33 C.F.R. § 183.710

Start-in-gear protection required

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Any outboard motor which is capable of developing a static thrust of 115 pounds or more at any motor operating speed with any propeller or jet attachment recommended for or shipped with the motor by the manufacturer, must be equipped with a device to prevent the motor being started when controls are set so as to attain that thrust level, as follows:

(1) Outboard motors designed for local starting must have a built-in start-in-gear protection device.

(2) Outboard motors designed for remote starting must have either a built-in start-in-gear protection device or be installed with remote starting controls containing this device. An outboard motor designed for remote starting that does not have a built-in start-in-gear protection device must, at the time of sale, have a tag or label attached at the location of the control connection, containing the following information: “Starting controls installed with this motor must comply with USCG requirements for start-in-gear protection in 33 CFR Part 183, Subpart L.” The letters and numbers on the tag or label must be at least 1/8 inch high.

(b) Starting controls must have a tag or label with the following information to indicate whether or not they have been equipped with a start-in-gear protection device: “This control will (or will not) provide start-in-gear protection meeting USCG requirements of 33 CFR Part 183, Subpart L.” The letters and numbers on the tag or label must be at least 1/8 inch high.

(c) Any manufacturer, distributor or dealer installing an outboard motor displaying the label described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section must properly match it with a compatible starting control that contains a start-in-gear protection device.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 2015–2015 · leading case: A.E.A. ex rel. Angelopoulos v. Volvo Penta of Americas, LLC, 77 F. Supp. 3d 481 (E.D. Va. 2015).
A.E.A. ex rel. Angelopoulos v. Volvo Penta of Americas, LLC, 77 F. Supp. 3d 481 (E.D. Va. 2015). “See 33 C.F.R. § 183.710 . Therefore, as the Federal Boat and Safety Act of 1971 is not implicated in the present action, and Volvo Penta’s Notice of Removal does not reference any specific ground for jurisdiction, the Court finds there is no valid independent basis for federal…”
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.