Bar pilotage: rates.
Do you support it?
Want to know if it passes?
We'll email you when AB 2287 moves — a committee vote, a floor vote, or a signature. Nothing else.
Free forever · unsubscribe in one click.
Your answer was recorded either way.
Which district are you in?
Your ZIP is all we need to match you to your own representatives — so we can tell you how they voted on AB 2287.
You're tracking AB 2287
We'll email you the moment it moves.
AB 2287 — Bar pilotage: rates.
Last action — Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.
-
✓Introduced
-
2In Committee
-
3Passed Assembly
-
4Passed Senate
-
5To Executive
-
6Enacted
This bill died with 2011-2012 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.
Summary
Existing law provides for the licensing and regulation of pilots for Monterey Bay, and the Bays of San Francisco, San Pablo, and Suisun, and the payment of specified pilotage rates and charges imposed on vessels piloted in those bays. In that connection, existing law requires the Board of Pilot Commissioners for Monterey Bay, and the Bays of San Francisco, San Pablo, and Suisun Bays to recommend that the Legislature, by statute, adopt a schedule of pilotage rates that provide fair and reasonable return to pilots engaged in ship movements or special operations if the rates for those movements or operations are not specified by law. Existing law requires a vessel using pilots for ship movements or special operations that do not constitute bar pilotage to pay the rate specified in the schedule of pilotage rates adopted by the Legislature. This bill would<caml:Numerator>1</caml:Numerator><caml:Denominator>2</caml:Denominator></caml:Fraction> the full pilotage rate for vessel movements for the 2nd pilot. The bill would require the board, no later than January 1, 2014, to adopt regulations specifying the requirements that must be met for the safe operation of vessels in those bays during periods of restricted visibility caused by fog, weather conditions, or darkness"?> state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would require a 2nd bar pilot for safety in the San Francisco Bay and its tributaries for ultra large container vessels, and what the appropriate compensation is for the 2nd pilot.
Bill Text
- Amended 05/01/12 - Amended Assembly Current pdf May 01, 2012
- Amended 04/09/12 - Amended Assembly pdf April 09, 2012
- Amended 03/29/12 - Amended Assembly pdf March 29, 2012
- Introduced 02/24/12 - Introduced pdf February 24, 2012
- AB2287 View text html
Action History
-
Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
-
Read second time and amended.
-
From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 8. Noes 4.) (April 23).
-
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on TRANS. Read second time and amended.
-
Re-referred to Com. on TRANS.
-
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on TRANS. Read second time and amended.
-
Referred to Com. on TRANS.
-
Read first time.
-
From printer. May be heard in committee March 27.
-
Introduced. To print.
Sponsors
- Swanson · Primary
Sponsorship breakdown
Export CSV (upgrade) →1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on
Sponsors (1)
- Swanson
Co-sponsors (0)
None.
Not signed on (121)
121 members have not signed on to this bill.
Show all 121 →"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.
Votes
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 8 | 4 | 0 | 2 |
| Total | 8 | 4 | 0 | 2 |
| % of votes cast | 57% | 29% | 0% | 14% |
How each member voted (14)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Galgiani | — | Yea |
| Bonilla | — | Yea |
| Portantino | — | Yea |
| Carter | — | Yea |
| Jeffries | — | Nay |
| Miller | — | Not Voting |
| Norby | — | Nay |
| Solorio | — | Nay |
| Achadjian | — | Nay |
| Blumenfield | — | Yea |
| Buchanan | — | Yea |
| Logue | — | Not Voting |
| Eng | — | Yea |
| Bonnie Lowenthal | — | Yea |
Subjects
Frequently asked questions
- What does AB 2287 do?
- Existing law provides for the licensing and regulation of pilots for Monterey Bay, and the Bays of San Francisco, San Pablo, and Suisun, and the payment of specified pilotage rates and charges imposed on vessels piloted in those bays. In that connection, existing law requires the Board of Pilot Commissioners for Monterey Bay, and the Bays of San Francisco, San Pablo, and Suisun Bays to recommend that the Legislature, by statute, adopt a schedule of pilotage rates that provide fair and reasonable return to pilots engaged in ship movements or special operations if the rates for those movements or operations are not specified by law. Existing law requires a vessel using pilots for ship movements or special operations that do not constitute bar pilotage to pay the rate specified in the schedule of pilotage rates adopted by the Legislature. This bill would<caml:Numerator>1</caml:Numerator><caml:Denominator>2</caml:Denominator></caml:Fraction> the full pilotage rate for vessel movements for the 2nd pilot. The bill would require the board, no later than January 1, 2014, to adopt regulations specifying the requirements that must be met for the safe operation of vessels in those bays during periods of restricted visibility caused by fog, weather conditions, or darkness"?> state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would require a 2nd bar pilot for safety in the San Francisco Bay and its tributaries for ultra large container vessels, and what the appropriate compensation is for the 2nd pilot.
- Who sponsors AB 2287?
- AB 2287 is sponsored by Swanson.
- What is the current status of AB 2287?
- This bill died with 2011-2012 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
- Where can I track AB 2287?
- Track AB 2287 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.
Make your voice heard on AB 2287
Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.
Stay ahead of AB 2287
Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously
One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.
Track this bill →