33 C.F.R. § 173.11
Applicability
This subpart applies to each vessel equipped with propulsion machinery of any type used on waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and on the high seas beyond the territorial seas for vessels owned in the United States except:
(a) Foreign vessels temporarily using waters subject to U.S. jurisdiction;
(b) Military or public vessels of the United States, except recreational-type public vessels;
(c) A vessel whose owner is a State or subdivision thereof, which is used principally for governmental purposes, and which is clearly identifiable as such;
(d) Ships' lifeboats;
(e) A vessel which has or is required to have a valid marine document as a vessel of the United States.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases, 1982–2013 · leading case: United States v. Washington, 19 F. Supp. 3d 1126 (W.D. Wash. 1994).
United States v. Washington, 19 F. Supp. 3d 1126 (W.D. Wash. 1994). “The State has also claimed that treaty fishing boats other than commercial boats documented by the Coast Guard under 33 C.F.R. § 173.11 (e), or otherwise exempt by federal regulation, must be registered by state and federal regulation, display a state-issued number and decal,…”
State v. Sterkel, 933 P.2d 409 (Utah Ct. App. 1997). “For instance, federal regulation title 33, part 173 prohibits the use of any “vessel equipped with propulsion machinery of any type on waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,” 33 C.F.R. § 173.11 (1995), unless the vessel “has a number issued on a certificate of…”
United States v. Whitmore, 536 F. Supp. 1284 (D. Me. 1982). “The Coast Guard had no reason to believe the Relentless, which displayed an American flag, was a foreign vessel exempt from the numbering requirements, see 33 C.F.R. § 173.11 (a) (1980). Although the Relentless appeared to be a racing boat (Tr.”
Kelley v. Comm'r, 45 T.C.M. 353 (Tax Ct. 1982). “The declared purpose of The Federal Boat Safety Act of 1971 is to promote boating safety, and the Act is in no way connected with the *29 documentation process.”
United States v. Transocean Deepwater Drilling Inc., 936 F. Supp. 2d 818 (S.D. Tex. 2013). “See 33 C.F.R. § 173.11 . It is *826 undisputed in this case that the Deepwater Horizon was Swiss-owned, registered under the flag of the Marshall Islands, and ineligible for United States documentation, registration, or numbering.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.