OLA#: 001-03

LEGISLATIVE ANALYST REPORT

TO: Honorable Members of the Board of Supervisors

FROM: Jennifer Stanley, Office of the Legislative Analyst

DATE: June 30, 2003

SUBJECT: Cruise Ship Terminal at Piers 30 and 32 (Report II)

SUMMARY OF REQUESTED ACTION

A motion introduced by Supervisor Chris Daly requests the Office of Legislative Analyst (OLA) to examine the regulatory process for approval of the proposed James R. Herman Cruise Ship Terminal at Piers 30 and 32, provide analysis of state legislation that has been approved and may be proposed regarding this site, and describe efforts in other communities to plan for cruise ship terminals and to provide guidance to City staff in advance of regulatory approvals at the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. The OLA should provide an initial report no later than February 13, 2003 and continue working until all relevant state and local legislation is adopted.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This second report on the Cruise Ship Terminal at Piers 30 and 32 addresses existing regulatory requirements for commercial passenger vessels with a focus on environmental standards and comparison of wharfinger (dockage, passenger and cargo) fees. These issues are related to cruise ships in general and are not specific to the proposed new Terminal at Piers 30 and 32. The report provides a summary of existing regulatory requirements and current proposed legislative measures to provide an overall perspective to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors (Board) when making decisions on these issues that come before them.

It was found that there are several layers of government and industry policies, procedures and enforcement efforts that have been established. This is most likely due to the variety of issues and jurisdictional responsibility. The State of California has taken some preliminary legislative actions dealing with reporting of waste, waste water and ballast water disposal. Florida and Hawaii have entered into agreements with industry organizations to address specific environmental issues that are unique to their areas. Locally, the City of Monterey established written commitments from the cruise lines regarding the release of waste-water into the waters of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. However these commitments held no legal basis when actually tested and Monterey is in the process of strengthening their position with signed contractual agreements from the cruise lines. Alaska has been the most pro-active in establishing strict passenger vessel environmental standards by legislative action. Many states and countries are utilizing Alaska standards as a model by which vessels must meet when entering local waters.

There has been increased public interest in the potential impacts of cruise ship operations on the environment at the national, state and local level. In addition, there has been an increase in ships calling at the Port of San Francisco with projections that there will be many more visits and/or bigger cruise ships in the future¹. Therefore, as issues dealing with cruise ships calling in San Francisco come before the Board they may wish to consider ways of achieving greater control, monitoring and enforcement of cruise ship activities. Such actions may include and are expanded on in more detail in the report:

support of proposed federal and state legislative measures and encourage these institutions to take the lead in coordinating and regulating the cruise ship industry,

monitor the San Francisco Port's recent adoption of Resolution No. 03-39, environmental pollution control, monitoring and enforcement measures, or

adoption by the Board of local ordinances that strengthen pollution control, monitoring and enforcement,

review and consider Bay Area Air Quality Management District air quality mitigation measures.

A Port Economic Impact Study showed that over $35 million in annual economic benefits are derived from the cruise industry to the City and County through fees, purchases, supplies, and tourism. San Francisco's current wharfage fees generate $1 million annually to the Port and are competitive with other West Coast ports. Dockage fees are very close to those charged by Los Angeles, Long Beach and San Diego but less than Seattle and Vancouver, B.C. However, San Francisco passenger fees are higher than any other West Coast port (details provided in section on "Wharfinger" below)

BACKGROUND

The San Francisco Port has solicited proposals and has chosen a developer, through a competitive bid process, for development of the James R. Herman Cruise Ship Terminal on Piers 30-32. The 13 - acre project will include 325,000 square feet of office space and 200,000 square feet of retail shops, 5 - acres of open space, as well as a proposed $15 million adjacent park on the waterfront (Brannan Street Wharf). The project also involves the removal of some 175,000 square feet of dilapidated piers. The project received final approval by the Port Commission on May 25, 2003. The Board approved the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in January 2003.

Cruise ships make up only one percent of all ocean going traffic with shipping vessels being the majority. The cruise ships today that carry thousands of passengers can generate large amounts of waste and therefore have drawn significant public attention. Permissible water discharges by cruise ships are defined as "graywater (from dishwashers, showers, laundry, bath, galleys, and washbasins), blackwater (sewage and medical and dental sink drainage), oily bilge water, sewage sludge and ballast water.

The cruise industry is subject to control and oversight from their flag state (the nation with which they are registered), the port states (the nations at which they make port calls), and in the U.S., the individual states and localities that they visit. International standards are developed by the International Maritime Organization (IMO). With respect to environmental issues, the major international standard applicable to cruise ships is the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, known as MARPOL. This standard addresses such things as operational discharges of oil, disposal of garbage and plastics, and air emissions. Many flag states and port states, including the U.S., have in some cases adopted MARPOL requirements as their domestic standard, so that compliance with this convention constitutes compliance with national law². IMO treaties contain no enforcement mechanisms, but require the flag nation that is party to the treaty to act.

A closer look at the federal, state and industry standards is examined in the following discussion.

In addition to the environmental regulatory issues this report includes a comparative sampling of wharfage fees in order to provide the Board with information on where the City stands in comparison with other ports when considering any changes in the fee structure.

COMMERCIAL VESSEL REGULATORY PROCESS

International, Federal and Industry Initiatives

Cruise ships are an international industry regulated by a variety of governmental and non-governmental organizations including the United Nations International Maritime Organization, the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the International Council of Cruise Lines (ICCL)³.

The ICCL standards are voluntary industry standards that have no monitoring, legal or enforcement mechanism with them.

Environmental standards for the cruise industry developed through the International Maritime Organization apply to all vessels engaged in international commerce. These standards are set forth in the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL). In addition, the U.S. has jurisdiction over vessels that operate in U.S. waters where U.S. laws such as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Clean Water Act and air emission standards apply.

According to a U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) study the country where a ship is registered (the "flag state") is responsible for certifying the ship's compliance with pollution prevention standards, although many nations delegate this task to classification societies, which perform pollution prevention compliance inspections under contract. The country the ship visits (the "port state") can conduct its own examinations to verify the ship's compliance with international standards and can detain the ship if it finds significant noncompliance. The U.S. Coast Guard performs these examinations and enforces standards in U.S. Ports⁴. The Coast Guard is directed to establish a cruise ship inspection and wastewater-sampling regime, examine environmental compliance records and procedures, and inspect the functionality and proper operation of equipment installed for abatement and control of discharges. If violations of U.S. law occur, the Coast Guard can levy administrative civil penalties up to $25,000 per violation the Coast Guard refers more serious cases to the Department of Justice for possible criminal prosecution. The same GAO report that discusses laws and penalties documented large numbers of environmental violations by cruise ships, i.e. from 1983-88 104 confirmed cases of illegal dumping and fines of $30 million were imposed on cruise ships.

Proposed 2003 Federal Legislative Measure

The U.S. Coast Guard is finalizing a national ballast water policy to prevent the introduction of foreign aquatic species into coastal and internal waters of the U.S. These policies will be based upon laws primarily impacting international cargo and passenger vessels that arrive from foreign destinations H.R. 1080 and S. 525 National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2003 is a re-authorization of the original Act of 1990.

State and Local Government Initiatives

In addition, coastal states, such as Florida, Alaska and California have enacted similar laws strictly regulating pollution from ships traveling within state waters. These laws, which supplement federal laws, also apply to foreign-flag vessels and are in some instances even more stringent.

The State of California has enacted legislative measures and is considering new legislation in 2003. Under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) is the principal state agency with primary authority over water quality matters. Under the act, the Board prescribes waste discharge requirements for the discharge of waste into the waters of the state. Also, the State Lands Commission has been designated by the Legislature to administer the state's ballast water program.

AB 703 (1999)⁵ The Ballast Water Management for Control of Nonindigenous Species Act (Act). The Act established a statewide multi-agency⁶ program with the intent to control the introduction and spread of nonindigenous aquatic species (NAS) in the waters of the State. The measure created an Exotic Species Control Fund to receive fees and penalties assessed on any ship to port in California. The provisions of this bill are to sunset on January 1, 2004, unless new legislation is enacted before that date⁷. AB 433 (2003), would reauthorize the program (see section on Proposed California 2003 Legislative Measures).

AB 2746 (2000) created the Cruise Ship Environmental Task Force⁸. The primary responsibilities of the Task Force include:

Requiring owners or operators of large passenger vessels to submit certain copied documents, when requested by the task force, regarding waste released or offloaded after January 1, 2001, from vessels in California. The task force can request further information.

Requires the owner or operator of a vessel to submit a quarterly report to SWRCB of graywater and sewage releases in state marine waters that occurred during the previous quarter that the vessel was located in state marine waters, to the extent that these releases can be reasonably quantified.

Directs the Air Resources Board to measure and record visible emissions, excluding condensed water vapor, of a representative sample of large passenger vessels while at berth or at anchor in a state port.

The Task Force is to report to the State Legislature regarding the provisions outlined in the legislation⁹.

The provisions of this bill expired on July 1, 2003.

Proposed California 2003 Legislative Measures:

AB 121 (Simitian) prohibits cruise ships from discharging sewage, oily bilgewater, and ballast water into state waters and the four national marine sanctuaries along the state's coast. Bill status as of June 30, 2003, AB 121 passed the Assembly is pending hearing on July 7, 2003 in the Senate Environmental Quality Committee.

AB 433 (Nation) revises the California Ballast Water Management for Control of Nonindigenous Species Act and extends the Act's sunset date to January 1, 2010 (re-authorizes AB 703). The bill addresses many of the recommendations made in the State Lands Commission's (Commission) report to the Legislature that was required by AB 703¹⁰. Bill status as of June 30, 2003, AB 433 passed the Assembly is pending hearing on July 7, 2003 in the Senate Environmental Quality Committee.

AB 471 (Simitian) places restrictions on cruise ships in order to reduce air pollution off of the California coast. Bill status as of June 30, 2003, AB 433 passed the Assembly is pending hearing on July 7, 2003 in the Senate Environmental Quality Committee.

AB 906 (Nakano and Laird) prohibits cruise ships from discharging from kitchens, laundries and showers, and hazardous wastes such as dry cleaning and photo processing chemicals, into the marine waters of the state or national marine sanctuaries in the marine waters of the state¹¹. Bill status as of June 30, 2003,

AB 906 passed the Assembly is pending hearing on July 7, 2003 in the Senate Environmental Quality Committee.

The Port of San Francisco (Port) relied on existing international, federal, and state laws and regulations and industry policies and procedures that govern environmental issues, monitoring and enforcement for the cruise lines until the Port Commission adopted Resolution 03-39 on June 12, 2003 (details below).

As part of the proposed new Cruise Terminal at Pier 30-32 and mixed-use project, the Major Environmental Analysis Division of the San Francisco Planning Department completed an environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) was published in November 2001 and was certified by the Planning Commission on May 2002. Bluewater Network filed an appeal to the Board of Supervisors, and the Board remanded the SEIR to the Planning Commission. City and Port staff and the cruise terminal developer worked with Bluewater Network to revise the document culminating in a letter from Bluewater Network supporting the revisions. The SEIR was revised and certified by the Planning Commission in November 2002. San Franciscans for a Healthy Waterfront filed another appeal, and the Board rejected that appeal thereby certifying the SEIR in January 2003.

On March 25, 2003, the Port Commission adopted the CEQA findings, including implementation of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The CEQA findings include mitigation measures designed to address cruise terminal environmental impacts.

The Port Commission on June 12, 2003 took a pro-active stance by adopting Resolution No. 03-39 (attachment A) that establishes a policy to prohibit cruise ships using Port facilities from discharging sewage, gray water, hazardous waste, solid waste, fuel or oil-related substances, or unauthorized ballast water into San Francisco Bay waters until such time as wastewater treatment methods and ballast water treatment methods are specifically authorized by state or federal agencies empowered by statute to make such authorization. The resolution implements these policies by requiring Port staff to prepare a standard form berthing agreement for adoption by the Port Commission that will require cruise lines to comply with all laws regarding discharge. Reporting of incidental or intentional discharges within San Francisco Bay to the Port's Maritime Operations Manager must by done with 24 hours. Failure to make a report may result in denial of future berthing at the Port.

In addition, the Resolution provides for a financial incentive program to be adopted by the Port Commission that will encourage cruise ships to burn low sulfur fuel while in berth.

The Resolution creates water and air quality advisory groups comprised of representatives from the maritime industry, regulatory agencies, environmental organizations and community groups to maintain an on-going dialogue on the environmental impacts created by the cruise ships.

Monterey, California does not have a terminal for ships to dock therefore they must anchor in Monterey Bay and shuttle passengers ashore. Monterey had its first request for cruise ship visits in 2002. In response to the request for visits and a lack of trust by some toward the cruise ship industry, the City of Monterey adopted a "Cruise Ship Action Plan" in the spring of 2002 and received written commitments, by letter, from the cruise lines that had scheduled visits in 2002 of a no discharge policy within the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS) waters. This policy applied to all wastewater, ballast water, water discharged through the oily water separator, and all forms of solid waste.

As a result of the State of California's reporting requirements under AB 2746 (see summary above) it was learned that Crystal Cruise Line vessel "Crystal Harmony" had indeed discharged waste products into the waters

of the MBNMS at its time of departure (14 miles off-shore) but had not reported it to the City of Monterey. The cruise line indicated that they had no obligation to report the discharge to the City since they had not violated any existing laws, only a written commitment to the City not to discharge.

On March 18, 2003 the City of Monterey passed a resolution banning Crystal Cruise Line ships from visiting the City of Monterey for a period of 15 years, and the vessel "Crystal Harmony" forever. In addition, the City tightened its "Cruise Ship Action Plan" to implement stronger enforcement actions and monitoring in the future.

The City of Monterey has created a standard "Letter of Agreement" (attachment B) to enter into with each cruise ship line that wishes to visit the area. These contracts will be signed by authorized cruise ship representatives and will state the city's conditions on the ship visit and reporting requirements.

Carl Anderson, Public Facilities Director for the City of Monterey, stated that monitoring cruise ship activity is extremely difficult due to their movement both during the day and at nighttime.

Note: In an effort to respond to concerns over the environment, some cruise companies have installed sophisticated sewage treatment systems on some cruise ships. The "Rochem" system technology separates and filters the material until drinkable water is produced. This system is recognized by the State of Alaska and the U.S. Coast Guard to be good enough to allow the discharge of its effluent (water) even while in Port and in sensitive habitats. The City of Monterey has accepted this system to be utilized in the MBNMS and if random testing is allowed. This system treats gray and black water but not ballast water.

The County of Santa Cruz adopted Resolution No. 321-2002 on August 13, 2002 that recommended "Zero Discharge Policy for Cruise Ship Operations in the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary.

Hawaii and Florida: The states of Hawaii and Florida have entered into Memorandums of Understandings (MOU's) with their respective industry organizations and the State of Maine is in the process of drafting an MOU. MOUs are utilized by the states to address specific practices to protect the unique environments in which the vessels travel when no federal or state laws exist to address these special issues.

The Governor of Hawaii entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the North West CruiseShip Association (NWCA)¹² in October 2002. The MOU principally accepts the ICCL Industry Standards¹³ in the management of solid waste, hazardous wastes and wastewater. In addition to the ICCL Practices, specific unique practices were agreed upon to be followed when the vessels are among the Hawaiian Islands.

The State of Florida in 2000 entered into an MOU between the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP); the Florida-Caribbean Cruise Association (FCCA) and the ICCL, as representatives of the cruise industry in Florida. Similar to Hawaii, the MOU states FDEP'S acceptance of a set of waste management practices and procedures and formalized an agreement between the FDEP, the FCCA and its members, and the Coast Guard to work together on discharge management proposals, meeting on an annual basis.

The State of Washington (Port of Seattle) accepts the ICCL Guidelines as their operating practice, augmenting International, National, Port and Flag State requirements. The Port of Seattle is requiring that diesel powered cruise ships homeported at its new cruise terminal burn only on-road quality diesel in port. In addition, the State of Washington is now considering regulations to extend these protections to state waters.

The State of Maine is also moving legislation that will prevent dumping by cruise ships in its waters.

The State of Alaska has taken considerably stronger actions than other states. In 2001 Alaska enacted House Bill 260, and adopted regulations that:

requires certain passenger vessels operating in the marine waters of the state to register the vessels for the purpose of establishing information-gathering, record keeping, and reporting requirements relating to the vessels' graywater and sewage;

prohibits the discharge of untreated sewage from the vessels unless exempted;

places limits on discharges of treated sewage and graywater;

establishes a commercial passenger vessel coastal protection fund;

established a fee on commercial passenger vessels, for each voyage during which the vessels operate in the marine waters of the state (based on the overnight accommodation capacity of the vessels);

establishes penalties for failure to comply with certain laws;

requires other non-substantive program activities.

Recommendations

The cruise ship industry is aware of the public interest in their environmental impacts and are working with Federal and State government agencies and stakeholders to continue making improvements. New technologies are being introduced to assist in their efforts. For an industry whose reach extends globally, international, national, and state, uniform standards and regulations are preferable to local standards because they provide for regulatory consistency. Therefore, it is first recommended that the Board consider support of proposed 2003 Federal measures H.R.1080 and S.525 re-authorization of the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2003.

Second, that the Board review and support those initiatives at the state level that will best strengthen monitoring, reporting and enforcement of passenger vessel water discharges and air quality issues, AB 121,

AB 433, AB 471 and/or AB 906. The Port of San Francisco has been working with the author of AB 433 and is supportive of this bill, as are the advocate environmental organizations. AB 121, AB 471 and AB 906 are measures that are principally supported by environmental organizations but not the industry.¹⁴

Third, upon issuance of the report by the California Environmental Protection Agency Cruise Ship Environmental Task Force, review the Task Force recommendations and work to support those that will best address San Francisco's concerns with cruise ship environmental impacts.

Fourth, encourage further federal and state legislation to regulate cruise vessels in U.S. and state waters in an effort to provide consistency and continuity for the industry and provide needed environmental protections.

Fifth, monitor on a regular basis the implementation by the Port of Resolution No. 03-39.

Sixth, request an opinion from the City Attorney on the legality of adopting a local ordinance that may address passenger vessel pollution issues, passenger fees and compliance.

Lastly, cruise ships admit a tremendous amount of air pollution, as much as the daily emissions equal to those of the Hunters Point Power Plant or in a single day, a cruise ship pollutes as much as 12,240 cars. In Resolution No. 03-39 the Port took initial steps to address air pollution emissions by cruise ships by establishing a Cruise Ship Air Quality Advisory Group an recommended adoption of an incentive program for ships that meet or exceed the emissions reduction criteria. However, the Board may wish to consider additional proposals as put forth by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District letter of June 3, 2003 addressed to Supervisor Peskin and members of the Board (attachment C).

WHARFINGER

Cruise ships provide an economic benefit to the City and County through fees, purchases, supplies, and tourism. San Francisco's current wharfage fees generate $1 million annually to the Port and are competitive with other West Coast ports. Dockage fees are very close to those charged by Los Angeles, Long Beach and San Diego but less than Seattle and Vancouver, B.C. However, San Francisco passenger fees are higher than any other West Coast ports (see Table II below).

The S.F. Port Terminal Operator Schedule Tariff No. 4 establishes the rules, regulations, rates, and other provisions applying to the services and for the use of the wharfinger facilities under the jurisdiction of the S.F. Port Commission¹⁵. There are three principal established charges¹⁶ related to cruise ship activities at the Port: 1) dockage fees, 2) cargo wharfage and, 3) passenger fees.

Dockage is based on the overall length of the vessel (which is the linear distance, expressed in meters, of the extreme length of a vessel) and the period of time at berth (see Appendix A for Dockage Rates). Specified exemptions are provided for under Schedule No. 4 based on qualified circumstances, i.e. repairs, military, etc. The Port has also created a Volume Incentive Program (VIP)¹⁷ that reduces the standard dockage fee by 50% based on standard criteria. The Port estimates that the average vessel dockage fee is $4104 per 24 hours.

Cargo wharfage charges are $5.67 per revenue ton (weight or measure-the greater of the two).

Passenger fees for embarking or disembarking passengers from a Port-of-Call passenger cruise vessel is $10 each and passenger fee for transit passenger is $6 each. VIP passenger cruise ship fees are calculated on a sliding scale¹⁸:

Table I. VIP Program

Number of Passengers	Fee Charged Per Passenger
1 - 8,000	$9
8,001 - 16,000	$8
16,000 - 24,000	$7
24,001 - 32,000	$6
32,001 and over	$5

The Port estimates that the annual revenues generated by the cruise ship vessels in fees (dockage, passenger and misc. charges) will total $1 million (passenger revenue $762,000, dockage $100,000, misc. $160,000) for calendar year 2003. These funds are part of the Port's general fund account.

Monterey established a $1 per passenger landing fee that was raised to $5 earlier this year to cover City services; including vessel traffic safety, the use of a passenger boarding float, crowd control and police protection, water quality monitoring, bus staging locations, business and education booth space, traffic control and increased facilities maintenance.

Alaska, as part of its legislative actions (HB 260) instituted approximately a $1 per passenger environmental compliance fee.

TABLE II. PASSENGER CRUISE: COMPETING PORT CHARGES¹⁹

	Vancouver B.C.	Seattle	S.F.	L.A.	Long Beach	San Diego
Dockage per meter	$18.88	$29.53	$16.09	$16.09	$16.09	$16.47
Dockage per Ship (avg.)	$4,549	$7,116	$4,104	$4,104	$4,104	$4,200
Cargo Wharfage/Rev.ton	$1.30	$9.00	$5.67	$5.67	$5.67	$5.87
Cargo Whfg. Per Ship (avg.)	$391	$2,700	$1,701	$1,701	$1,701	$1,761
Embark/Debark Pass. Fee	$6.60	$6.00	$10.00	$9.50	$6.33	$4.84
Transit Passenger Fee	$6.60	$6.00	$6.00	$0.00	$6.33	$1.82
Passenger Fees per Ship (avg.)	$12,857	$11,688	$18,286	$15,669	$12,331	$8,526

Funds are appropriated by the State Legislature to the Department of Environmental Conservation for purposes of implementation of the state laws and regulations.

Civil penalties may be imposed on commercial passenger vessels when violations of the law and regulations have been determined.

No Recommendations on Wharfage Fees

¹ San Francisco Port Cruise Ship vists: 2000-40; 2001-45, 2002-42, 2003-74 (projected) and 2004-85 (projected).

² Holland & Knight LLP, Environmental Compliance in the Cruise Industry, Dennis L. Bryant, May 31, 2001

³ The International Council of Cruise Lines (ICCL) is a non-profit trade association that represents the interests of 16 passenger cruise lines in the North American cruise market and cruise industry business partners.

⁴ GAO Marine Pollution: Progress Made to Reduce Marine Pollution by Cruise Ships, but Important Issues Remain, February 2000

⁵ AB 703 pertains to cargo and cruise vessels and only addresses ballast water discharges. A recent report by the State Lands Commission indicated a high degree of cooperation and compliance by the shipping lines in providing information as well as compliance with payment of the required fees. No civil penalties for non-compliance with the program have been levied to date however there are cases pending. In addition, the State Lands Commission has made a number of recommendations to the State Legislature including; reauthorization of the program, broadening the areas that are to be monitored and strengthening the enforcement provisions.

⁶ Responsible agencies involved in implementation of the Act include the California State Lands Commission, California Department of Fish and Game, State Water Resources Control Board, and the State Board of Equalization.

⁷ It should be noted that cruise ships have continued to violate state ballast water law. Bluewater Network sued four cruise lines, resulting in a court order against Carnival to stop illegal ballasting practices. Three other cruise lines agreed not to dump ballast water in state waters anymore.

⁸ The Cruise Ship Environmental Task Force comprised of representatives of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), the Department of Fish and Game, the Department of Toxic Substances Control, the Integrated Waste Management Board the State Lands Commission, and the State Air Resources Board and the U.S. Coast Guard.

⁹ The Task Force has completed its work and the report to the Legislature is being processed through the necessary channels.

¹⁰ The bill inc1udes the following provisions: 1) requires the Commission to develop regulations governing the discharge of invasive species for vessels moving with the exclusive economic zone (EEZ)and grants the Commission enforcement authority. The EEZ extends from the baseline of the territorial sea of the U.S. seaward 200 nautical miles, 2) incorporates coastal traffic within the ballast water program's reporting, fee and penalty provisions and 3) expands the ballast watter reporting requirements to include reporting for each port of arrival 4) expands the persons to whom civil liability may apply 5) requires vessels to retain and make available to the Commission a separate ballast water log and 6) requires the Commission to take samples from at least 25% of arriving vessels subject to nonindigenous species control requirements.

¹¹ The bill includes the following provisions: 1) requires the owner or operator of a cruise ship to immediately notify the Department of Fish and Game and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) of specified releases, 2) authorizes SWRCB to adopt regulations and to board and inspect a vessel, 3) requires the owner or operator of a cruise ship to submit reports to the SWRCB concerning the release of waste into the marine waters of the state and national marine sanctuaries, and 4) authorizes civil penalties to be imposed on persons who violate the provisions of the bill.

¹² NWCA is a non-profit entity organized for the purpose of representing member cruise lines which operate in and about Hawaii, membership includes Carnival Cruise Lines, Celebrity Cruises, Crystal Cruises, Holland America Line, Norwegian Cruise Line, Princess Cruises, Royal Caribbean Cruise Line, World Explorer, Radisson Seven Seas and Seabourn.

¹³ ICCL Industry Standard E-01-01, titled Cruise Industry Waste Management Practices and Procedures.

¹⁴ Note: As the legislative process is very liquid and amendments are consistently introduced to bills it is important to review the latest update of the measures before moving forward with a position of support or opposition

¹⁵ All rates, rules, regulations and provisions of Schedule No. 4 receive authority for enforcement from and are subject to the City of San Francisco's Charter, applicable City Ordinances, and Police Code.

¹⁶ The Port has a number of charges for various services provided to vessels however this study only addresses dockage and passenger fees for comparative purposes.

¹⁷ Volume Incentive Program (VIP) vessels is any passenger cruise ship that is owned and/or operated by an entity that 1) books eight or more calls at S.F by any of their owned/operated cruise ships within a calendar year; and 2) embarks/disembarks a total of 12,000 or more passengers (excluding transit passengers) at S.F. within a calendar year. (Source: Port of S.F. Schedule No. 4, Rule: 10. Section 10 - Passenger Fees).

¹⁸ Passenger fees were last increased as of January 1, 2003 by the Port.

¹⁹ Port of San Francisco: Passenger Cruise Competing Port Charges - Analysis