Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

California's mandate for fuel

Expand Messages
  • Pacific Merchant Marine Council, NLUS
    The Pacific Merchant Shipping Association said California at best can regulate only ships within state waters that extend three nautical miles from the coast
    Message 1 of 3 , Aug 18, 2008
    • 0 Attachment

      "The Pacific Merchant Shipping Association said California at best can regulate only ships within state waters that extend three nautical miles from the coast under a federal law known as the Submerged Lands Act. "International ships running in international waters under international treaties should be handled under international laws," said T.L. Garrett, vice president of the association, which represents about 60 ocean carrier lines and cargo terminals." From the AP article.

      The Pacific Merchant Marine Council will likely take a position on this matter. We are leaning toward PMSA's position as well as the federal administration favoring deferring to future international regulations.

      I have a request into the NLUS HQ to see it it will take a position on the matter. With very few exceptions NLUS National does not buck the administration.

      If you have a well defined viewpoint you are welcome to share it.

      Phelps

       

       

       
      Los Angeles Times
       

      California adopts stiff pollution rules for ships

      California mandates that oceangoing vessels use cleaner fuels or face costly fines. The shipping industry is displeased.
      By Margot Roosevelt, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
      July 25, 2008
      California regulators adopted the world's toughest pollution rules for oceangoing vessels Thursday, vowing to improve the health of coastal residents and opening a new front in a long battle with the international shipping industry.

      The rules, which take effect in 2009, would require ships within 24 nautical miles of California to burn low-sulfur diesel instead of the tar-like sludge known as bunker fuel. About 2,000 vessels would be affected, including container ships, oil tankers and cruise ships.

       
      International negotiators have struggled for decades to reduce pollution from oceangoing vessels but have been stymied by opposition from shipping conglomerates.

      Federal legislation to control vessel emissions in U.S. ports, sponsored by Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, both California Democrats, has been opposed by the Bush administration, which favors deferring to future international regulations.

      California's new regulation will have a global effect: 43% of all marine freight imported into the United States, much of it from Asia, moves through the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.

      California "needs to act now," Air Resources Board Chairwoman Mary Nichols said. "We've known for years that a large percentage of onshore pollution comes from activities in the water. Our ports need to expand and modernize, but the adjacent communities are not willing to tolerate the health risks."

      The rules could save 3,600 lives in coastal communities over the first six years through reduced respiratory illnesses and heart disease, including a potential 80% drop in cancer risk associated with ship pollutants, according to regulators.

      Nichols called the shipping regulation "the single most significant rule the Air Resources Board has adopted in the last five years."

      Because prevailing winds blow from west to east in California, ship exhaust accounts for about a fifth of cancer-causing soot particles and half of the sulfur oxides over land.

      The remainder is emitted by diesel-powered trucks, construction equipment, locomotives, industrial engines and agricultural pumps, which are all to be subject to stricter regulation as the state seeks to slash the emission of planet-warming greenhouse gases and other pollutants.

      The air board estimates that the new shipping rules will save Californians at least $6 billion a year in health-related expenses and will cost the shipping industry between $140 million and $360 million a year.

      A typical cargo ship would pay about $30,000 more in fuel costs for each visit, or about $6 per container shipped from Asia to California. That amounts to 0.1 cent per pair of sneakers, the board noted.

      Environmentalists and community groups praised the rules.

      "This is a huge victory for clean air and public health," said Candice Kim of the Coalition for Clean Air. "Ten Californians die every day due to air pollution from ports and freight transportation."

      Shippers fiercely oppose the limits, saying that California lacks jurisdiction to regulate beyond the 3-mile limit of state waters, and that low-sulfur fuel is in short supply, particularly in Asian ports.

      The San-Francisco based Pacific Merchant Shipping Assn. last year won a court victory halting the state's previous effort to control shipping pollution by regulating engine emissions. The air board believes that a fuel regulation will stand up to a court challenge, but John McLaurin, the shipping association's president, wrote the board this week that the regulation "simply rehashes and represents old arguments that have already failed to pass judicial muster."

      The rules would "govern the internal operation of foreign vessels . . . require the ships to purchase the required fuel in foreign ports, and, in many cases, to retrofit their tanks, piping and engines," McLaurin wrote.

      It was unclear Thursday whether the shipping industry would challenge the regulations in court.

      California's rule would be implemented in two phases. Beginning July 1, 2009, shippers would be required to use diesel oil with a sulfur limit of 0.5%. On Jan. 1, 2012, that would be reduced to 0.1% sulfur, a level that would cut soot by 83%, sulfur oxides by 95% and nitrogen oxides by 6%.

      By contrast, the United Nations' International Maritime Organization allows fuel that is 4.5% sulfur. IMO negotiators will meet in October and are expected to consider new limits, but those would not take effect until 2015 or later.

      Shippers asked that the California board defer any action until international rules take effect. In a compromise, the board voted Thursday to allow its executive director to suspend California's regulation "if and when the IMO or the federal government adopts a rule as effective as California's," Nichols said.

      Meanwhile, fines for noncompliance would be stiff. Vessels using fuel over the sulfur limit would pay a fee beginning at $45,500 for each visit, with a maximum of $227,500 on the fifth visit.

      "In theory, a vessel that makes 10 calls to California would be subject to paying $1,365,000 the first year, and $2,275,000 each subsequent year," the shipping association protested.

      Board officials said that international law allows California to regulate ship emissions as long as they affect its residents. The board's scientists studied pollution effects out to the 3-mile limit, the 12-mile limit and the 24-mile limit, and found that "emissions from 24 miles out directly impact the majority of our population," Nichols said.

      Representatives of the Navy have expressed concern that vessels would be more likely to travel through their offshore testing and training range once the rule is implemented. But Air Resources Board staff pledged to work with Navy officials to address their concerns.

      California requires ships to cut pollution off coast

      By Samantha Young
      Associated Press
      Article Launched: 07/24/2008 06:23:56 PM PDT

      By Samantha Young

      Associated Press

      SACRAMENTO — California air regulators Thursday approved the nation's toughest rules to reduce harmful emissions from oceangoing ships headed into the state's ports.

      The regulations require domestic and foreign cargo ships, tankers and cruise vessels sailing into California waters to use cleaner fuel to power their engines and boilers.

      The California fuel mandate comes amid similar international efforts, but air regulators say the 27 million Californians who breathe polluted air from the state's ports can't wait for those rules, which are being crafted to take effect in 2015.

      "It's a terrific thing for people who live anywhere near the coast or where the sea breezes go," said David Pettit, a senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

      Margaret Gordon, a West Oakland environmental activist who suffers from asthma and has been fighting for cleaner air in neighborhoods near the Port of Oakland, said the approved regulations are a huge step forward if they come to fruition. But she's not holding her breath.

      "It's good that the state is trying to do this," Gordon said. "Anything that means one less asthma, one less cancer, one less premature death is a positive step. But it's been the pattern of these big shipping companies to use lawsuits and appeals to hold up this kind of positive change.

      "With international shipping having so much autonomy outside

      the U.S. government, they seem to have the ability to be separate from our legal process," she said. "The maritime industry manages to get around these things, and the residents in affected areas have no legal recourse for enforcement."

      Indeed, international shipping companies oppose the rules, adopted unanimously by the California Air Resources Board. They argue California has no jurisdiction to regulate their operations outside the state's coastal zone.

      The Pacific Merchant Shipping Association said California at best can regulate only ships within state waters that extend three nautical miles from the coast under a federal law known as the Submerged Lands Act.

      "International ships running in international waters under international treaties should be handled under international laws," said T.L. Garrett, vice president of the association, which represents about 60 ocean carrier lines and cargo terminals. "We know it's the right thing to do. The question is, 'Who should be telling us to do it?'"

      Shippers last year won in federal court when they blocked a 2006 California regulation requiring large ships to use cleaner fuel in their auxiliary engines. A federal judge ruled the state did not have the authority to set shipping emission standards without the approval of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

      The latest California regulation defines the pollution standards as a fuel requirement, a strategy state regulators say does not require them to get federal permission.

      It would ban ships from using so-called bunker fuel, a dirty, heavy crude oil that has the consistency of asphalt and must be heated onboard the ships to power the engines.

      Beginning July 1, 2009, oceangoing vessels will have to switch to a more expensive but cleaner-burning marine fuel to power their engines and auxiliary boilers when they sail within 24 nautical miles of California's coast.

      The rules apply to ships headed to ports in the San Francisco Bay area, Los Angeles, Long Beach and San Diego, as well as inland ports for oceangoing vessels in Sacramento and Stockton.

      Military, government and research vessels will be exempt, as will those ships that will be modified to comply with the regulation.

      In 2006, ships made nearly 11,000 port calls in California, a number that is expected to rise with the increase in international trade. Without new regulations, vessel emissions are projected to more than double by 2020, according to state air regulators.

      The nitrogen oxide, diesel particulate matter and sulfur oxide emissions from some large ships headed to California ports are among the largest contributors to a toxic stew permeating port communities, according to the air board. The emissions are linked to asthma, as well as respiratory and cardiac problems.

      Scientists say requiring cleaner fuels within 24 nautical miles of California's coast would reduce pollution levels significantly. Cargo companies question whether their container ships will be able to buy the more expensive fuel in world ports before they make the trip to California.

      While some cleaner fuels are available, the regulation eventually demands a fuel with an even lower sulfur content than is now available.

      "If the refiners fail to provide the fuel, we're the ones who will be held in violation and have to pay the fees," Garrett said.

      Ship operators also worry the engines on some vessels aren't designed to run on cleaner burning fuel and say it's not clear whether switching between two fuels to operate a ship would deteriorate engine equipment. The Air Resources Board intends to study both issues.

      A single vessel making one visit a year to a California port would pay about $30,000 more for fuel, less than 1 percent of the cost of a typical trans-Pacific voyage. That cost would increase to several million dollars for a large fleet that makes frequent visits to California.

      For passenger cruise ships, increased fuel costs for a typical Los Angeles to Mexico tour would add about $15 per passenger, or a 3 to 4 percent fare increase.

      Shippers would be fined $44,500 for a first offense, with the fee escalating to $227,500 for repeat offenses.

    • edward dangler
      President Phelps-- I am delighted that the PMMC is taking a position on this issue as it is quite important to the flow of international commerce within our
      Message 2 of 3 , Aug 19, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        President Phelps-- I am delighted that the PMMC is taking a position on this issue as it is quite important to the flow of international commerce within our California ports to resolve this issue... As an active member of several committees of the Maritime Law Association, we have looked at this issue and come to similar conclusion as you are suggesting.
         
        International shipping by its very nature cannot be subject to a maze of conflicting regulations each time they enter a different state or municipal port, as concerns compliance with air pollution and oil spill standards.  MARPOL which is the IMO internationallly accepted standard and from which OPA 90 and other modifications are the implementing USA statutes controlling vessel emission standards.  Likewise the Clean Air Act, a federal statue controls such aspects of air pollution from vessels and is expected that all vessels approaching and entering US sovereign waters (12 n. mi), as well as activities within the contiguous zone (24 n. mi) will be in compliance.  The California Air Resources Board has for some time been developing emission regs which far exceed those imposed upon the shipping industry and accepted by every major maritime nation through IMO as the standard to follow.  This could create severe disruptions within the shipping industry if vessels were required to retrofit equipment and insititute additional record keeping for these CA imposed standards.
         
        As our newest Navy League of US National Director and member of the Navy League Merchant Marine Affairs Committee, I will try to bring this issue to national attention with the support of our PMMC.
         
        I would apreciate the opportunity to review your position paper and on this policy issue.
         
        Steady as she goes-- Ed Dangler, Esq

        --- On Mon, 8/18/08, Pacific Merchant Marine Council, NLUS <pmmc@...> wrote:
        From: Pacific Merchant Marine Council, NLUS <pmmc@...>
        Subject: [PMMC-NLUS] California's mandate for fuel
        To: PMMC-NLUS@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Monday, August 18, 2008, 12:38 AM

        "The Pacific Merchant Shipping Association said California at best can regulate only ships within state waters that extend three nautical miles from the coast under a federal law known as the Submerged Lands Act. "International ships running in international waters under international treaties should be handled under international laws," said T.L. Garrett, vice president of the association, which represents about 60 ocean carrier lines and cargo terminals." From the AP article.
        The Pacific Merchant Marine Council will likely take a position on this matter. We are leaning toward PMSA's position as well as the federal administration favoring deferring to future international regulations.
        I have a request into the NLUS HQ to see it it will take a position on the matter. With very few exceptions NLUS National does not buck the administration.
        If you have a well defined viewpoint you are welcome to share it.
        Phelps
         
         

         
        Los Angeles Times
         

        California adopts stiff pollution rules for ships

        California mandates that oceangoing vessels use cleaner fuels or face costly fines. The shipping industry is displeased.
        By Margot Roosevelt, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
        July 25, 2008
        California regulators adopted the world's toughest pollution rules for oceangoing vessels Thursday, vowing to improve the health of coastal residents and opening a new front in a long battle with the international shipping industry.

        The rules, which take effect in 2009, would require ships within 24 nautical miles of California to burn low-sulfur diesel instead of the tar-like sludge known as bunker fuel. About 2,000 vessels would be affected, including container ships, oil tankers and cruise ships.

         
        International negotiators have struggled for decades to reduce pollution from oceangoing vessels but have been stymied by opposition from shipping conglomerates.

        Federal legislation to control vessel emissions in U.S. ports, sponsored by Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, both California Democrats, has been opposed by the Bush administration, which favors deferring to future international regulations.

        California's new regulation will have a global effect: 43% of all marine freight imported into the United States, much of it from Asia, moves through the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.

        California "needs to act now," Air Resources Board Chairwoman Mary Nichols said. "We've known for years that a large percentage of onshore pollution comes from activities in the water. Our ports need to expand and modernize, but the adjacent communities are not willing to tolerate the health risks."

        The rules could save 3,600 lives in coastal communities over the first six years through reduced respiratory illnesses and heart disease, including a potential 80% drop in cancer risk associated with ship pollutants, according to regulators.

        Nichols called the shipping regulation "the single most significant rule the Air Resources Board has adopted in the last five years."

        Because prevailing winds blow from west to east in California, ship exhaust accounts for about a fifth of cancer-causing soot particles and half of the sulfur oxides over land.

        The remainder is emitted by diesel-powered trucks, construction equipment, locomotives, industrial engines and agricultural pumps, which are all to be subject to stricter regulation as the state seeks to slash the emission of planet-warming greenhouse gases and other pollutants.

        The air board estimates that the new shipping rules will save Californians at least $6 billion a year in health-related expenses and will cost the shipping industry between $140 million and $360 million a year.

        A typical cargo ship would pay about $30,000 more in fuel costs for each visit, or about $6 per container shipped from Asia to California. That amounts to 0.1 cent per pair of sneakers, the board noted.

        Environmentalists and community groups praised the rules.

        "This is a huge victory for clean air and public health," said Candice Kim of the Coalition for Clean Air. "Ten Californians die every day due to air pollution from ports and freight transportation. "

        Shippers fiercely oppose the limits, saying that California lacks jurisdiction to regulate beyond the 3-mile limit of state waters, and that low-sulfur fuel is in short supply, particularly in Asian ports.

        The San-Francisco based Pacific Merchant Shipping Assn. last year won a court victory halting the state's previous effort to control shipping pollution by regulating engine emissions. The air board believes that a fuel regulation will stand up to a court challenge, but John McLaurin, the shipping association' s president, wrote the board this week that the regulation "simply rehashes and represents old arguments that have already failed to pass judicial muster."

        The rules would "govern the internal operation of foreign vessels . . . require the ships to purchase the required fuel in foreign ports, and, in many cases, to retrofit their tanks, piping and engines," McLaurin wrote.

        It was unclear Thursday whether the shipping industry would challenge the regulations in court.

        California's rule would be implemented in two phases. Beginning July 1, 2009, shippers would be required to use diesel oil with a sulfur limit of 0.5%. On Jan. 1, 2012, that would be reduced to 0.1% sulfur, a level that would cut soot by 83%, sulfur oxides by 95% and nitrogen oxides by 6%.

        By contrast, the United Nations' International Maritime Organization allows fuel that is 4.5% sulfur. IMO negotiators will meet in October and are expected to consider new limits, but those would not take effect until 2015 or later.

        Shippers asked that the California board defer any action until international rules take effect. In a compromise, the board voted Thursday to allow its executive director to suspend California's regulation "if and when the IMO or the federal government adopts a rule as effective as California's, " Nichols said.

        Meanwhile, fines for noncompliance would be stiff. Vessels using fuel over the sulfur limit would pay a fee beginning at $45,500 for each visit, with a maximum of $227,500 on the fifth visit.

        "In theory, a vessel that makes 10 calls to California would be subject to paying $1,365,000 the first year, and $2,275,000 each subsequent year," the shipping association protested.

        Board officials said that international law allows California to regulate ship emissions as long as they affect its residents. The board's scientists studied pollution effects out to the 3-mile limit, the 12-mile limit and the 24-mile limit, and found that "emissions from 24 miles out directly impact the majority of our population," Nichols said.

        Representatives of the Navy have expressed concern that vessels would be more likely to travel through their offshore testing and training range once the rule is implemented. But Air Resources Board staff pledged to work with Navy officials to address their concerns.

        California requires ships to cut pollution off coast

        By Samantha Young
        Associated Press
        Article Launched: 07/24/2008 06:23:56 PM PDT

        By Samantha Young
        Associated Press
        SACRAMENTO — California air regulators Thursday approved the nation's toughest rules to reduce harmful emissions from oceangoing ships headed into the state's ports.
        The regulations require domestic and foreign cargo ships, tankers and cruise vessels sailing into California waters to use cleaner fuel to power their engines and boilers.
        The California fuel mandate comes amid similar international efforts, but air regulators say the 27 million Californians who breathe polluted air from the state's ports can't wait for those rules, which are being crafted to take effect in 2015.
        "It's a terrific thing for people who live anywhere near the coast or where the sea breezes go," said David Pettit, a senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
        Margaret Gordon, a West Oakland environmental activist who suffers from asthma and has been fighting for cleaner air in neighborhoods near the Port of Oakland, said the approved regulations are a huge step forward if they come to fruition. But she's not holding her breath.
        "It's good that the state is trying to do this," Gordon said. "Anything that means one less asthma, one less cancer, one less premature death is a positive step. But it's been the pattern of these big shipping companies to use lawsuits and appeals to hold up this kind of positive change.
        "With international shipping having so much autonomy outside
        the U.S. government, they seem to have the ability to be separate from our legal process," she said. "The maritime industry manages to get around these things, and the residents in affected areas have no legal recourse for enforcement. "
        Indeed, international shipping companies oppose the rules, adopted unanimously by the California Air Resources Board. They argue California has no jurisdiction to regulate their operations outside the state's coastal zone.
        The Pacific Merchant Shipping Association said California at best can regulate only ships within state waters that extend three nautical miles from the coast under a federal law known as the Submerged Lands Act.
        "International ships running in international waters under international treaties should be handled under international laws," said T.L. Garrett, vice president of the association, which represents about 60 ocean carrier lines and cargo terminals. "We know it's the right thing to do. The question is, 'Who should be telling us to do it?'"
        Shippers last year won in federal court when they blocked a 2006 California regulation requiring large ships to use cleaner fuel in their auxiliary engines. A federal judge ruled the state did not have the authority to set shipping emission standards without the approval of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
        The latest California regulation defines the pollution standards as a fuel requirement, a strategy state regulators say does not require them to get federal permission.
        It would ban ships from using so-called bunker fuel, a dirty, heavy crude oil that has the consistency of asphalt and must be heated onboard the ships to power the engines.
        Beginning July 1, 2009, oceangoing vessels will have to switch to a more expensive but cleaner-burning marine fuel to power their engines and auxiliary boilers when they sail within 24 nautical miles of California's coast.
        The rules apply to ships headed to ports in the San Francisco Bay area, Los Angeles, Long Beach and San Diego, as well as inland ports for oceangoing vessels in Sacramento and Stockton.
        Military, government and research vessels will be exempt, as will those ships that will be modified to comply with the regulation.
        In 2006, ships made nearly 11,000 port calls in California, a number that is expected to rise with the increase in international trade. Without new regulations, vessel emissions are projected to more than double by 2020, according to state air regulators.
        The nitrogen oxide, diesel particulate matter and sulfur oxide emissions from some large ships headed to California ports are among the largest contributors to a toxic stew permeating port communities, according to the air board. The emissions are linked to asthma, as well as respiratory and cardiac problems.
        Scientists say requiring cleaner fuels within 24 nautical miles of California's coast would reduce pollution levels significantly. Cargo companies question whether their container ships will be able to buy the more expensive fuel in world ports before they make the trip to California.
        While some cleaner fuels are available, the regulation eventually demands a fuel with an even lower sulfur content than is now available.
        "If the refiners fail to provide the fuel, we're the ones who will be held in violation and have to pay the fees," Garrett said.
        Ship operators also worry the engines on some vessels aren't designed to run on cleaner burning fuel and say it's not clear whether switching between two fuels to operate a ship would deteriorate engine equipment. The Air Resources Board intends to study both issues.
        A single vessel making one visit a year to a California port would pay about $30,000 more for fuel, less than 1 percent of the cost of a typical trans-Pacific voyage. That cost would increase to several million dollars for a large fleet that makes frequent visits to California.
        For passenger cruise ships, increased fuel costs for a typical Los Angeles to Mexico tour would add about $15 per passenger, or a 3 to 4 percent fare increase.
        Shippers would be fined $44,500 for a first offense, with the fee escalating to $227,500 for repeat offenses.

      • Pacific Merchant Marine Council, NLUS
        Ahoy there, As presented in these two posts, we advised that California is going up against the United States with its Environmental Protection Agency mandate
        Message 3 of 3 , Sep 5, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
           
          As presented in these two posts, we advised that California is going up against the United States with its Environmental Protection Agency mandate for cleaner burning fuels aboard ships within 24 miles of its coast.
           
           
          Here is the federal position:

          Maritime Pollution Prevention Act of 2008 To amend the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships to implement MARPOL Annex VI.

          President Bush signed this act into law 21 July 2008.
           
          We have brought this matter before NLUS national leadership but to date the Navy League has not taken a position. In the council's viewpoint, it is too important a matter not to clearly state where the Navy League stands.
           
          The American Association of Port Authorities, http://aapa-ports.org, is just one of the trade organizations that have taken a strong position on the matter. The Pacific Merchant Shipping Association, http://www.pmsaship.com, applauds the voluntary program supported by the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles.
           
          The council has yet to issue a statement on the matter but it likely that we will support H.R. 802, the Maritime Pollution Prevention Act of 2008. Instead of issuing our own statement we would prefer to support a NLUS position. We would like to see the Navy League be more proactive in the formulation of maritime legislation.
           
          Phelps
           
          OpenCongress is one of the resources we have to keep track of maritime legislation.
           

           
          Open Congress logo

          A project of the Sunlight Foundation and PPF        

          http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h802/show

          Maritime Pollution Prevention Act of 2008

          To amend the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships to implement MARPOL Annex VI.

          Other Bill Titles (8 more)

          7/8/2008--Public Law. (This measure has not been amended since it was passed by the Senate on June 26, 2008. The summary of that version is repeated here.) Maritime Pollution Prevention Act of 2008 -
          (Sec. 3) Amends the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (Act) to provide for ... moreSee Full Bill Text

          Amendments

          This bill has no amendments.



          Bill Status

          IntroducedresultVoted on by HouseresultVoted on by SenateresultConsidered By PresidentresultThis Bill Has Become Law
          February 05, 2007March 26, 2007June 26, 2008July 21, 2008July 21, 2008

          Latest Vote

          March 26, 2007Roll call number 187 in the House
          Question: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 802 Maritime Pollution Prevention Act
          Required percentage of 'Aye' votes: 2/3 (66%)Percentage of 'aye' votes: 82%Result: Passed
           

          See Full Voting History (1 votes)     Show All Actions (33 actions)


          Show More User Statistics...


          In the News feed

          July 11, 2008 Governors Urge Tighter Emissions Standards For Ships

          If signed into law, HR 802 would ratify an international treaty amendment focused on reducing air pollution from ships. Governor Kulongoski's spokeswoman ...

          Was this article useful? Yes or No

          Source: OPB News, OR



          July 08, 2008 AAPA Hails Passage of Vessel Air Emissions Bill

          (BUSINESS WIRE)--The American Association of Port Authorities today praised Congress for passing HR 802, the Maritime Pollution Prevention Act, ...

          Was this article useful? Yes or No

          Source: Business Wire (press release), CA


          9 more articles...
          See most useful news articles

          Blog Coverage feed

          August 21, 2008 Public Safety CommitteeCity of New York Queens (Physicians ...

          S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation06.27.2008 Senate Passes Maritime Pollution Prevention Act WASHINGTON, DC The US Senate approved HR 802, the Maritime Pollution Prevention Act (MARPOL Annex VI) by Source: ...

          Was this article useful? Yes or No

          Source: physicians committee for responsible medicine


          August 12, 2008 Management Update

          ... Logistics services provider Sinotrans Group has agreed to merge with China Yangtze Transportation Group; Shippers add fuel surcharge to combat rising fuel costs; Congress passes the HR 802, the Maritime Pollution Prevention Act; ...

          Was this article useful? Yes or No

          Source: Air Freight


          August 01, 2008 Management Update

          ... Logistics services provider Sinotrans Group has agreed to merge with China Yangtze Transportation Group; Shippers add fuel surcharge to combat rising fuel costs; Congress passes the HR 802, the Maritime Pollution Prevention Act; ...

          Was this article useful? Yes or No

          Source: Logistics Management - Freight Transportation...


          67 more posts...
          See most useful blog posts

          Information made available by:

          Technorati

          For more info about the campaign contributions behind this bill, visit its page on Maplight.org

          OpenCongress is a joint project of the Participatory Politics Foundation and the Sunlight Foundation. Questions? Comments? Contact Us

          Data made available by:

          Govtrack.US

          Help Open Up Congress:

          The OpenHouse Project
           

          AAPA: American Association of Port Authorities
           
          News Release
          FOR RELEASE - July 8, 2008
          Contact: Aaron Ellis,
          aellis@...
          703-254-7098
          American Association of Port Authorities
          1010 Duke Street
          Alexandria, VA 22314
          Phone: (703) 684-5700
          Fax: (703) 684-6321
          www.aapa-ports.org

          AAPA Hails Passage Of Vessel Air Emissions Bill

          The American Association of Port Authorities today praised Congress for passing H.R. 802, the Maritime Pollution Prevention Act, which will now be transmitted to President Bush for his signature. 

          The legislation will implement Annex VI of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, more commonly known as MARPOL, providing air quality benefits for port communities in countries that are signatories to the treaty.  Annex VI is a global treaty that establishes emission limits for oxides of nitrogen (NOx), oxides of sulfur (SOx) and other pollutants from vessels.

          Kurt Nagle, AAPA's president and CEO, said the ports association has strongly advocated for tough new air emissions standards for both foreign and domestic ships that call on U.S. ports. "While land-based emissions and some marine emissions are the responsibility of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, AAPA believes that an international process is the most effective for vessels, the majority of which are flagged in countries other than the U.S.," he said. "Considering that emissions from ocean-going ships are predicted to grow by more than 70 percent over the next 15 years, it's imperative that meaningful and effective air emissions standards be adopted to improve air quality."

          A U.S. delegation led by the EPA and U.S. Coast Guard, with support from AAPA and the World Shipping Council, played a lead role in negotiating a suite of amendments that will further reduce air emissions and particulate matter from ships.  The IMO's Marine Environment Protection Committee gave the amendments preliminary approval at its meeting last April.  Those amendments are expected to be adopted at the Committee's next meeting this October in London.

          The American Association of Port Authorities was founded in 1912 and today represents 160 of the leading public port authorities in the United States, Canada, Latin America and the Caribbean. In addition, the Association represents more than 300 sustaining and associate members, firms and individuals with an interest in the seaports of the Western Hemisphere. AAPA port members are public entities mandated by law to serve public purposes. They facilitate waterborne commerce and contribute to local, regional and national economic growth. These ports are gateways to world trade and are critical components to their nation’s economic health, national defense and growing cruise industry. In 2007, commercial seaport and marine cargo operations in the U.S. generated $3.2 trillion of total economic activity and provided jobs for 13.3 million Americans, whose earnings and consumption totaled nearly $650 billion.

          # # #
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.