BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 300|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 300
Author: Yee (D), et al
Amended: 5/4/09
Vote: 21
SENATE GOVERNMENTAL ORG. COMMITTEE : 11-1, 4/28/09
AYES: Wright, Harman, Calderon, Denham, Florez, Negrete
McLeod, Oropeza, Padilla, Wiggins, Wyland, Yee
NOES: Benoit
NO VOTE RECORDED: Vacancy
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 9-4, 5/18/09
AYES: Kehoe, Corbett, Denham, DeSaulnier, Hancock, Leno,
Oropeza, Wolk, Yee
NOES: Cox, Runner, Walters, Wyland
SUBJECT : Monterey Bay and the Bays of San Francisco, San
Pablo and
Suisun: pilotage rates
SOURCE : San Francisco Bar Pilots
DIGEST : This bill imposes a new navigation technology
surcharge on vessels piloted through the Golden Gate until
January 1, 2011 to recover the pilots' costs for navigation
hardware, software, and ancillary equipment purchased after
November 5, 2008.
ANALYSIS : Existing law establishes in state government
the Board of Pilot Commissioners (Board), with jurisdiction
CONTINUED
SB 300
Page
2
over Monterey Bay and the Bays of San Francisco, San Pablo,
and Suisun. Existing law directs the Board to regulate
pilotage and provides for the licensing, regulation, and
management of pilots in these bays. The Board consists of
seven members, appointed by the Governor, with the consent
of the Senate, as follows: two members must be licensed
pilots; two members must represent the industry and be
substantial users of Monterey Bay and any of the waters of
the Bays of San Francisco, San Pablo, or Suisun; and three
must be "public" members.
Existing law requires the Board to appoint and license the
number of pilots needed to carry out provisions of the
Harbors and Navigation Code and requires the Board to
consider various factors in making this determination.
Existing law specifies that the Board has the sole
authority to determine the qualifications and requirements
for obtaining a pilot license and it also authorizes the
Board to suspend or revoke licenses for misconduct and it
specifies procedures for such action. Existing law
establishes various rights and duties of these pilots.
Existing law prescribes pilotage rates for vessels and
requires vessels spoken inward or outward bound to pay a
specified rate of bar pilotage through the Golden Gate and
into or out of the Bays of San Francisco, San Pablo and
Suisun and vessels navigating the waters of Monterey Bay
are also required to pay a specified rate.
Existing law provides that the Board shall, from time to
time, review pilotage expenses and establish guidelines for
the evaluation and application of these expenses regarding
its recommendations for adjustments in rates. Currently,
those rates may be adjusted at the direction of the Board
in the event of specified changes in the number of pilots
or catastrophic cost increases. Specifically, current law
requires an adjustment to rates when the number of pilots
falls below 60 or rises above 60.
Existing law also imposes a Board operation surcharge of
pilotage fees, as specified, to be deposited in the Board
of Pilot Commissioners' Special Fund and used to support
the Board, and imposes an additional charge for pension
benefits payable to a fiduciary agent, as specified. The
SB 300
Page
3
Fund is continuously appropriated for the payment of the
compensation and expenses of the Board, its offices and
employees. Additionally, existing law provides for a pilot
trainee surcharge and a pilot and inland pilot training
program surcharge that pays for these respective training
programs.
This bill:
1.Deletes the existing rate adjuster, which requires an
adjustment to pilotage rates when the number of pilots
falls below 60 or rises above 60.
2.Establishes a new surcharge, until January 1, 2011, to
pay for the purchase, lease, maintenance and training of
the pilots' navigation equipment purchased after November
5, 2008.
Comments
Bar pilots are responsible for steering and arriving vessel
through the Golden Gate of San Francisco Bay, the Bay
waters and adjoining navigable waters, which include San
Pablo Bay, Suisun Bay, the Sacramento River and its
tributaries. When a vessel approaches the "SF" buoy 12
miles west of the Golden Gate Bridge, a bar pilot boards
the ship and takes navigational control. It becomes the
pilot's responsibility to guide the ship to its berth. The
bar pilots provide service to all types of vessels, from
100-foot tugs to 1,000-foot supertankers.
Purpose of this Bill . On November 7, 2007 the cargo vessel
Cosco Busan collided with the San Francisco-Oakland Bay
Bridge and discharged approximately 53,000 gallons of fuel
into San Francisco Bay. In March of 2009, the U.S. Coast
Guard released an investigative report of the incident
which outlined the causal and contributing factors that led
to the accident. Specifically, the report indicated the
main cause of the accidents was:
1.Navigational error by the pilot of the Cosco Busan, who
navigated the vessel at a high, unsafe speed in near-zero
visibility, failed to property monitor the vessel's
position and progress, and lost situational awareness.
SB 300
Page
4
2.Failure of the master of the Cosco Busan to adequately
monitor the navigational actions of the pilot and to
maintain sufficient situational awareness to questions to
correct navigational errors made by the pilot.
3.Failure of the pilot and master to effectively
communicate relevant navigational information with each
other during the course of the voyage leading u p to the
casualty.
4.Failure of the pilot and master to conduct a proper
pilot-master exchange prior to getting underway.
5.Failure of the master to adhere to restricted-visibility
procedures in the vessel's safety management system.
6.Failure of the pilot and Cosco Busan's crew to employ
proper bridge management team principles.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: Yes Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2009-10 2010-11
2011-12 Fund
One-time fee ($99) ($99) Special*
(revenue)
*Board of Pilot Commissioners' Special Fund. Senate
Appropriations Committee staff notes that since this fund
is continuously appropriated, this bill makes an
appropriation by increasing revenue deposited into the fund
and authorizing expenditure for a new purpose.
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/20/09)
San Francisco Bar Pilots (source)
AMNAV Maritime Services
California Coastkeepers Alliance
SB 300
Page
5
San Francisco Baykeepers
OPPOSITION : (Verified 5/20/09)
Pacific Merchant Shipping Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The author's office notes that, in
the wake of Cosco Busan, it became evident that the use of
navigation software and hardware, such as laptop computers
with independent GPS devices, would assist in improving the
safety of navigation. The author's office states that such
technology and equipment would provide the pilot with a
familiar tool that supplements the pilot vessel's existing
equipment. Additionally, the author's office points out
that Cosco Busan reinforced the need to conduct additional
research on navigational hazards and to develop
technologies that would widen the margin of navigational
safety in order to protect California's marine environment.
Thus, the author's office indicates that this bill proposes
to impose a "navigation technology surcharge" to be used
for the purchase or lease of navigational software,
hardware and ancillary equipment, along with maintenance
and training on such technology. Additionally, this bill
allows the new surcharge to be used by the Board to conduct
research of potential navigational hazards on the pilotage
grounds and determining how future technology should be
developed to enhance pilotage.
The author's office states that this bill would also make a
technical correction by eliminating an antiquated rate
adjuster provision in existing law. The author's office
contends that historically, the rate adjuster had been
sunsetted with each pilotage rate bill; however, when the
decision was made by the San Francisco Bar Pilots to not
pursue a rate bill in 2006, the rate adjuster inadvertently
came back into effect on January 1, 2007.
Writing in support of this bill, California Coastkeeper
Alliance notes that "given increasing ship traffic in the
state's bays and estuaries and along its sensitive
coastline, SB 300 is a prudent and timely measure to ensure
the health and safety of our world-renowned environment and
the public who benefits from it."
SB 300
Page
6
Also writing in support, San Francisco Baykeeper states
that "SB 300 is a critical step to protecting the resources
of San Francisco Bay from another oil spill and sustaining
the human and ecological communities that depend on the
Bay."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The Pacific Merchant Shipping
Association (PMSA) has expressed opposition to this bill
for a variety of reasons. PMSA notes that the maritime
industry, along with every other sector of the trade
economy, is suffering severe economic strain at the present
time, and does not warrant an increase in industry costs.
PMSA believes that this bill will not help the shipping
industry grow out of the current trade slump - cargo
volumes are in decline and longshore labor force and
container cranes stand idle - it simply adds additional
burdens on the intermodal supply chain. Moreover, PMSA
claims that the rate and surcharges imposed for pilotage in
the San Francisco Bay and River system are already higher
than in Southern California and among the highest on the
West Coast.
PMSA contends that it is inappropriate for the Legislature
to step outside the traditional rate-setting structure and
delete the existing rate adjuster provision. PMSA states
that the rate adjuster is an important tool for maintaining
rate balance within the current terms of the statute
without parties needing to petition for a rate change from
the Board when traffic volumes increase or decrease. PMSA
points out that historically, this provision has always
designed to sunrise at the conclusion of a period of rate
recommendations. The current rate adjuster became
effective in 2007, after being included in legislation that
codified the Board's recommendations to raise pilot rates
by 20 percent, and no reason for eliminating the adjuster
has been forwarded since its establishment by the
Legislature in 2002. PMSA believes that the adjuster
should only be sunset or deleted at a time when the number
of pilot licensees in neutral, and not at a time or in a
manner in which either the pilots or consumers of pilot
services pay disproportionately. PMSA has also expressed
concern with the proposed new surcharge to pay for the
pilots' navigation technology equipment, maintenance and
SB 300
Page
7
training and views it as an additional amount of money over
and above what shippers already pay for the services of
pilots.
PMSA points out that the Board is currently considering a
regulation to require all pilots to carry and be trained in
the operation of navigation technology equipment (e.g.,
laptops equipped to assist pilots in navigation), and PMSA
supports the adoption of this regulation, so long as some
recordkeeping associated with its proposed exemptions are
included. PMSA acknowledges that the San Francisco Bar
Pilots Association has been a good steward in this regard
as they have proactively purchased and began the process of
training and equipping its members with navigation
technology equipment that would satisfy the terms of the
proposed regulations that's currently before the Board.
However, given the above, PMSA does not view this bill as
enhancing safety or improving navigation because the
provision of navigation technology equipment has already
occurred by the pilots and with regulation by the Board
dealing with whether or not it is required to be carried or
used or whether pilots will be trained in its proper use
pending. PMSA has also expressed concern with the
provisions of this bill relating to the Board conducting
research of potential navigational hazards on the pilotage
grounds and determining how future technology should be
developed and used to enhance pilotage. According to PMSA,
the Board has never expressed an interest in conducting
research nor does it possess the resources, expertise or
wherewithal to conduct this research which is duplicative
of the charting and navigational safety missions of several
federal agencies.
TSM:do 5/20/09 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****