DOCSLIB.ORG

Drayage Truck Regulation Port Informational Packet

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Drayage Truck Regulation Port Informational Packet Drayage Truck Regulation Website The Air Resources Board administers a website devoted to the drayage truck regulation. The web address is: http://www.arb.ca.gov/drayagetruck . Drayage Truck Regulation Website Screenshot Rev. 6/2008 In addition to background information and status updates located in the main body of the page, important drayage truck links are listed in the left-hand column. Descriptions of the ‘Local Links’ Background – Links to the drayage truck regulation main page Contacts – Staff contact information Diesel Risk Reduction Plan – Link to an ARB website describing a plan that drove the development of the Drayage Truck Regulation Forms and Applications – Link to all forms and applications. Including: DTR Application, Port Exemption and Truck Extension Documents – Repository of Drayage Truck Regulation development documents, pamphlets, and public outreach materials Drayage Truck Registry (DTR) - Link to the DTR, including instructional; information, registering trucks, and checking compliance Fact Sheet – These are brief documents about the regulation Frequently Asked Questions – Questions and answers concerning all aspects of the regulation Goods Movement and Ports - Link to an ARB website describing a plan that drove the development of the Drayage Truck Regulation Join E-mail List – This is an email list that is used to broadcast important information about the regulation. Please visit this site to subscribe to the email list and view previous broadcasts. Meetings/Workshops – Lists upcoming public drayage truck regulation meetings and workshops Presentations – An archive of PowerPoint presentations Regulatory Documents – A related website containing official regulatory efforts such as staff reports, regulatory language, and the status of the regulation Related Links – Links to other drayage truck programs (other than ARB) Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies (VDECS) – Website listing ARB verified emission control strategies Rev. 6/2008 Contact Info: Quick Reference State Drayage Truck Regulation: Drayage Truck Main Website: http://www.arb.ca.gov/drayagetruck Regulation, Applicability, Exemptions, 1-Year Truck Extensions, Other Questions: Mike Sutherland California Air Resources Board 916-327-5609 Air Pollution Specialist 1001 I Street Fax: 916-445-5023 Sacramento, California, 95812 [email protected] John Gruszecki, P.E. California Air Resources Board 916-327-5601 Staff Air Pollution Specialist 1001 I Street Fax: 916-445-5023 Sacramento, California, 95812 [email protected] Drayage Truck Registry (DTR): Jesica Johnston California Air Resources Board 916-327-5608 Air Pollution Specialist 1001 I Street Fax: 916-445-5023 Sacramento, California, 95812 [email protected] Air Resources Board Approved Retrofit Technologies: ARB Verified Technologies Website: http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/vt/cvt.htm For Installation Questions – Please Contact Retrofit Manufacturer Funding: Note: The following are contacts for Proposition 1B funding programs only. There may be other statewide or local funding programs available that are not listed on this page. Goods Movement Emission Reduction Program Website: http://www.arb.ca.gov/gmbond For questions on ARB administered proposition 1B funding, please contact: 916-444-6637 Goods Movement Emission Program Staff Fax: 916-327-8524 Reduction Program [email protected] Trade Corridor Staff Liaisons: Bay Area Catherine Cardozo, Air Pollution Specialist 916- 322-1502 Fax: 916-327-8524 [email protected] Central Valley Ajay Mangat, Air Resources Engineer 916-324-2718 Fax: 916-327-8524 [email protected] Los Angeles/ Inland Empire Michael Ginty, Air Resources Engineer 916-324-7901 Fax: 916-327-8524 [email protected] San Diego/Border Region Luis Woodhouse, Air Pollution Specialist 916-322-7298 Fax: 916-327-8524 [email protected] Rev. 6/2008 Drayage Truck Regulation Basic Stakeholder Responsibilities Note : The following are state minimums. It is possible that local entities (such as air districts or ports) have more restrictive local requirements for drayage trucks. In those cases, the more restrictive requirements take precedence as long as the state standards are met. Please check with your local air districts, ports, and rail yards to see if more stringent requirements apply. Truck Drivers: Provide the motor carrier contact information to enforcement officer or port and rail yard authority when requested Truck Owners: Ensure truck meets emission standards by deadline dates Register truck in the Drayage Truck Registry (DTR) Ensure the truck driver provides the motor carrier contact information to enforcement personnel when requested Ensure all emission control technologies on the truck are installed correctly and working properly Motor Carriers: Provide a copy of the regulation or ARB summarized version to each truck owner Ensure trucks they dispatch are compliant with emission standards and DTR requirements Ensure truck drivers relay motor carrier contact information to enforcement personnel if requested Keep truck dispatch records for 5 years Terminals and Rail Yards: Collect information as specified in the regulation from all non-compliant trucks entering their facilities Relay the non-compliant truck information to their respective port or rail authorities according to a set quarterly schedule as specified in the regulation Port and Rail Authorities: Collect non-compliant truck information from terminals and rail yards and report it to the ARB according to a set quarterly schedule as specified in the regulation Rev. 6/2008 Truck Requirements by Engine Model Year All Ports All Intermodal Rail Yards Ports of: • Benicia • Crockett • Hueneme • Humboldt Bay Ports of: Truck Engine Model • Oakland • Long Beach* Year • Pittsburg • Los Angeles* • Redwood City • Richmond • Sacramento • San Francisco • San Diego • Stockton 1980 and older 1981 1982 1983 1984 Prohibited Starting Jan 1, 2010 Banned Starting Oct 1, 2008 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 Prohibited Starting Jan 1, 2010 Banned Starting Jan 1, 2010 1992 1993 1994 Starting Jan 1, 2010, Starting Jan 1, 2010, 1995 Reduce NOx emissions by 25% Reduce PM emissions by 85% 1996 and (e.g. install a DPF) 1997 Reduce PM emissions by 85% 1998 AND 1999 AND 2000 Starting Jan 1, 2014, Starting Jan 1, 2012, 2001 Meet 2007 emission standards Meet 2007 emission standards 2002 2003 2004 Starting Jan 1, 2014, Starting Jan 1, 2012, 2005 Meet 2007 emission standards Meet 2007 emission standards 2006 2007 2008 Fully Complaint Fully Complaint 2009 2010 and newer * Important! The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach have stricter requirements than the statewide drayage truck rule. Please contact the ports for further information on meeting their standards and requirements . Rev. 6/2008 Truck Requirements by Port Truck Requirements to Enter California’s Ports and Intermodal Rail Yards Ports / Intermodal Truck Requirements Prohibited Trucks Registry Requirements Rail Yards All Drayage trucks must comply with Intermodal rail yards both Phase 1 and 2 requirements. off port property Phase 1 : By December 31, 2009, all drayage trucks must be equipped with either (A) or (B) or (C): Ports of: • Benicia (A) 1994 – 2003 model year engine certified to California • or federal emission standards and a level 3 VDECS Crockett for PM emissions; After Dec. 31, 2009 , • Hueneme Must Register with ARB’s 1993 and older trucks are • Humboldt Bay (B) 2004 or newer model year engine certified to ‘Drayage Truck Registry’ no longer legally allowed California or federal emission standards. prior to September 30, 2009. • Oakland on port or rail yard • http://www.arb.ca.gov/draqyagetruck Pittsburg (C) 1994 or newer model year engine that meets or property • Redwood City exceeds 2007 model year California or federal • Richmond emission standards. • Sacramento • San Francisco Phase 2 : After December 31, 2013, all drayage trucks must • San Diego be equipped with a 1994 or newer model year engine that • Stockton meets or exceeds 2007 model year California or federal emission standards. Page 1 of 2 Rev. 6/2008 Ports Truck Requirements Banned Trucks Registry Requirements Progressive ban After Oct. 1, 2008 , 1988 and older trucks are no longer allowed Drayage trucks must meet the following requirements. After Jan. 1, 2010 , Enter each truck into the 1993 and older trucks ‘Port Drayage Truck Registry’ Ports of: By January 1, 2010, all 1994-2003 model year drayage trucks and • must be equipped with a retrofit that reduce NOx emissions by un-retrofitted 94-03 trucks And Long Beach* 25% and PM emissions by 85%. are no longer allowed • Los Angeles* Register with ARB’s and ‘Drayage Truck Registry’ After Jan. 1, 2012 , prior to September 30, 2009. By January 1, 2012, all model year drayage trucks must meet 1993 and older trucks http://www.arb.ca.gov/drayagetruck 2007 California and federal emission standards at a minimum and all trucks not meeting 2007 emission standards are no longer allowed * Important! The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach have stricter requirements than the statewide drayage truck rule. Please contact the ports for further information on meeting their standards . Page 2 of 2 Rev. 6/2008 Port/ Rail Yard Exemption Application Background The regulation sets emission standards for drayage trucks transporting goods used in water-borne commerce operating on port and rail yard properties. (Please see the regulation for greater detail.) However, not all port or rail yard properties are used in conjunction with water- borne commerce. As the regulation
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Salt Lake Inland Port Market Assessment Authored By: Natalie Gochnour I Director, Kem C
    Research Brief August 2016 Salt Lake Inland Port Market Assessment Authored by: Natalie Gochnour I Director, Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute Table of Contents Executive Summary Executive Summary . 1 The World Trade Center Utah contracted with the Kem Background and History . 5 C . Gardner Policy Institute to prepare a preliminary as- Research Scope and Limitations . 6 sessment of the practicality and market context for the Essential Characteristics of an Inland Port . 6 development of an inland port in Salt Lake County . The Key Findings from Scoping Interviews . 7 Gardner Policy Institute researched background informa- Port Governance . 9 tion, reviewed past local studies, inventoried inland ports Public Incentives . .. 11 of interest, conducted scoping interviews, and prepared Market Characteristics .. 12 summary information on the technical feasibility of cre- Foreign Trade Zone Status and Privileges . 14 ating an inland port in Salt Lake County . This Executive Right to Work Laws . 14 Summary includes a summary of the key findings from Labor Market Conditions . 15 the data, research, and interviews . Required Infrastructure Improvements Key Findings and off-site Improvement Costs . 16 Next Steps . 18 Our research confirmed that Salt Lake County meets many of the essential criteria for developing an inland REFERENCES . 19 port . However, there are numerous issues that will require APPENDIX A . 20 additional data collection, analysis, public discussion, Summary of past studies and, ultimately, investment . APPENDIX B . 21 We have distilled our research down into 17 key findings: History of inland port policy discussion in Utah APPENDIX C . 22 1 . Significant nationwide interest in inland port de- Salt Lake County Global Cities Initiative and velopment—Logistics hubs that combine container - Regional Export Plan ized rail, trucking interchange, and warehousing and APPENDIX D .
    [Show full text]
  • Marine Highway Projects Description
    MARINE HIGHWAY PROJECTS DESCRIPTION American Samoa Inter-Island Waterways Services Applicant: Pago Pago, Port of ............................................................................................................................................................ 4 Baton Rouge – New Orleans Shuttle Service Applicant: New Orleans, Port of ........................................................................................................................................................ 5 Bridgeport to Jefferson Port Ferry Service Applicant: Connecticut Port Authority ............................................................................................................................................... 6 Cape May – Lewes Ferry Applicant: Delaware River and Bay Authority .................................................................................................................................... 7 Chambers County – Houston Container on Barge Expansion Service Applicant: Chambers County ............................................................................................................................................................. 8 Cross Gulf Container Expansion Project Applicant: Brownsville, Port and Manatee, Port ................................................................................................................................ 9 Cross Sound Ferry Enhancement Project Applicant: I-95 Corridor Coalition ...................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Nevada Inland Ports Viability & Funding Study
    [Type a quote from the documentN orEVADA the summary of an interesting INLAND point. You can position P the ORTStext box Dr. anywhereAlan in the document. Use the Text Box Tools tab to change the formatting of the pull quote text Schlottmannbox.] Spatial Economic VIABILITY & FUNDING Concepts STUDY E SEPTEMBER 2012 X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y RCG Economics LLC 3900 Paradise Road, Suite 209 Las Vegas, Nevada 89169 www.rcg1.com Nevada Inland Ports: Executive Summary TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... ES-1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... ES-1 INLAND PORT BENEFITS .................................................................................................................... ES-2 THE STATE OF WEST COAST PORTS ..................................................................................................... ES-3 WHAT IS AN INLAND PORT? ............................................................................................................. ES-4 ATTRIBUTES OF AN INLAND PORT ...................................................................................................... ES-5 LOGISTICS/DISTRIBUTION CENTERS: BACKGROUND FOR NEVADA POLICYMAKERS ........................................ ES-8 E-COMMERCE ......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Green Marine Participants
    GREEN MARINE PARTICIPANTS *List of members as of September 17, 2021 Green Marine participants are committed to continuously improving their environmental perfor- mance. SHIP OWNERS PORTS & SEAWAY • PortsToronto • Prince Rupert Port Authority • Alaska Marine Highway System • Alabama State Port Authority • Québec Port Authority • Algoma Central Corporation • Albany Port District Commission • Saguenay Port Authority • Atlantic Towing Limited • Bécancour Waterfront • Saint John Port authority, NB • Bay Ferries Limited Industrial Park • Sept-Îles Port Authority • Bold Ocean • Belledune Port Authority • Summerside Port Corporation • British Columbia Ferry Services Inc. • Canaveral Port Authority • St. John’s Port Authority, NL • Canada Steamship Lines • Duluth Seaway Port Authority • St. Lawrence Seaway • Canfornav • Greater Lafourche Port Commission Management Corporation • Clipper Vacations • Greater Victoria Harbour Authority • Thunder Bay Port Authority • Coastal Shipping Limited • Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway • Trois-Rivières Port Authority • Croisières AML Development Corporation • Vancouver Fraser Port Authority • CSL International • Halifax Port Authority • Windsor Port Authority • CTMA Group • Hamilton-Oshawa Port Authority • Federal Fleet Services • Illinois International Port Disctrict TERMINALS & SHIPYARDS • Fednav Limited • Montréal Port Authority • Fishermen's Finest • Nanaimo Port Authority • ABC Recycling • Great Lakes Towing Company • Northwest Seaport Alliance • AltaGas Ridley Island Propane Export • Groupe Desgagnés Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • GREEN MARINE PARTICIPANTS *List of Members As of August 5, 2020 SHIP OWNERS PORTS & SEAWAY TERMINALS & SHIPYARDS
    GREEN MARINE PARTICIPANTS *List of members as of August 5, 2020 SHIP OWNERS PORTS & SEAWAY TERMINALS & SHIPYARDS • Alaska Marine Highway System • Alabama State Port Authority • ABC Recycling • AltaGas Ridley Island Propane Export Terminal • Algoma Central Corporation • Albany Port District Commission • Bécancour Waterfront • Bay Ferries Limited • Atlantic Towing Limited Industrial Park • B.C. Ferry Services Inc. (terminals & shipyards) • Bay Ferries Limited • Belledune Port Authority • Blount Boats • British Columbia Ferry Services Inc. • Canaveral Port Authority • Ceres Terminals Inc. • Canada Steamship Lines • Duluth Seaway Port Authority • DP World - Fraser Surrey • Canfornav • Greater Victoria Harbour Authority • DP World - Prince Rupert • Empire Stevedoring Company Ltd (Mtl) • Clipper Vacations • Halifax Port Authority • Hamilton-Oshawa Port Authority • Federal Marine Terminals • Coastal Shipping Limited • Illinois International Port Disctrict • G3 Canada Limited (Québec) • Croisières AML • Montréal Port Authority • G3 Canada Limited (Trois- Rivières) • CSL International • Nanaimo Port Authority • GCT Global Container Terminals Inc. • CTMA Group • Northwest Seaport Alliance • Glencore (Quebec facilities) • Port Alberni Port Authority • Great Lakes Stevedoring DBA Metro Ports • Federal Fleet Services • Great Lakes Shipyard • Fednav Limited • Port Charlottetown • Port Everglades • Groupe Desgagnés (Relais Nordik Sept-Îles) • Great Lakes Towing Company • Port Milwaukee • Groupe Somavrac - Porlier Express (Sept-Îles) • Groupe Desgagnés
    [Show full text]
  • Port Security Grant Program Round 3
    Port Security Grant Program Round 3 Grantee City State Project Priority Total Horizon Lines of Alaska, LLC Anchorage AK Physical Enhancements, Surveillance $ 256,000 Southeast Stevedoring Corporation Anchorage AK Physical Enhancements $ 45,819 Horizon Lines of Alaska, LLC Dutch Harbor AK Physical Enhancements $ 160,000 City and Borough of Juneau Juneau AK Physical Enhancements $ 94,000 LASH Corporation Kodiak AK Physical Enhancements, Surveillance $ 57,750 Big State Logistics, Inc. / Valdez Ocean Dock Valdez AK Vessel $ 45,000 City of Valdez Valdez AK Surveillance $ 100,000 Trigeant EP, Ltd. Chickasaw AL Access Controls $ 20,000 Trigeant EP, Ltd. Chickasaw AL Surveillance $ 40,000 Global Materials Services LLC Decatur AL Surveillance $ 7,658 Global American Terminals LLC Guntersville AL Access Controls $ 10,913 Olin Corporation McIntosh AL Physical Enhancements, Surveillance $ 90,000 Alabama State Port Authority Mobile AL Physical Enhancements $ 580,000 Shell Chemical LP Mobile AL Physical Enhancements $ 350,000 Access Controls, Surveillance, Physical Valero Energy Corporation Benicia CA Enhancements $ 710,400 Shell Oil Products US Carson CA Physical Enhancements $ 222,936 Shell Oil Products US Carson CA Surveillance $ 250,000 Shell Oil Products US Carson CA Surveillance $ 150,000 Shell Oil Products US Carson CA Access Controls $ 2,860 Long Beach Container Terminal, Inc. Long Beach CA Surveillance $ 627,354 Total Terminals International - Pier T, Long Beach Long Beach CA Access Controls $ 548,642 Total Terminals International - Pier T, Long Beach Long Beach CA Surveillance $ 2,029,750 Vopak Terminal Long Beach Inc Long Beach CA Access Controls $ 533,667 City of Los Angeles Harbor Department Los Angeles CA Physical Enhancements $ 1,654,546 City of Los Angeles Harbor Department Los Angeles CA Surveillance $ 3,000,000 City of Los Angeles Harbor Department Los Angeles CA Physical Enhancements $ 1,737,145 City of Los Angeles Harbor Department Los Angeles CA Physical Enhancements $ 3,000,000 Eagle Marine Services, Ltd.
    [Show full text]
  • Seaport Governance in the United States and Canada
    SEAPORT GOVERNANCE IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA By Rexford B. Sherman Director of Research and Information Services American Association of Port Authorities 1010 Duke Street Alexandria, VA 22314 SEAPORT GOVERNANCE IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA Introduction: To observers from abroad, even experienced port specialists, the seaport system of the United States might seem at first glance to be anything but a system. In other countries, port systems are typically small by comparison and commonly subject to direct control by national authority. The situation in the United States differs in several crucial respects. First is simply the size of the industry itself--183 commercial deepdraft ports dispersed along the U.S. Atlantic, Gulf, Pacific and Great Lake coasts. Included in that number, too, are the seaports of Alaska, Guam, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Saipan and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Here, unlike many countries, there is no national port authority. Rather authority is diffused throughout all three levels of government-federal, state and local. That stems from the federal character of the U.S. Constitution, which reserves certain powers for the national government and others strictly for the states. The Canadian system, by contrast, is subject to the general purview of the central government and more specifically to enactments of the national parliament. The enactment in June 1998 of the Canada Marine Act changed somewhat the character of the federal port system and permits the divestment of many ports previously administered by the Ministry of Transport to non-federal public and private entities. However, the nation’s major seaports are governed and managed by federal port authorities and ultimate statutory authority constitutionally remains with Parliament.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Port Finance Survey.Pub
    Maritime Administration Public Port Finance Survey for FY 2006 December 2008 Cover: Ports of Los Angeles & Long Beach Maritime Administration file photo: West Coast Tour Photographer—Shannon M. Russell Public Port Finance Survey − FY 2006 December 2008 U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime Administration Office of Intermodal System Development Should you have questions or comments concerning this report, please contact: Maritime Administration Office of Intermodal System Development 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE (#W21-201, MAR-540) Washington, DC 20590 Phone: 202-366-2320 Fax: 202-366-6988 E-mail: [email protected] To learn more about the Maritime Administration or the maritime industry, visit our web site at www.marad.dot.gov. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1 Participating Ports ................................................................................................. 2 Definitions of Terms .............................................................................................. 3 Operating Status ............................................................................................ 3 Port Type ........................................................................................................ 3 Ratios Used in Report..................................................................................... 4 FY 2006 Data Tables .............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Traffic Impact of an Inland Port in Hampton Roads
    TrafficTraffic ImpactImpact ofof anan InlandInland PortPort inin HamptonHampton RoadsRoads TPO T11-07 TTPORANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION September 2011 HAMPTON ROADS TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION VOTING MEMBERS Dwight L. Farmer Executive Director/Secretary CHESAPEAKE POQUOSON Alan P. Krasnoff W. Eugene Hunt, Jr. GLOUCESTER COUNTY PORTSMOUTH Christian D. Rilee Kenneth I. Wright HAMPTON SUFFOLK Molly J. Ward Linda T. Johnson ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY VIRGINIA BEACH Stan D. Clark William D. Sessoms, Jr. JAMES CITY COUNTY WILLIAMSBURG Bruce C. Goodson Clyde A. Haulman NEWPORT NEWS YORK COUNTY McKinley Price Thomas G. Shepperd, Jr. NORFOLK Paul D. Fraim MEMBERS OF THE VIRGINIA SENATE The Honorable John C. Miller The Honorable Yvonne B. Miller MEMBERS OF THE VIRGINIA HOUSE OF DELEGATES The Honorable G. Glenn Oder The Honorable John A. Cosgrove TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT COMMISSION OF HAMPTON ROADS Philip A. Shucet, President/Chief Executive Officer WILLIAMSBURG AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY Mark D. Rickards, Executive Director VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Dennis W. Heuer, District Administrator – Hampton Roads District VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF RAIL AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION Amy Inman, Manager of Transit Planning VIRGINIA PORT AUTHORITY Jerry A. Bridges, Executive Director HAMPTON ROADS TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION NON-VOTING MEMBERS CHESAPEAKE JAMES CITY COUNTY PORTSMOUTH William E. Harrell Robert C. Middaugh Kenneth L. Chandler GLOUCESTER COUNTY NEWPORT NEWS SUFFOLK Brenda G. Garton Neil A. Morgan Selena Cuffee-Glenn HAMPTON NORFOLK VIRGINIA BEACH Mary Bunting Marcus Jones James K. Spore ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY POQUOSON WILLIAMSBURG W. Douglas Caskey J. Randall Wheeler Jackson C. Tuttle YORK COUNTY James O. McReynolds FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION Irene Rico, Division Administrator – Virginia Division FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION Letitia A.
    [Show full text]
  • Green Marine – Results 2019
    2019 RESULTS 1 2 3 4 5 Monitoring of Best Integrated management New technologies Excellence systems and quantified and reduction regulations practices impacts and leadership targets INTERPRETATION NOTES COVID-19 ADAPTATION The term n.a. (not applicable) appears several times in the report’s tables The COVID-19 pandemic required an immediate halt to the scheduled because the environmental issues addressed by the program do not in person verifications of performance results, given that most of the necessarily apply to all participants. For example, a container terminal membership’s office activities had to be shifted to home-based operations doesn’t handle dry bulk commodities. An n.a. denotation could also refer and verifiers faced both travel restrictions and social distancing requirements. to a situation in which a participant does not have full control over the With the hope that most regular business activities would resume within operations on its premises. For example, a port cannot apply the Green a few months, Green Marine granted an extension from May 8 to August Marine criteria where a terminal operator is in charge of facilities. Many 8, 2020, to participants wishing to get their 2019 results verified with the port authorities oversee the leasing of port property and do not themselves feasible means of doing so. In case not, Green Marine also granted a one-year operate terminals. postponement to all participants from their respective verification due dates to be fair to all and to avoid an overabundance of required verifications next The published results indicate each participant’s self-reported and year.
    [Show full text]
  • Green Marine Participants
    GREEN MARINE PARTICIPANTS *List of members as of January 4, 2021 Green Marine participants are committed to continuously improving their environmental performance. SHIP OWNERS PORTS & SEAWAY • Québec Port Authority • Saguenay Port Authority • Alaska Marine Highway System • Alabama State Port Authority • Saint John Port authority, NB • Algoma Central Corporation • Albany Port District Commission • Sept-Îles Port Authority • Atlantic Towing Limited • Bécancour Waterfront • Summerside Port Corporation • Bay Ferries Limited Industrial Park • St. John’s Port Authority, NL • British Columbia Ferry Services Inc. • Belledune Port Authority • St. Lawrence Seaway • Canada Steamship Lines • Canaveral Port Authority Development Corporation • Canfornav • Duluth Seaway Port Authority • St. Lawrence Seaway • Clipper Vacations • Greater Victoria Harbour Authority Management Corporation • Coastal Shipping Limited • Halifax Port Authority • Thunder Bay Port Authority • Croisières AML • Hamilton-Oshawa Port Authority • Trois-Rivières Port Authority • CSL International • Illinois International Port Disctrict • Vancouver Fraser Port Authority • CTMA Group • Montréal Port Authority • Windsor Port Authority • Federal Fleet Services • Nanaimo Port Authority • Fednav Limited • Northwest Seaport Alliance TERMINALS & SHIPYARDS • Great Lakes Towing Company • Port Alberni Port Authority • Groupe Desgagnés Inc. • Port Charlottetown • ABC Recycling • Horizon Maritime • Port Everglades • AltaGas Ridley Island Propane Export • Interlake Steamship Company • Port Milwaukee
    [Show full text]
  • GREEN MARINE PARTICIPANTS *List of Members As of July 10, 2018 SHIP OWNERS PORTS & SEAWAY TERMINALS & SHIPYARDS
    GREEN MARINE PARTICIPANTS *List of members as of July 10, 2018 SHIP OWNERS PORTS & SEAWAY TERMINALS & SHIPYARDS • Algoma Central Corporation • Alabama State Port Authority • ABC Recycling • Atlantic Towing Limited • Albany Port District Commission • Bay Ferries Limited • Bay Ferries Limited • Bécancour Waterfront • BC Ferries (terminals & shipyards) • Ceres Terminals Inc. • BC Ferries Industrial Park • Belledune Port Authority • DP World - Prince Rupert • Canada Steamship Lines • Empire Stevedoring Company Ltd (Mtl) • Canfornav • Canaveral Port Authority • Cleveland-Cuyahoga County • Federal Marine Terminals • Cogema • Fraser Surrey Docks • Croisières AML Port Authority • Duluth Seaway Port Authority • G3 Canada Limited (Québec) • CSL International • Greater Victoria Harbour Authority • G3 Canada Limited (Trois- Rivières) • CTMA Group • GCT Global Container Terminals Inc. • Halifax Port Authority • Desgagnés • Glencore (Quebec facilities) • Hamilton Port Authority • Federal Fleet Services • Great Lakes Shipyard • Illinois International Port District • Groupe Desgagnés (Relais Nordik Sept-Îles) • Fednav Limited • Montréal Port Authority • Guardian Ship Management Inc. • Groupe Somavrac - Porlier Express (Sept-Îles) • Nanaimo Port Authority • Groupe Somavrac - Servitank (Bécancour) • Great Lakes Towing Company • Northwest Seaport Alliance • Horizon Maritime • Halterm Container Terminal Ltd. • Oshawa Port Authority • IOC (Iron Ore Company, Sept-Îles) • Interlake Steamship Company • Port Charlottetown • Kildair Service ULC • Ledcor Transportation
    [Show full text]