BILL ANALYSIS Ó SB 105 Page 1 Date of Hearing: July 6, 2011 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Felipe Fuentes, Chair SB 105 (Yee) - As Amended: June 22, 2011 Policy Committee: JudiciaryVote:8-2 Health Vote: 13-0 Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: No SUMMARY This bill requires an individual younger than 18 years of age to wear a properly fitted and approved helmet when downhill skiing or snowboarding. Specifically, this bill: 1)Requires helmets to meet the standards of specified national or international safety organizations. 2)Establishes a fine for an infraction of the helmet requirement of not more than $25. 3)Requires ski resorts to post signs about the helmet requirement and to provide written notice on trail maps and websites. FISCAL EFFECT No direct state fiscal impact. This bill contains no specific enforcement or reporting requirements. COMMENTS 1)Rationale . This bill is sponsored by the California Psychological Association to establish basic safety standards for children who ski and snowboard at California resorts. The author and sponsor indicate more than 7,000 head injuries occur annually at American ski resorts. Research indicates the use of a helmet for skiing and snowboarding reduces head, neck, and face injuries by 40% to 50%. The benefits of helmet protection are particularly pronounced for children. SB 105 Page 2 2)Related Legislation . a) SB 880 (Yee) Chapter 278, Statutes of 2010 was nearly identical to SB 105. SB 880 included a provision making the bill contingent on the enactment of AB 1652 (Jones). AB 1652 was vetoed by the governor, which subsequently voided SB 880's chaptered status. b) AB 1652 (Jones) in 2010 required ski resorts to prepare an annual safety plan, make the safety plan available to the public, and make available to the public a monthly report with specified details about any fatal incidents at the resort which resulted from a recreational activity. It also required a ski resort to establish its own signage policy and its own safety padding policy for the resort. AB 1652 was vetoed. c) SB 278 (Gaines) is nearly identical to AB 1652 (Jones) of 2010. This bill is currently enrolled. Analysis Prepared by : Lisa Murawski / APPR. / (916) 319-2081