46 C.F.R. § 4.05-1

Notice of marine casualty

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

Link to an amendment published at 91 FR 39485, June 30, 2026.

(a) Immediately after the addressing of resultant safety concerns, the owner, agent, master, operator, or person in charge, shall notify the nearest Sector Office, Marine Inspection Office or Coast Guard Group Office whenever a vessel is involved in a marine casualty consisting in—

(1) An unintended grounding, or an unintended strike of (allision with) a bridge;

(2) An intended grounding, or an intended strike of a bridge, that creates a hazard to navigation, the environment, or the safety of a vessel, or that meets any criterion of paragraphs (a) (3) through (8);

(3) A loss of main propulsion, primary steering, or any associated component or control system that reduces the maneuverability of the vessel;

(4) An occurrence materially and adversely affecting the vessel's seaworthiness or fitness for service or route, including but not limited to fire, flooding, or failure of or damage to fixed fire-extinguishing systems, lifesaving equipment, auxiliary power-generating equipment, or bilge-pumping systems;

(5) A loss of life;

(6) An injury that requires professional medical treatment (treatment beyond first aid) and, if the person is engaged or employed on board a vessel in commercial service, that renders the individual unfit to perform his or her routine duties; or

(7) An occurrence causing property-damage in excess of $75,000, this damage including the cost of labor and material to restore the property to its condition before the occurrence, but not including the cost of salvage, cleaning, gas-freeing, drydocking, or demurrage.

(8) An occurrence involving significant harm to the environment as defined in § 4.03-65.

(b) Notice given as required by 33 CFR 160.215 satisfies the requirement of this section if the marine casualty involves a hazardous condition as defined by 33 CFR 160.202.

(c) Except as otherwise required under this subpart, if the marine casualty exclusively involves an occurrence or occurrences described by paragraph (a)(8) of this section, a report made pursuant to 33 CFR 153.203, 40 CFR 117.21, or 40 CFR 302.6 satisfies the immediate notification requirement of this section.

[CGD 94-030, 59 FR 39471, Aug. 3, 1994, as amended by USCG-2000-6927, 70 FR 74676, Dec. 16, 2005; USCG-2006-25556, 72 FR 36330, July 2, 2007; USCG-2011-0618, 76 FR 60754, Sept. 30, 2011; USCG-2014-0688, 79 FR 58275, Sept. 29, 2014; USCG-2005-21869, 80 FR 5336, Jan. 30, 2015; USCG-2016-0748, 83 FR 11902, Mar. 19, 2018]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1992–2020 · leading case: Hazelwood v. State, 836 P.2d 943 (Alaska Ct. App. 1992).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Hazelwood v. State, 836 P.2d 943 (Alaska Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 5× “Under 46 CFR § 4.05-1 , “The owner, agent, master or person in charge of a vessel involved in a marine casualty” must “give notice as soon as possible” to the Coast Guard if the casualty creates an environmental hazard ( 46 CFR § 4.”

State v. Hazelwood, 866 P.2d 827 (Alaska 1993). · cites it 2× “46 C.F.R. § 4.05-1 , -5 (1992). Parsing Hazelwood's radio transmission, the State argues that only one part of it is protected under the grant of immunity.”

McHenry v. Asylum Ent. Delaware, LLC (Cal. Ct. App. 2020). “(a); 46 C.F.R. § 4.05-1 .) Thus, the viability of plaintiff’s Jones Act claim turns solely on whether Asylum is his “employer.”

Twenty Grand Offshore, Inc. v. United States, 114 F. App'x 160 (5th Cir. 2004). “It was not arbitrary or capricious to decide that a three-day delay of the written report failed to meet the “without delay” requirement of the statute if the written report is to satisfy the immediate notice requirement in 46 C.F.R. § 4.05-1 (a). AFFIRMED. * Pursuant to 5th Cir.”

Tisbury Towing & Transp. Co. v. Tug VENUS, 251 F.3d 298 (1st Cir. 2001). “Given that Tucker-Roy did not make any record of the incident in the VENUS log, nor report the incident to the Coast Guard as required under Coast Guard regulations, see 46 C.F.R. § 4.05-1 , Packer argues that it is Tucker-Roy’s fault that there is no direct evidence of the date…”

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.