DOCSLIB.ORG

Customs Collection of Duties, Taxes, and Fees by Districts and Ports Collection Collection District and Port of Collection Fiscal Year 2000 Fiscal Year 2000

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Customs Collection of Duties, Taxes, and Fees by Districts and Ports Collection Collection District and Port of Collection Fiscal Year 2000 Fiscal Year 2000 31 Table B – Customs Collection Of Duties, Taxes, And Fees By Districts And Ports Collection Collection District and Port of Collection Fiscal Year 2000 Fiscal Year 2000 Headquarters: New York, New York: Accounting Services Division 577,366,984.34 Port of New York, NY 473,100,678.69 Port of Albany, NY 5,141,614.59 Portland, Maine: Port of JFK Airport 1,462,240,622.18 Port of Portland, ME 33,296,811.00 Federal Express Corp (JFK) 15,127.12 Port of Bangor, ME 842,118.36 NYACC, Jamaica, NY 816,139.47 Port of Eastport, ME 68,932.72 DHL Airways, Jamaica, NY 25,443,293.17 Port of Jackman, ME 406,945.09 Emery Worldwide 0.00 Port of Vanceboro, ME 11,019.51 Air France (Mach Plus) 0.00 Port of Houlton, ME 1,895,772.13 Dworkin/Cosell Courier 29.33 Port of Fort Fairfield, ME 3,311.28 Swissair (Skyracer) 0.00 Port of Van Buren, ME 98,168.59 Alitalia (ALIExpress) 0.00 Port of Madawaska, ME 76,210.61 TNT Skypak (JFK) 1,660,868.77 Port of Fort Kent, ME 73,825.06 Port of Newark 3,166,124,249.22 Port of Bath, ME 0.00 Port of Perth Amboy, NJ 34,269,755.87 Port of Bar Harbor, ME 392.53 UPS (Newark) 12,097,415.44 Port of Calais, ME 3,542,330.30 Morristown, NJ Airport 101,987.73 Port of Limestone, ME 325.89 Federal Express ECCF, Newark, NJ 18,507,120.26 Port of Rockland, ME 0.00 Total, District 5,199,518,901.84 Port of Jonesport, ME 0.00 Port of Bridgewater, ME 20,026.92 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Port of Portsmouth, NH 2,965,855.01 Port of Philadelphia, PA 279,204,687.31 Port of Belfast, ME 337,019.91 Port of Chester, PA 65,154,188.97 Port of Searsport, ME 0.00 Port of Wilmington, DE 61,353,005.04 Lebanon, NH User Fee Airport 0.00 Port of Pittsburgh, PA 49,535,922.71 Manchaster, NH User Fee Airport 91,459.38 Port of Paulsboro, NJ 127.62 Total, District 43,730,524.29 Port of Wilkes Barre/Scranton, PA 1,311,877.65 Port of Camden, NJ 0.00 St. Albans, Vermont: Philadelphia International Airport 44,294,461.86 Port of St. Albans, VT 954,435.44 Port of Harrisburg, PA 16,357,365.36 Port of Richford, VT 96,149.45 Port of Allentown, PA 3,692,499.50 Port of Beecher Falls, VT 10,663.50 Port of Lehigh Valley, PA 954,981.96 Port of Burlington, VT 337,063.46 Atlantic City User Fee Airport 96,590.41 Port of Derby Line, VT 3,972,726.07 Trenton/Mercer User Fee Airport 105,357.92 Port of Norton, VT 821,191.96 UPS Courier Philadelphia 24,400,152.45 Port of Highgate Springs/Alburg, VT 28,496,398.74 Total, District 546,461,218.76 Total, District 34,688,628.62 Baltimore, Maryland: Boston, Massachusetts: Port of Annapolis, MD 175.08 Port of Boston, MA 280,416,995.94 Port of Cambridge, MD 0.00 Port of Springfield, MA 662,186.39 Port of Baltimore, MD 488,055,779.66 Port of Worcester, MA 87,526,372.43 Port of Crisfield, MD Port of Gloucester, MA 86,411.20 BWI Airport 10,365,547.19 Port of New Bedford, MA 2,496,136.54 Total, District 498,421,501.93 Port of Plymouth, MA 0.00 Port of Fall River, MA 600.00 Norfolk, Virginia: Port of Salem, MA 3,183,813.85 Port of Norfolk, VA 344,608,948.80 Port of Provincetown, MA 0.00 Port of Newport News, VA 43,167,519.57 Port of Bridgeport, CT 4,840,550.61 Port of Richmond-Petersburg, VA 45,608,100.64 Port of Hartford, CT 8,861,324.90 Port of Charleston, WV 9,003,906.77 Port of New Haven, CT 17,109,954.79 Port of Front Royal, VA 162,387.33 Port of New London, CT 455,065.17 New River Valley Airport 1,737,546.23 Port of Lawrence, MA 558,792.30 Total, District 444,288,409.34 Logan Airport 106,446,131.62 Total, District 512,644,335.74 Charlotte, North Carolina: Port of Wilmington, NC 39,784,599.48 Providence, Rhode Island: Port of Winston Salem, NC 33,570,844.94 Port of Providence, RI 12,470.42 Port of Durham, NC 17,455,868.15 Port of Newport, RI 39,117,014.31 Port of Beaufort-Morehead, NC 997,459.43 Total, District 39,129,484.73 Port of Charlotte, NC 220,474,939.79 Total, District 312,283,711.79 Ogdensburg, New York: Port of Ogdensburg, NY 2,098,602.60 Charleston, South Carolina: Port of Massena, NY 1,495,856.63 Port of Charleston, SC 556,761,937.03 Port of Cape Vincent, NY 0.00 Port of Georgetown, SC 191,729.82 Port of Alexandria Bay, NY 13,210,667.28 Port of Greenville-Spartanburg, SC 57,733,243.84 Port of Champlain-Rouses Point, NY 71,505,802.27 Port of Columbia, SC 15,507,371.38 Port of Clayton, NY 0.00 Myrtle Beach International Airport, GA 88,792.09 Port of Trout River/Chateaugay/Ft. Covington, NY 732,535.47 Total, District 630,283,074.16 Total, District 89,043,464.25 Savannah, Georgia: Buffalo, New York: Port of Brunswick, GA 71,075,315.98 Port of Buffalo, NY 134,748,613.61 Port of Savannah, GA 240,182,826.58 Port of Rochester, NY 20,317,321.82 Port of Atlanta, GA 442,808,096.89 Port of Oswego, NY 83.78 Total, District 754,066,239.45 Port of Syracuse, NY 10,339,008.54 Port of Utica, NY 0.00 Tampa, Florida: TNT Skypak 0.00 Port of Tampa, FL 74,635,078.84 Binghamton Regional Airport 93,852.21 Port of Jacksonville, FL 289,367,359.96 Total, District 165,498,879.96 Port of Fernandina, FL 963,737.33 Port of Orlando, FL 29,068,484.70 32 Table B – Customs Collection Of Duties, Taxes, And Fees By Districts And Ports Collection Collection District and Port of Collection Fiscal Year 2000 Fiscal Year 2000 Tampa, Florida - Continued Nogales, Arizonia: Sanford Regional Airport 1,545,060.07 Port of Douglas, AZ 2,392,843.83 Port of St. Petersburg, FL 183,674.44 Port of Lukeville, AZ 17,676.27 Port of Port Canaveral, FL 4,084,217.88 Port of Naco, AZ 66,914.16 Port of Panama City, FL 2,130,990.02 Port of Nogales, AZ 52,958,390.52 Port of Pensacola, FL 1,347,654.46 Port of Phoenix, AZ 31,577,329.56 Port of Manatee, FL 13,965,663.77 Port of Sasabe, AZ 16,912.50 Port of Fort Myers, FL 5,079,516.54 Port of San Luis, AZ 4,468,661.83 Ft. Myers Regional Airport 1,389.34 Port of Tucson, AZ 525,059.07 Port Director, Sanford 59.72 Scottsdale User Fee Arpt, AZ 80,408.33 Sarasota Bradeton Airport 93,000.41 Nogales Catage Control, AZ 0.00 Daytona Beach Regional Airport 134,542.47 Total, District 92,104,196.07 Melbourne Regional Airport 263,662.23 Ocala Regional Airport 81,582.22 Los Angeles, California: Total, District 422,945,674.40 Port of Los Angeles, CA 4,596,207,388.98 Port of Port San Luis Obispo, CA 171.00 Mobile, Alabama: Port of Long Beach, CA 6,468.00 Port of Mobile, AL 25,719,325.75 Port of Segundo, CA 0.00 Port of Gulfport, MS 31,025,938.38 Port of Port Hueneme, CA 7,719,882.08 Port of Pascagoula, MS 5,274,640.01 Port of LAX 566,736,222.51 Port of Birmingham, AL 10,930,440.10 Port of Ontario Intl Airport 3,331.78 Port of Huntsville, AL 19,702,034.25 Port of Las Vegas, NV 8,513,299.09 Total, District 92,652,378.49 DHL (LAX) 8,939,767.52 Ogden-Allied 0.00 New Orleans, LA: Gateway Freight Ser. Inc 0.00 Port of Morgan City, LA 2,323,014.88 So. Calif. Logistics Arpt, CA 53,582.71 Port of New Orleans, LA 172,429,815.07 Virgin Atlantic Cargo 107,371.11 Port of Little Rock, AR 6,486,332.26 UPS Ontario 7,445,105.96 Port of Baton Rouge, LA 27,238,377.70 Port of Palm Springs, CA 92,667.20 Port of Memphis, TN 337,281,339.51 TNT Express, LAX 872,227.35 Port of Nashville, TN 86,520,605.26 International Bonded Couriers 873,178.82 Port of Chattanooga, TN 13,792,536.08 Total, District 5,197,570,664.11 Port of Gramercy, LA 10,341,946.48 Port of Vicksburg, MS 586,471.46 San Francisco, California: Port of Knoxville, TN 45,469,462.03 San Francisco International Airport 255,994,745.58 Port of Lake Charles, LA 5,633,477.98 Port of Eureka, CA 95,341.30 Port of Shrevesport/Bossier, LA 784,718.20 Port of Fresno, CA 279,933.17 Tri City User Fee Airport, Blountville, TN 2,593,029.35 Port of Sacremento, CA 25.00 Federal Express Courier, Memphis, TN 90,929,393.06 Port of San Francisco, CA 569,815,826.42 Port of Memphis, TN 53,918.78 Port of Oakland, CA 79,790.81 Total, District 802,464,438.10 Port of Reno, NV 13,485,886.71 Port of San Jose , CA 941,815.76 Port Arthur, Texas: DHL Worldwide Express (SFO) 5,785,263.33 Port of Port Arthur, TX 29,103,175.74 Aircargo Handling Service 950.99 Port of Sabine, TX 0.00 TNT Skypak (SFO) 159.34 Port of Orange, TX 0.00 IBC Pacific, Inc.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Central New York Regional Agriculture Export Center Expansion Project
    New York State's only Port on Lake Ontario Central New York Regional Agriculture Export Center Expansion Project BUILD Grant Application William W. Scriber E xecutive Director P ort of Oswego Authority 1 East 2nd Street Oswego, New York 13126 C- ell (315) 963 9015 Ph. (315) 343-4503 ext. 109 New York State's only Port on Lake Ontario Table of Contents Project Narrative ........................................................................................................................................... 4 I. Project Description .................................................................................................................................... 4 II. Project Location ..................................................................................................................................... 10 III. Grant Funds, Sources and Uses of all Project Funding .........................................................................12 IV. Selection Criteria .................................................................................................................................. 14 Primary Merit Criteria ............................................................................................................................. 14 Safety .................................................................................................................................................. 14 State of Good Repair .........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2015-16 Executive Budget Agency Presentations
    NEW YORK STATE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES http://www.abo.ny.gov/ Public authorities are created by, sponsored by, or affiliated with State and local government, to finance, build, manage or improve specific capital facilities and projects that serve public or governmental purposes. Formed as independent and autonomous public benefit or not-for-profit corporations, public authorities are governed by boards of directors. With their management and operating flexibility, public authorities are an effective means to address public needs, which may not otherwise be met within the limitations imposed on traditional government agencies. Public authorities derive their powers and responsibilities from the legislation by which they are established, or through their certificates of incorporation. The Public Authorities Accountability Act of 2005, followed by the Public Authorities Reform Act of 2009 opened the operations and financial dealings of public authorities to enhanced public scrutiny. State and local public authorities must now adhere to accepted corporate governance standards, disclose their budgets, indebtedness, independent audit reports, financial statements and activities, and follow prescribed procedures for the custody, control and disposition of real property. By law, the Authorities Budget Office examines and reports on the operations, practices and finances of public authorities; enforces compliance with State law and initiates actions against public authorities and their boards of directors for noncompliance; and provides guidance to public authorities on ways to adhere to the principles of accountability, transparency and effective corporate governance. The Authorities Budget Office is also authorized to make recommendations to the Governor and the Legislature concerning the performance, structure, formation and oversight of public authorities, public authority debt, procurement, and property transaction practices, and to ensure that directors receive training on the fiduciary, legal and ethical obligations of board members.
    [Show full text]
  • Lake Ontario Industrial Park Brochure
    LAKELAKE ONTARIOONTARIO INDUSTRIALINDUSTRIAL PARK PARK Build NOW—NY & Empire Zone Sites Oswego, New York An Economic and Job Development Corporation Serving Oswego County, NY SiteSite SpecificationsSpecifications This is Oswego County’s newest full service industrial park. It is located within the City of Oswego, has 2,500 feet of park road and is fully-equipped with municipal water, sewer and storm sewer. Lots are available from 1.5 acres up. This park is located near Lake Ontario in the Oswego Empire Zone. A Wetland Preserve separates the Industrial Park from the shoreline. Lot prices between $15,000 & $25,000/acre Location Fiber Optics • Northeast corner of the City of Oswego • Available • Located on Mitchell Street at intersection with County Route 1 Sewer • 12” main Land • Over 2 million gallons/day of excess sewage • 57 acres gently sloping toward Lake Ontario; treatment capacity (City of Oswego) gravelly, fine sandy loam soil Gas Zoning • 8” main (Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation) • Industrial Electricity Highways • 13.2 KV (Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.) • NYS 104 - 1 mile • I-81 - 19 miles Corporate Neighbors • NYS 481 - 2 miles Alcan Aluminum Corp. • I-90 - 38 miles Eagle Beverage Co. Airport Great Lakes Veneer Indeck Energy • 12 miles to Oswego County Airport Industrial Precision • 35 miles to Syracuse International Airport International Paper Port Lagoe Oswego Corporation • 1 mile to Port of Oswego Lakeshore Transportation Entergy Nuclear Northeast Rail Metal Tansportation Systems, Inc. • CSX NRG Oswego Generating Station • 1200 feet through the site Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Oswego State University Water Oswego Warehousing Inc. • 8” main (City of Oswego) Oswego Wire • Over 20 million gallons/day capacity Sithe Energies Wiltsie Construction EZEZ BenefitsBenefits Empire Zone Benefits Once your business is certified and located in the Oswego Empire Zone, you’ll be eligible for a host of benefits designed to create the best climate possible for your company’s profitability and growth.
    [Show full text]
  • ECONOMIC IMPACTS of the PORT of OSWEGO
    ECONOMIC IMPACTS of the PORT OF OSWEGO • August, 2018 • TABLE OF CONTENTS ABOUT THIS REPORT ..............................................................................................................................................1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................................2 Chapter I – METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................................3 1. Flow of Impacts ............................................................................................................................................. 4 2. Impact Structure ............................................................................................................................................ 6 3. Summary of Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 7 4. Commodities Included in the Analysis ........................................................................................................... 8 5. Estimate of Tonnage....................................................................................................................................... 8 6. Expansion of the 40-Port Impact Models to Measure System-Wide Impacts ................................................ 9 Chapter II – ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE PORT OF OSWEGO ...........................................................................10
    [Show full text]
  • View the Central New York Initiative
    CENTRAL NEW YORK INITIATIVE A COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY FOR CENTRAL NEW YORK JUNE 2015 CENTRAL NEW YORK REGIONAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 126 North Salina Street, Suite 200 Syracuse, New York 13202 315-422-8276 www.cnyrpdb.org The Central New York (CNY) region is situated in Upstate New York and consists of five counties including Cayuga, Cortland, Madison, Onondaga, and Oswego. The region covers an area of 3,120 square miles and has an estimated population of 780,000. By most measures, the region forms an area of interdependent economic activity. There is a central concentration of activity in Onondaga County and the City of Syracuse. In addition to this major urban center, there are intermediate areas of activity in cities located in each of the other four counties. These cities include Auburn (Cayuga County), Cortland (Cortland County), Oneida (Madison County), and Fulton and Oswego (Oswego County). The five-county region comprises a balance of an urban center, suburban areas, small cities, rural towns and villages, and farming communities. The region is located in the center of New York State and is in close proximity to Rochester, Buffalo, Albany, and Binghamton; and just a few hours drive from NYC, Toronto, Boston, Philadelphia, and other major cities in the Northeast. Central New York has an extensive transportation network, which includes Syracuse Hancock International Airport, the deep water Port of Oswego, a CSX intermodal rail center along with freight and passenger service, Interstate Routes 81 and 90 that bisect the region in a north/south and east/west direction. Central New York is also served by an extensive network of public sewer and water facilities.
    [Show full text]
  • Vision 2030 Comprehensive Plan
    New York State's only Port on Lake Ontario VISION 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN March 2021 Table of Contents Section Page Vision ..........................................................................................................................................................................................1 Background ............................................................................................................................................................................1 Historic Preservation and Educational Assets ...................................................................................................5 Existing Improvements and Conditions .........................................................................................................5 The Plan to Advance the Vision for Historic and Educational Assets ............................................5 Commercial Development and Economic Development Programs .................................................5 Existing Improvements and Conditions .........................................................................................................5 Plans to Advance the Vision with Port Projects ..........................................................................................8 Current Port Commodities ......................................................................................................................................10 Plans to Advance the Vision with Industrial Projects ..............................................................................10
    [Show full text]
  • Proposed Lake Ontario National Marine Sanctuary Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Management Plan
    Proposed Lake Ontario National Marine Sanctuary Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Management Plan July 2021 | sanctuaries.noaa.gov/lake-ontario/ U.S. Department of Commerce Gina Raimondo, Secretary National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Richard W. Spinrad, Ph.D. Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and NOAA Administrator National Ocean Service Nicole LeBoeuf, Assistant Administrator (Acting) Office of National Marine Sanctuaries John Armor, Director Cover photo: Tibbets Point Lighthouse sits where Lake Ontario meets the St. Lawrence River. Photo: Matt McIntosh/NOAA Abstract The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is proposing to designate a national marine sanctuary to manage a nationally significant collection of shipwrecks and other underwater cultural resources in eastern Lake Ontario and the Thousand Islands region in upstate New York. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 USC 4321 et seq.) and the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA, 16 USC 1434), NOAA has prepared a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) that considers three alternatives for the proposed national marine sanctuary. In this DEIS, NOAA uses criteria and evaluation standards under the regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508 (1978)) and the NOAA implementing procedures for NEPA (NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A) to evaluate the environmental consequences of each alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, NOAA would not designate a national marine sanctuary in New York. Under Alternative 1, the proposed sanctuary boundary would include 1,786 square miles in eastern Lake Ontario and the Thousands Islands region of the St. Lawrence River. Alternative 1 would incorporate 67 known shipwrecks and one aircraft.
    [Show full text]
  • SF Express 20 36 Aircraft Southeast Asia, Japan, South Korea, Wang Wei, Chairman Australia and the United States
    Top Global Freight Carriers React To Growing Demand By Daniel P. Bearth (No. 7), Maersk Line and Israel-based ZIM Integrated Senior Features Writer Shipping Services (No. 42). Two companies joined the Top 50 list this year. he world’s biggest freight carriers all got a little bigger Coming in at No. 49 is Wallenius Wilhelmsen Group, this year as demand for transportation surged across a company based in Oslo, Norway, that specializes in T the globe. transporting cars, trucks, rolling equipment and breakbulk Truck and rail carriers seemed to benefit the most from products around the world with 130 vessels serving 32 trade growth in both domestic and international shipping, but they routes to six continents, plus an inland distribution network also faced difficulties in keeping up with demand. of 77 processing centers and 13 marine terminals. Ocean freight carriers, on the other hand, continue to Making a return appearance on the Top 50 list is Kazakhstan struggle with overcapacity as bigger ships are brought into Temir Zholy, an organization owned by the government that service on high-volume trade lanes and older ships are operates the national railway network in the Republic of funneled into crowded secondary lanes. Kazakhstan. The company hauls cargo and passengers and also To cope with the problem, some companies have merged provides communications, utilities and loading and unloading and others have opted to work together to jointly market their services, cargo and vessels transfer service, security and port services in an effort to keep containerships more fully loaded. services. Recent mergers have included CMA CGM Group’s takeover Shares in Kazakhstan Temir Zholy are expected to be offered of American President Lines, Maersk Group’s purchase of for sale by the end of 2020, according to a statement released Hamburg Süd and subsequent divestiture of South American- by Kazakh Prime Minister Bakytzhan Sagintayev in July.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Oswego DRI Plan
    New York State Downtown Revitalization Initiative Strategic Investment Plan City of Oswego Central New York Regional Economic Development Council March 2017 DRI Local Planning Committee William Barlow, Co-Chair Mayor, City of Oswego L. Michael Treadwell, Co-Chair Executive Director, Oswego County IDA/CNYREDC Shane Broadwell Majority Leader, Oswego County Legislature Stephen Butler Executive Director, CNY Arts Pamela Caraccioli Deputy to the President, SUNY Oswego Patrick Carroll Business Manager, United Association of Plumbers & Steamfitters Jeff Coakley Vice President for Communication and Government Affairs, Oswego Health James Eby Oswego County Family Court judge, Oswego Andrew Fish Senior Vice President of Business Development, Centerstate CEO Kevin Gardner Chairman, Oswego County Legislature Chuck Gijanto President and CEO, Oswego Health Zelko Kirincich Executive Director & CEO, Port of Oswego Authority Thomas Schneider President & CEO, Pathfinder Bank Jill Shaver Executive Director, The Children’s Museum of Oswego Jon Spaulding Publisher, Oswego Palladium-Times newspaper and oswegocountynewsnow.com Deborah Stanley President, SUNY Oswego (CNYREDC) Paul Stewart Executive Director, Oswego Renaissance Association Dave Turner Director, Oswego County Department of Community Development and Tourism Kevin Caraccioli (non-voting) City Attorney, City of Oswego Justin Rudgick (non-voting) Director, City of Oswego Community Development Amy Birdsall (non-voting) Former Director, City of Oswego Planning and Zoning This document was developed by the Oswego Local Planning Committee as part of the Downtown Revitalization Initiative and was supported by the NYS Department of State, NYS Homes and Community Renewal, and Empire State Development. The document was prepared by the following Consulting Team: Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.; Environmental Design & Research (EDR); Foit Albert Associates; Larisa Ortiz Associates, LLC; Marc Norman; Nelson\Nygaard Consulting; W-ZHA, LLC; Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Maritime Commerce in Greater Philadelphia
    MARITIME COMMERCE IN GREATER PHILADELPHIA Assessing Industry Trends and Growth Opportunities for Delaware River Ports July 2008 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents Maritime Commerce In Greater Philadelphia Executive Summary 3 Introduction and Project Partners 8 Section 1: Economic Impact Analysis 9 Section 2: Delaware River Port Descriptions & Key Competitors 12 Section 3: Global Trends and Implications for Delaware River Ports 24 Section 4: Strategies and Scenarios for Future Growth 31 Section 5: Conclusions and Key Recommendations 38 Appendices Appendix A: Glossary 40 Appendix B: History of the Delaware River Ports 42 Appendix C: Methodology for Economic Impact Analysis 46 Appendix D: Port-Reliant Employment 48 Appendix E: Excerpts from Expert Panel Discussions 49 Appendix F: Port Profiles 55 Appendix G: Additional Data 57 Appendix H: Delaware River Port Maps 62 Appendix I: End Notes 75 Appendix J: Resources 76 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Executive Summary For more than 300 years, the from origin to final destination. supports 12,121 jobs and $772 mil- Delaware River has served as a key ⇒ Implications for Delaware lion in labor income, generating $2.4 commercial highway for the region. River Ports. The region has ca- billion in economic output. While Greater Philadelphia’s mari- pacity to accommodate growth, The port industry’s regional job time roots remain, rapid globalization but its ports must collaborate to base is relatively small, but those jobs and technological advances are driv- develop a comprehensive plan generate higher than average income ing an industry-wide transformation that addresses existing con- and output per job. Regional direct that has impacted the role that Dela- straints and rationally allocates jobs represent an average annual in- ware River ports play in the larger cargo based on competitive ad- come (including fringe benefits) of economy.
    [Show full text]
  • Lake Ontario
    196 ¢ U.S. Coast Pilot 6, Chapter 5 Chapter 6, Pilot Coast U.S. 76°W Chart Coverage in Coast Pilot 6—Chapter 5 78°W 77°W NOAA’s Online Interactive Chart Catalog has complete chart coverage http://www.charts.noaa.gov/InteractiveCatalog/nrnc.shtml 44°30'N 79°W Kingston ONTARIO 14802 Cape Vincent 44°N Sackets Harbor 14810 14811 Toronto L AKE ONTARIO CANADA UNITED STATES 14806 14813 43°30'N Oswego Point Breeze Harbor 14815 14814 LITTLE SODUS BAY 14803 SODUS BAY Hamilton 14816 14805 IRONDEQUOIT BAY Niagra Falls Rochester 14804 WELLAND CANAL 14832 43°N Bu alo 2042 NEW Y ORK 14833 19 SEP2021 L AKE ERIE 14822 19 SEP 2021 U.S. Coast Pilot 6, Chapter 5 ¢ 197 Lake Ontario (1) under the navigational control of the Saint Lawrence Chart Datum, Lake Ontario Seaway Development Corporation, a corporate agency of the United States, and the Saint Lawrence Seaway (2) Depths and vertical clearances under overhead cables Management Corporation of Canada. These agencies and bridges given in this chapter are referred to Low Water issue joint regulations covering vessels and persons using Datum, which for Lake Ontario is an elevation 243.3 feet the Seaway. The regulations are codified in33 CFR 401 (74.2 meters) above mean water level at Rimouski, QC, and are also contained in the Seaway Handbook, published on International Great Lakes Datum 1985 (IGLD 1985). jointly by the agencies. A copy of the regulations is (See Chart Datum, Great Lakes System, indexed as required to be kept on board every vessel transiting the such, chapter 3.) Seaway.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Authority Contracting Practices
    Public Authority Contracting Practices Billions of Dollars of Public Funds Committed Without Adequate Oversight February 2006 New York State Deputy Comptroller Kim Fine Office of the State Comptroller Office of Budget and Policy Analysis Alan G. Hevesi Albany, New York 12236 In an effort to reduce the costs of printing, please notify the Office of Budget and Policy Analysis at (518) 473-4333 if you wish your name to be deleted from our mailing list or if your address has changed. Additional copies of this report may be obtained from: Office of the State Comptroller Public Information Office 110 State Street Albany, New York 12236 (518) 474-4015 Or through the Comptroller’s website at: www.osc.state.ny.us Table of Contents Executive Summary......................................................................................................... 3 Review of Contracts by the Office of the State Comptroller ....................................... 9 Review of Public Authority Contracts by the Office of the State Comptroller......... 19 Audit Findings Demonstrating Disregard for Procurement Rules............................ 25 Audit Findings Demonstrating Poor Quality Procurements Resulting in Waste or Inefficiency ..................................................................................................................... 47 Apparent Abuses of Procurement Authority............................................................... 81 Audit Findings Demonstrating Acceptable Contracting Practices........................... 89 Public Authority
    [Show full text]