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