BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó





           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |                                                                 |
          |         SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER         |
          |                   Senator Fran Pavley, Chair                    |
          |                    2013-2014 Regular Session                    |
          |                                                                 |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 

          BILL NO: SB 427                    HEARING DATE: April 23, 2013   

          AUTHOR: Monning                    URGENCY: No 
          VERSION: April 8, 2013             CONSULTANT: Leonardo Scherer  
          Alves  
          DUAL REFERRAL: No                  FISCAL: Yes 
          SUBJECT: Vessels: equipment requirements: personal flotation  
          devices.
          
          BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
          California law mandates that vessels or associated equipment  
          used on waters are subject to boating safety statutes and  
          regulations. Currently, California requires persons aboard a  
          motorboat, sailboat, or other vessel to wear specific types of  
          personal flotation device. 

          California law has not been updated to reflect new recreational  
          devices that are gaining in popularity. As such, many of these  
          new devices are not treated as a vessel and therefore not  
          subject to boating safety statutes. The lack of regulation will  
          potentially cause confusion to law enforcement as these new  
          devices gain popularity. 

          PROPOSED LAW
          1. In order to keep California law continually updated this bill  
          would delete the requirements of a specific type of flotation  
          device and replace it to match the United States Coast Guard  
          approved wearable personal flotation devices. 

          2. This bill also changes the definition of a vessel to add:
               
               "  other artificial contrivance  used or capable of being used  
          as a means of transportation on water." 

          This broadening of the definition aims at new, and future,  
          recreational trends that should require the use of a personal  
          flotation device. 
                                                                      1








          ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
          None at this time

          ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
          None at this time

          COMMENTS
           1. Artificial contrivance and watercraft
           This bill would change the definition of a vessel to:

               "Vessel" includes every description of a  watercraft  or  
          other  artificial contrivance  used or capable of being used as a  
          means of transportation on water.  

           The new and broad definition of vessel is so broad that  
          potentially surfers and stand-up paddleboarders could be  
          required to abide by safety requirements similar to those that  
          apply to engine propelled watercraft. Since this bill adopts the  
          federal definition, it may be the case that the Coast Guard  
          determination that surfers and paddleboarders outside of a  
          recreational zone are subject to Coast Guard regulations  
          regarding personal flotation devices and other safety  
          regulations would be applied in California by local authorities.  
           

          2. There is no definition of watercraft nor of artificial  
          contrivance in the state code. Perhaps defining a watercraft  
          would eliminate some of the confusion and unintended  
          consequences.
          Changing the definition of vessel (or watercraft) to equipment  
          propelled  exclusively  by machinery or designed to go into  open  
          water  , beyond the limits of surfing or swimming, would more  
          appropriately update the statute and reflect new recreational  
          trends. These changes would accomplish the author's intent to  
          regulate new (motor propelled) trends such as the  
          water-propelled jet packs JetLev and Flyboard, at the same time  
          including sail boats, but exempting surfers from these new  
          regulations. Additionally, these definitions would offer greater  
          clarity and specificity. 

           3. Recreational Boating Safety Fund
           There is concern that if California does not change its statute  
          to match the Coast Guard the federal funding of the Recreational  
          Boating Safety Fund may be jeopardized. The Department of  
          Boating and Waterways receives yearly between $7 to $9 million  
          dollars. This fund was established in 1973 with the goal to  
                                                                      2







          encourage greater state participation and uniformity in boating  
          safety efforts, and to permit the states to provide greater  
          assistance in terms of safety education and enforcement.  The  
          grants are non-competitive and available only to eligible  
          states, territories and the District of Columbia. 
          

          SUPPORT
          None Received

          OPPOSITION
          None Received



































                                                                      3