Proposed changes

Clarifying and updating the requirements for novel vessels

We’re proposing to replace this existing requirement: all novel vessels are to be constructed and maintained in accordance with the class rules of an RO.

The new requirement we’re proposing is: novel vessels must be surveyed by an RO and have technical specifications determined by an RO. This change will help manage the risks of novel technologies as far as is reasonably possible.

We’re proposing these changes to:

• provide more flexibility in the way ROs assure the safety of novel vessels
• allow ROs to use other standards and design processes to achieve safe outcomes and clarify survey responsibilities
• benefit existing vessels adopting novel technologies.
   

Other proposed changes

We’re proposing that if an existing vessel, without a certificate of survey, has a Marine Order 503 Schedule 1 change made, then that vessel becomes a transitional vessel and must meet the relevant transitional standards.

This change will ensure all vessels that have had a Schedule 1 change, are treated consistently under the marine order.

We’re proposing that new vessels less than 35m in length that have had a Schedule 1 change will only need to meet the updated NSCV or class rule standards for the area of the vessel affected by the change. 

For example, installing a new refrigeration system will require a vessel to comply with updated NSCV standards for the system, but not require unrelated parts of the vessel to be brought up to current standards.

We’re proposing that new vessels less than 35m can choose to comply with either the standards in the NSCV or class rules if design approval was completed by an RO.

We’re proposing to allow a wider range of new vessels to access ‘sister vessel’ arrangements, reducing the requirements for these vessels to obtain a certificate of survey.

A sister vessel is a vessel built to the same design as another vessel. These vessels can use the original vessel’s plan approval for a certificate of survey application instead of having to apply for a full plan approval. This makes it easier for these vessels to obtain a certificate of survey.

We’re proposing that the definition of sister vessel be expanded to allow more vessels to access this arrangement.
 

We’re proposing to clarify the Schedule 1 changes that apply to vessels. This includes clarifying that the following scenarios are Schedule 1 changes:

• any change or addition of a service category that has not been permitted in the last 5 years, except for decreases in operational area only (e.g. from 3C to 3D)
• a vessel carries a class of dangerous goods that it has not previously been permitted to carry
• a vessel commences overnight operations with berths in use (instead of berths being merely present), or where there is an increase in accommodation levels
• the maximum number of people on board the vessel exceeds a previous certificate of survey limit for the vessel within the last 5 years
• an increase in the windage profile of the vessel that invalidates information used in the design approval
• removing, repositioning, installing or modifying certain listed equipment, including stern gear, that invalidates previous structural or stability design approval calculations or assumptions.
   

We’re proposing to amend the survey requirements for certain types of Schedule 1 changes. 

This includes only requiring an initial survey for the area of the vessel affected by the change e.g. engine, for either:

• clause 7(b): an increase in propulsion power change, or
• clause 8: a change to the vessel’s loading, structure or watertight integrity that requires the vessel’s structural or stability design approval to be re-assessed.

Vessels with these changes do not need to reassess areas unrelated to the change.

It also includes requiring an initial survey for the entire vessel for:

• clause 3: vessel’s operations are relocated to outside the geographical location restrictions.

Removing geographic restrictions for vessels that have never had a full initial survey may lead to unacceptable risks.
 

We’re proposing to reduce the transitional standards that apply to a vessel when there is a change to any of the following aspects:

• battery type or capacity
• fixed fire system
• gas system
• electrical power and generators.

This proposed change will enable existing vessel owners to make improvements without triggering transitional requirements for the whole vessel. Owners still need to:

• ensure the updated components and equipment meet current standards
• comply with a reduced set of transitional standards for other aspects of the vessel.
   

We’re proposing to change the timeframe from 2 years to 5 years for the maximum length of time:

• a new vessel can be out of survey while still using the standards that applied to the vessel when it was first issued a certificate of survey
• a vessel last held a certificate of survey when applying for a renewal
• a vessel has not held a certificate of survey when required to undergo an initial survey.

We’re also proposing to introduce a 5 year maximum timeframe for a reintroduction of a previously permitted type of operation not considered to be a Schedule 1 change.

These changes will align with the 5 year survey cycle.
 

We’re proposing to remove the consideration of the hull material when determining if a vessel’s age is a risk factor that requires a higher survey frequency. Age is a more significant risk factor than hull material, and all vessels with a hull at least 15 years old will be required to undergo more frequent survey.

We’re proposing to change the transitional standards for arrangement, accommodation and personal safety to include the use of USL Code 5F (1989). This change includes escape provisions that are not covered in the NSCV Part C1.

We’re proposing to allow AMSA to make determinations or approvals without requiring an application in some circumstances. This will reduce administrative burden, and allow vessels to use correct standards or approvals without delay.

We’re proposing to allow a certificate of survey holder to seek a variation when reducing the number of people they are permitted to carry on board. This will reduce the costs for survey holders because they’ll no longer need to submit a full renewal application when making this change.

We’re proposing to increase the maximum duration a vessel can have its certificate of survey suspended for, from 18 months to 24 months. This change aligns Marine Order 503 with the suspension periods in other marine orders.

We’re proposing to clarify that AMSA may revoke a certificate of survey if a vessel is involved in a serious incident, such as sinking or being significantly damaged. This change will ensure vessels are suitably repaired and re-certified before restarting operations after a serious incident.

We’re also proposing to clarify that AMSA can revoke a certificate of survey if a vessel stops operating as a domestic commercial vessel. This could be because a vessel:

• has been decommissioned
• has become a regulated Australian vessel
• has become a foreign-flagged vessel. 

This change will reduce the potential for confusion about the status of the vessel and ensure that we have accurate data on the domestic commercial vessel fleet.

We’re proposing to increase the timeframe in which certain vessels have to undergo a periodic survey. The change will apply to medium-risk vessels and allow a ‘Year 3 periodic survey’ to be completed in the 15 months before, or 3 months after it is due. This change will give these operators more flexibility to complete a periodic survey.
 

We’re proposing to make it mandatory for new vessels to comply with the NSCV Part C2 for watertight and weathertight integrity standards. Currently, new vessels can meet either the NSCV Part C2 or the USL Code.

We’re proposing to remove the requirement in MO503 that some vessels must have an EIAPP certificate in order to be issued a certificate of survey. These vessels still need to have an EIAPP certificate, but this requirement will be managed through Marine Order 97. This change is not expected to have an impact on most vessels, as many were already exempted from the MO503 requirement.

We’re proposing to require that the person receiving a vessel e.g. a buyer, must notify AMSA of a change in vessel ownership instead of the person handing over the vessel e.g. a seller. This change ensures that the person who is now responsible for the vessel informs AMSA of the change in ownership.

We’re proposing to require a vessel’s owner to notify AMSA if they make an insurance claim on a vessel that has been damaged. This ensures AMSA is aware of vessels that have been significantly damaged and that may need to be reassessed before resuming operations.

We’re proposing to require a copy of an electrical survey to be given to the person conducting the commissioning survey of a vessel. That person has responsibility for providing AMSA with a copy.

We’re proposing to make minor editorial changes to:

• present information in a clearer manner, through tables or descriptions
• clarify existing standards that apply, or can apply
• remove unnecessary provisions
• include notes to provide the reader with additional relevant information
• correct drafting errors.

These changes will improve the readability of the marine order and provide greater clarity on the requirements for operators.