop	N Little Rock, AR 	105	64%	3%	0%	2%	0%	2%	28%

Locomotive Maintenance	Alliance, NE 	18	93%	0%	5%	0%	0%	0%	2%

Locomotive Repair	Topeka, KS 	360	50%	10%	2%	0%	0%	3%	36%

Madison	East St. Louis, IL 	156	7%	90%	0%	0%	0%	2%	2%

Moncrief 	Jacksonville, FL 	783	4%	95%	1%	0%	0%	0%	0%

Philadelphia PA 	Philadelphia, PA 	1	19%	69%	1%	5%	0%	0%	6%

Pig's Eye 	Minneapolis, MN 	1,480	74%	7%	1%	11%	0%	4%	3%

Proviso	Chicago, IL 	2,885	37%	40%	0%	2%	0%	1%	20%

Queensgate	Cincinnati, OH 	774	36%	57%	0%	0%	0%	4%	2%

Radnor	Nashville, TN 	719	77%	8%	0%	4%	0%	3%	8%

Rice	Waycross, GA 	290	64%	30%	0%	0%	0%	0%	6%

Schille 	Schiller Park, IL 	425	70%	1%	0%	6%	0%	2%	21%

Selkirk	Selkirk, NY	316	93%	2%	0%	3%	0%	1%	1%

Shaffers	Roanoke, VA 	833	27%	68%	0%	1%	0%	3%	1%

Spencer	Linwood, NC 	43	97%	2%	0%	0%	0%	2%	0%

Stanley/Walbridge 	Toledo, OH 	150	95%	1%	0%	0%	0%	2%	2%

West Colton	West Colton, CA 	1,319	28%	8%	0%	2%	0%	1%	60%

Table 12. Population exposed to residential DPM concentration exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 due to rail yard emissions: racial/ethnic composition.

Rail Yard	City	Total Population Exposed	White, non-Hispanic	Black, non-Hispanic	Native Amer,

non-Hispanic	Asian,

non-Hispanic	Pacific Islander,

non-Hispanic	Other,

non-Hispanic	Hispanic

	UNITED STATES

69%	12%	1%	4%	0%	2%	13%

Low	High	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High

TOTAL

26,492	1,459,695	50%	50%	26%	26%	0%	0%	2%	2%	0%	0%	2%	2%	19%	19%

Argentine	Kansas City, KS 	602	30,717	51%	55%	1%	11%	0%	1%	1%	2%	0%	0% 1%	2%	47%	29%

Avon 	Indianapolis, IN 	69	11,204	98%	94%	1%	1%	0%	0%	0%	1%	0%	0%	1%	2% 0%	2%

Bailey 	North Platte, NE 	445	21,896	92%	92%	1%	1%	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%	1% 1%	6%	6%

Barr	Chicago, IL 	198	40,378	3%	14%	92%	70%	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%	2%	2%	3% 14%

Barstow	Barstow, CA 	229	15,906	32%	45%	6%	8%	2%	2%	4%	3%	0%	1%	3%	3% 53%	38%

Bellevue 	Bellevue, OH 	91	8,401	93%	97%	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%	0% 7%	2%

Bensenville	Bensenville, IL 	555	49,083	34%	58%	0%	1%	0%	0%	15%	4%	0%	0% 4%	2%	46%	34%

Blue Island	Blue Island, IL 	266	32,564	16%	17%	68%	70%	0%	0%	0%	0%	0% 0%	3%	1%	13%	11%

Boyle	Birmingham, AL 	19	1,835	83%	69%	14%	28%	0%	0%	0%	1%	0%	0%	0%	1% 3%	1%

Buckeye	Columbus, OH 	285	33,355	84%	86%	5%	4%	0%	0%	4%	4%	0%	0%	2%	2% 4%	4%

Clearing	Chicago, IL 	1,051	322,881	52%	47%	5%	22%	0%	0%	2%	1%	0%	0%	4% 2%	37%	28%

Conway	Conway, PA 	575	23,081	96%	93%	3%	5%	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%	1%	1%	0% 1%

Corwith	Chicago, IL 	730	85,287	28%	21%	2%	4%	0%	0%	3%	2%	0%	0%	1%	1% 65%	73%

DeButts	Chattanooga, TN 	402	27,759	11%	31%	85%	65%	1%	0%	0%	1%	0%	0%	2% 1%	1%	2%

Frontier	Buffalo, NY 	527	46,162	76%	57%	20%	38%	0%	0%	1%	1%	0%	0%	1%	2% 1%	2%

Frontier Intermodal 	Buffalo, NY 	276	28,490	97%	94%	1%	3%	0%	0%	1%	0% 0%	0%	1%	1%	0%	1%

Galesburg 	Galesburg, IL 	406	27,117	79%	85%	9%	8%	0%	0%	3%	1%	0%	0%	3% 2%	5%	5%

Hinkle	Hermiston, OR 	77	4,193	72%	77%	0%	0%	1%	1%	1%	0%	0%	0%	1%	1%	25% 20%

Inman	Atlanta, GA 	373	79,166	23%	34%	71%	56%	0%	0%	0%	4%	0%	0%	0%	1%	5% 4%

Jenks Shop	N Little Rock, AR	89	20,780	7%	38%	89%	58%	0%	0%	0%	1%	0%	0% 3%	2%	1%	1%

J.R. Davis	Roseville, CA	14,311	14,311	71%	71%	3%	3%	0%	0%	3%	3%	0%	0% 3%	3%	19%	19%

Locomotive Maintenance	Alliance, NE 	9	387	93%	91%	0%	0%	5%	5%	0%	1%	0% 0%	0%	0%	2%	2%

Locomotive Repair	Topeka, KS 	161	14,484	50%	55%	9%	16%	2%	2%	0%	0%	0% 0%	3%	3%	36%	24%

Madison	East St. Louis, MO 	73	5,751	7%	24%	90%	73%	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%	2% 1%	2%	1%

Moncrief 	Jacksonville, FL 	364	31,815	4%	10%	95%	88%	1%	0%	0%	0%	0%	0% 0%	1%	0%	1%

Philadelphia 	Philadelphia, PA 	0	34,644	19%	85%	69%	6%	1%	0%	5%	4%	0% 0%	0%	2%	6%	3%

Pig's Eye 	Minneapolis, MN 	674	58,942	74%	69%	7%	12%	1%	1%	11%	9%	0%	0% 4%	4%	3%	4%

Proviso	Chicago, IL 	1,322	136,876	36%	45%	40%	30%	0%	0%	2%	2%	0%	0%	1% 1%	21%	22%

Queensgate	Cincinnati, OH 	344	93,686	38%	51%	57%	42%	0%	0%	0%	2%	0%	0% 4%	2%	1%	2%

Radnor	Nashville, TN 	363	29,400	76%	77%	8%	10%	0%	0%	4%	4%	0%	0%	3%	2% 8%	7%

Rice	Waycross, GA 	139	11,739	65%	45%	28%	51%	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%	1%	6% 3%

Schille 	Schiller Park, IL 	205	11,047	70%	69%	1%	1%	0%	0%	6%	6%	0%	0% 2%	3%	21%	21%

Selkirk	Selkirk, NY	155	11,491	93%	94%	2%	2%	0%	0%	3%	1%	0%	0%	1%	1%	1% 1%

Shaffers	Roanoke, VA 	392	32,683	27%	51%	68%	44%	0%	0%	1%	1%	0%	0%	3%	3% 1%	1%

Spencer	Linwood, NC 	21	1,643	97%	89%	2%	4%	0%	0%	0%	2%	0%	0%	2%	2%	0% 3%

Stanley

Walbridge 	Toledo, OH 	71	5,026	95%	97%	1%	1%	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%	2%	1%	2% 2%

West Colton	West Colton, CA 	627	55,510	28%	26%	8%	10%	0%	0%	2%	2%	0%	0% 1%	2%	60%	60%

Figure 1. Age composition of aggregate populations exposed to residential DPM concentration thresholds due to harbor emissions.

Figure 2. Income composition of aggregate households exposed to residential DPM concentration thresholds due to harbor emissions.

Figure 3. Racial/ethnic composition of aggregate populations exposed to residential DPM concentration thresholds due to harbor emissions.

Figure 4.  Age composition of aggregate populations exposed to residential DPM concentration thresholds due to rail yard and terminal emissions. (Low estimate for >2.0 µg/m3 is zero.)

Figure 5. Income composition of aggregate households exposed to residential DPM concentration thresholds due to rail yard and terminal emissions. (Low estimate for >2.0 µg/m3 is zero.)

Figure 6. Racial/ethnic composition of aggregate populations exposed to residential DPM concentration thresholds due to rail yard and terminal emissions. (Low estimate for >2.0 µg/m3 is zero.)

 Mobile Source Air Toxics Rule (Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources; 72 FR 8428, February 26, 2007) Regulatory Impact Analysis Chapter 3, “Air Quality and Resulting Health and Welfare Effects of Air Pollution from Mobile Sources.”   HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/toxics/420r07002.pdf"  http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/toxics/420r07002.pdf

 State of California Air Resources Board.  Roseville Rail Yard Study. Stationary Source Division, October 14, 2004. This document is available electronically at:   HYPERLINK "http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/rrstudy.htm"  http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/rrstudy.htm

 State of California Air Resources Board.  Diesel Particulate Matter Exposure Assessment Study for the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, April 2006.  This document is available electronically at:    HYPERLINK "http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/marine2005/portstudy0406.pdf"  http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/marine2005/portstudy0406.pdf

 ICF International. September 28, 2007. Estimation of diesel particulate matter concentration isopleths for marine harbor areas and rail yards.  Memorandum to EPA under Work Assignment Number 0-3, Contract Number EP-C-06-094.

 A block group (BG) is a cluster of census blocks. (Census blocks are areas bounded on all sides by visible features, such as streets, roads, streams, and railroad tracks, and by invisible boundaries, such as city, town, township, and county limits, property lines, and short, imaginary extensions of streets and roads.) BGs generally contain between 600 and 3,000 people, with an optimum size of 1,500 people. BGs on American Indian reservations, off reservation trust lands, and special places must contain a minimum of 300 people.

 For the “low-end” estimate, more than half (54%) reside near the JR Davis Yard in Roseville, CA. However, this result is misleading, since the value for JR Davis is actually a “best estimate” based on air dispersion modeling performed for CARB, rather than a “low-end” estimate.

 Low estimate is uniformly zero, except for the JR Davis Yard. The value indicated for the JR Davis Yard is a best estimate based on air quality modeling performed by the yard owner for CARB, rather than a high estimate.

 Low estimate is uniformly zero, except for the JR Davis Yard. The value indicated for the JR Davis Yard is a best estimate based on air quality modeling performed by the yard owner for CARB, rather than a high estimate.

 Low estimate is uniformly zero, except for the JR Davis Yard. The value indicated for the JR Davis Yard is a best estimate based on air quality modeling performed by the yard owner for CARB, rather than a high estimate.

Page   PAGE  2  of   NUMPAGES  28

Estimation of DPM population exposure near selected harbor areas and rail yards

ICF International	September 28, 2007

  www. icfi.com

ICF International	September 28, 2007

Page   PAGE  16  of   NUMPAGES  23

Estimation of DPM population exposure near harbors and rail yards

ICF International	September 26,2007

  www. icfi.com