U.S. Code » Title 46 » Subtitle II— Vessels and Seamen › Part B— Inspection and Regulation of Vessels › CHAPTER 43— RECREATIONAL VESSELS

46 U.S.C. § 4301

Application

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 46 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) This chapter applies to a recreational vessel and associated equipment carried in the vessel on waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (including the territorial sea of the United States as described in Presidential Proclamation No. 5928 of December 27, 1988) and, for a vessel owned in the United States, on the high seas.(b) Except when expressly otherwise provided, this chapter does not apply to a foreign vessel temporarily operating on waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.(c) Until there is a final judicial decision that they are navigable waters of the United States, the following waters lying entirely in New Hampshire are declared not to be waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of this section: Lake Winnisquam, Lake Winnipesaukee, parts of the Merrimack River, and their tributary and connecting waters.(Pub. L. 98–89, Aug. 26, 1983, 97 Stat. 529; Pub. L. 105–383, title III, § 301(b)(4), Nov. 13, 1998, 112 Stat. 3417.)

Historical and Revision Notes

Revised section

Source section (U.S. Code)

4301

46:1453

Section 4301 provides that this chapter is applicable to a recreational vessel that operates on waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States or that is owned in the United States and while operating on the high seas.

It also provides that a foreign recreational vessel that temporarily uses our waters is not subject to the requirements of this chapter. However, if the vessel remains permanently in the United States, it would be subject to the provisions of this chapter.

Section 4301(c) recognizes the ongoing controversy over the navigability of certain waters of New Hampshire. While a recreational vessel operating on these waters need not meet the requirements of this chapter, it would be prohibited from operating on any other waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States if it does not comply with these requirements.

Editorial NotesReferences in Text

Presidential Proclamation No. 5928, referred to in subsec. (a), is set out under section 1331 of Title 43, Public Lands.

Amendments

1998—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 105–383 inserted “(including the territorial sea of the United States as described in Presidential Proclamation No. 5928 of December 27, 1988)” after “of the United States”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Chapter effective Apr. 15, 1984, see section 2(g)(1) of Pub. L. 98–89, set out as a note under section 3101 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1990–2026 · leading case: Sprietsma v. Mercury Marine, 757 N.E.2d 75 (Ill. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Sprietsma v. Mercury Marine, 757 N.E.2d 75 (Ill. 2001). · cites it 2× “Justice GARMAN delivered the opinion of the court: The issue in this case is whether the Federal Boat Safety Act of 1971 (FBSA) ( 46 U.S.C. § 4301 et seq. (1994)) preempts state common law causes of action based on the manufacturer's failure to install propeller guards on boat…”
A.E.A. ex rel. Angelopoulos v. Volvo Penta of Americas, LLC, 77 F. Supp. 3d 481 (E.D. Va. 2015). · cites it 4× “Specifically, Volvo Penta seeks to add language claiming federal question jurisdiction exists under the Federal Boat Safety Act of 1971, 46 U.S.C. § 4301 et seq., a regulatory statute enacted to improve the safe operation of recreational vessels in navigable waters.”
Farner v. Brunswick Corp., 607 N.E.2d 562 (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. 1992). · cites it 3× “The sole issue raised on appeal by plaintiff is whether the trial court erred in ruling that her products liability claim was preempted by the Federal Boat Safety Act of 1971 (Act) ( 46 U.S.C. §4301 et seq. (1988)). In its cross-appeal, defendant raises the issue of whether its…”
Smith v. Mitlof, 198 F. Supp. 2d 492 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). · cites it 2× “Violation of Statutory Duty Plaintiffs charge Norwalk Maritime with negligence per se for violating alleged statutory duties under the Federal Boat Safety Act (“FBSA”), 46 U.S.C. § 4301 et seq. Norwalk Maritime, however, maintains that the FBSA is inapplicable to both the…”
Lady v. Neal Glaser Marine, Inc., 228 F.3d 598 (5th Cir. 2000). · cites it 2× “” 46 U.S.C. § 4301 (a); see S. Rep. No. 92-248 (1971), reprinted in 1971 U.”
Moore v. Brunswick Bowling & Billiards Corp., 853 S.W.2d 842 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1993). · cites it 4× “or associated equipment performance or other safety standard or imposing a requirement for associated equipment (except insofar as the State or political subdivision may, in the absence of the Secretary's disapproval, regulate the carrying or use of marine safety articles to…”
Barrett v. Fonorow, 799 N.E.2d 916 (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. 2003). “The court addressed whether the Federal Boat Safety Act of 1971 (FBSA) ( 46 U.S.C. § 4301 et seq. (1994)) preempted a state common-law cause of action that was based on a manufacturer’s failure to install propeller guards on boat engines.”
Ashley Elliott v. Brunswick Corp., 903 F.2d 1505 (11th Cir. 1990). “2 Moreover, the Federal Boat Safety Act of 1971, 46 U.S.C.A. § 4301 , et seq., gives the Coast Guard the exclusive responsibility for establishing safety regulations.”
Mowery v. Mercury Marine, 773 F. Supp. 1012 (N.D. Ohio 1991). “On February 15, 1991, defendant Mercury Marine moved to dismiss on the ground that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claim based on its alleged “failure to provide a propeller guard” because it is preempted by the Federal Boat Safety Act of 1971, 46 U.”
Cotton v. Starcare Med. Grp., Inc., 183 Cal. App. 4th 437 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010). “§ 4306 ), did not expressly preempt a state common law action seeking damages arising from a boat accident.”
Shields v. Outboard Marine Corp., 776 F. Supp. 1579 (M.D. Ga. 1991). “The sole basis of the plaintiffs’ case is their claim that the defendant’s motor was of defective design since it lacked a propeller guard, thus making it unreasonably dangerous and for which the defendant should be held strictly liable.”
Folsom v. Kawasaki Motors Corp. U.S.A., 509 F. Supp. 2d 1364 (M.D. Ga. 2007). · cites it 2× “First, Kawasaki contends that it is entitled to summary judgment because the defective product claim is preempted by the Federal Boat Safety Act of 1971, 46 U.S.C. §§ 4301 -^1311 (“FBSA” or “the Act”).”
Show all 27 citing cases →
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.