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