The Brianna Lieneck Boating Safety Act of 2025 requires the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard operates to study and report on recreational vessel operator training within 180 days of enactment. The study will review existing programs run by the Coast Guard Auxiliary and the United States Power Squadrons, state boating education initiatives, NASBLA, and other hands-on training options available to recreational boaters.
The report will consider how training materials are constructed, how courses are delivered, how assessments are designed, and how well content aligns with boater risk factors.
The bill further directs that the report assess mechanisms to encourage states to adopt mandatory education, evaluate whether state programs can be harmonized or tested for reciprocity, and analyze the feasibility of a federal training and testing program that can align with state efforts. It also asks whether a federal program should apply to all waters within a state, including internal waters.
The act does not impose new training requirements itself but seeks a comprehensive, policy-informed roadmap for potential future action by Congress and the Administration.
At a Glance
What It Does
Not later than 180 days after enactment, the Secretary must study and report on recreational vessel operator training. The study covers current federal, state, and non-government training programs and-related policy questions.
Who It Affects
The Coast Guard, NASBLA, state boating agencies, and providers of boating education—along with recreational boaters who may participate in existing or future training programs.
Why It Matters
A unified understanding of training standards and gaps can reduce safety risks, improve cross-state reciprocity, and inform possible federal-state coordination of boating education.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill tasks the Coast Guard’s department with a formal study of how recreational vessel operators are educated and trained. The study will be completed within six months and will take stock of the Coast Guard Auxiliary and the United States Power Squadrons’ training programs, alongside state boating education efforts and NASBLA.
It will also survey other hands-on training options available to boaters. The goal is to map out current practices and to identify how training could be improved or harmonized across states and the federal framework.
The study’s subjects include the content and materials of courses, how training is delivered, how learners are assessed, and how relevant the material is to real boating risks. It will also look at how states could be encouraged to adopt mandatory training, whether state programs can be synchronized, and how reciprocity between states might work.
A major focus is whether a future federal training and testing program could align with existing state programs, what minimum standards would look like, and what phase-in timelines would be necessary to avoid impacting course availability or increasing costs for boaters.Finally, the report will consider how widely a federal program should apply—potentially covering all waters within a state, including internal waters—and what the implications would be for administration, costs, and access to training for current and prospective boaters.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Secretary must complete and report the study within 180 days of enactment.
The study reviews Coast Guard Auxiliary, Power Squadrons, NASBLA, state programs, and other hands-on training.
It analyzes state program harmonization, reciprocity, and minimum education standards.
It evaluates the feasibility and design of a federally harmonized training and testing program.
It considers whether federal training should apply to all waters of a state, including internal waters.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Deadline and primary duty
Not later than 180 days after enactment, the Secretary must study and report to Congress on recreational vessel operator training. The focus is on how current programs operate and where improvements or harmonization may be possible, with the report going to the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee.
Review areas included in the study
The study must review existing Coast Guard Auxiliary and Power Squadron training programs; state boating education programs (including NASBLA programs); and other hands-on training options available to recreational vessel operators. This sets the scope for benchmarking and comparison across major actors in boating education.
Subjects to examine
The study must examine course materials, course content, training methodology, assessment methodology, and the relevancy of content to real boating risks. These subjects ensure the review looks beyond existence of programs to how effective and applicable they are for reducing safety risks on the water.
Contents of the report
The report must: describe steps taken to encourage states to adopt mandatory training; evaluate states’ ability to harmonize and recognize reciprocity; analyze the extent of mutual recognition across state education requirements; assess uniformity among states with existing mandatory programs; establish minimum education standards; analyze how a Federal program could harmonize with state programs; evaluate course content and delivery for risk relevancy; describe phase-in periods for state programs and their impact on availability and cost; analyze bypass options for experienced boaters; outline administration for a potential Federal program; and assess whether a Federal program should apply to all waters within a state, including internal waters.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Transportation across all five countries.
Explore Transportation in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Coast Guard leadership and staff—who will have a defined, centralized study to inform policy decisions.
- NASBLA and its member states—clearer standards and potential pathways to harmonization.
- State boating education agencies and departments of natural resources—greater consistency and clearer expectations for program alignment.
- Recreational boaters themselves—potential for more uniform training and smoother cross-state participation.
- Training providers (Coast Guard Auxiliary, U.S. Power Squadrons, NASBLA-approved instructors)—pricing and curriculum adjustments aligned to common standards.
Who Bears the Cost
- State agencies may incur costs to align curricula, update materials, and implement pilot concepts.
- Training providers may need to update curricula and retrain instructors to align with proposed standards.
- The federal government would incur costs to conduct the study and develop potential implementation frameworks.
- Boater education programs could face transitional costs if new requirements or minimum standards are established.
- NASBLA and affiliated organizations may need resources to revise guidance and harmonization frameworks.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether federal action should drive a unified, national standard for recreational boating education—potentially improving safety and cross-state mobility—while preserving state flexibility and local tailoring of programs, costs, and implementation timelines.
The bill seeks to catalyze a shift toward standardized or harmonized boating education, but it also raises key implementation questions. A central challenge is balancing federal initiatives with state autonomy over education programs.
The 180-day study window could strain schedules if states and training providers need to respond with new data or pilot plans. Additionally, shifting from non-mandatory to mandatory training, or aligning disparate state standards, can entail costs for providers and boaters, and could affect course availability during a transition period.
The bill stops short of mandating a federal program but signals that Congress and the Administration should consider whether and how a federal layer could complement state efforts. Finally, applying a federal standard to “all waters” within a state, including internal waters, would raise questions about jurisdiction, implementation, and the administrative burden for state agencies.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.