Marine (Personal Flotation Devices and Other Safety Equipment)

Regulatory Impact StatementMarine (Personal Flotation Devicesand Other Safety Equipment)

Regulations 2005

This Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) has been prepared to fulfil the requirements of theSubordinate Legislation Act 1994 and to facilitate public consultation on the proposed

Marine (Personal Flotation Devices and Other Safety Equipment) Regulations 2005.A copy of the draft regulations is provided as an attachment to this RIS.

Public comments and submissions are invited on the proposed regulations, in response to information provided in this RIS. All submissions will be treated as public documents.

Written comments should be forwarded no later than 5pm Monday 24 October 2005 to:

Marine (Personal Flotation Devices and Other Safety Equipment) Regulations – Submission

Marine Safety VictoriaPO Box 2797

MELBOURNE VIC 3001

or to email: [email protected]

or by fax: (03) 9655 6611

© State of Victoria, Department of Infrastructure September 2005.

This publication is copyright. No part may be reproduced by any process except in accordance with the provisions ofthe Copyright Act 1986.

ISBN 0 7311 8753 9

This regulatory impact statement was prepared by MMStarrs Pty Ltd in conjunction with Marine Safety Victoria for theDepartment of Infrastructure.

Disclaimer: This publication may be of assistance to you, but the State of Victoria and its employees do not guaranteethat the publication is without flaw or is wholly appropriate for your particular purposes and therefore disclaims allliability for any error, loss or other consequence that may arise from you relying on any information in this publication.

SUMMARYOver several years, the Coroner has investigated recreational boat fatalities and recommended that the compulsory wearing of personal flotation devices (PFDs) be introduced or be investigated. In response to those recommendations, and in accordance with the responsibilities of the Director of Marine Safety, a project to examine appropriate responses to the recommendations was commenced. At the same time, the National Standard for Safety Equipment on Recreational Boats was approved by Ministersof Transport.

This Regulatory Impact Statement analyses the proposed changes to the Marine Regulations 1999, firstly, to require users of somerecreational boats to wear PFDs and secondly, to partially adopt the national standard for safety equipment. The effect on recreationalboaters is assessed along with alternative methods to achieve the identified objectives.

The primary objective of the proposed regulations is to improve marine safety by reducing fatalities as a result of marine accidents.With respect to items of safety equipment other than PFDs, the adoption of the national standard will also promote consistent nationalstandards and provide a performance basis for the standard of equipment.

With respect to PFDs, the proposal is that vessel occupants will have to wear a PFD while a recreational vessel is underway if thevessel is up to and including 4.8 metres in length and, for larger vessels, PFDs will only need to be worn at times of heightened risk.The type of PFD will vary depending on the area of operation (coastal, enclosed or inland waters) to reflect differences in the risks by area.

With respect to the carriage of safety equipment (other than PFDs), the proposal is in line with the national standards to the extentconsistent with Victorian boating conditions. The types of equipment required to be carried vary by vessel type and area of operation.Larger vessels, reflecting higher passenger carrying capacity, will be required to carry more items of safety equipment, and thoseoperating on coastal waters more than those on enclosed waters and both of those more than on inland waters. In other words, thetypes of equipment vary with vessel risks and operational risks. A change is proposed to the definitions of waters with the effect thatPort Phillip Bay and Western Port Bay be moved from coastal to enclosed waters.

There are also two miscellaneous amendments proposed, which cover the carriage of emergency position indicating radio beacons(EPIRBs) in conjunction with the phase out of analogue EPIRBs, and conditions applying to commercial trading vessels that carrypassengers in or through Port Phillip Heads and across the Lakes Entrance Bar. The effect of these changes is minor and not subjectto formal assessment.

The costs and benefits of the proposals are quantified to the extent possible. The costs relate to purchasing more comfortable PFDsas they have to be worn rather than carried. The benefits are the reduction in fatalities associated with PFD wearing. On the basis of the quantified benefits and costs, the proposal is generally preferable to the alternatives. When the unquantified benefits and costsare included, it is expected that the benefits clearly exceed the costs. The main unquantified benefits are:

• possible reductions in injuries or their severity

• clear requirements including removal of exemptions and removal of inconsistencies

• regulations based on operational risks

• availability of a wider range of jackets, including those with superior performance and comfort

• cost savings as more than one PFD will not need to be carried by some users

• improved compliance.

Victoria Police, authorised officers of Parks Victoria, Department of Sustainability and Environment, Marine Safety Victoria and otherwaterway managers will be responsible for enforcement of the proposed regulations within existing resources.

Several alternatives to compulsory wearing of PFDs are considered including promotion/education, and wearing dependent on therisks associated with specific vessels. None of these options is assessed as being able to meet the identified objectives. Two alternatives to the proposed wearing regulations are formally assessed: vessels below 6.5 metres, and all vessels. The length of 4.8 metres is preferred on the basis of quantified benefits and costs, and on the basis of the consultation undertaken to date.

The proposed regulations are concerned with the safe operation of boats by recreational users so they do not have the ability to restrict competition.

An evaluation strategy has been developed to assess compliance with the regulations, once they are introduced. The maincomponent of the evaluation strategy will be observational surveys of boaters to determine the numbers wearing PFDs in accordancewith the regulations. The pre-implementation surveys were conducted in the 2004/05 summer boating season.

Regulatory Impact Statement for the Marine (Personal Flotation Devices and Other Safety Equipment) Regulations 2005



CONTENTS1 STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES .......................................... 12 THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM ................ 32.1 Coroner’s Reports ...................................................................................... 5

2.2 Fatal Incidents ............................................................................................ 6

2.3 Injury Incidents ........................................................................................ 11

2.4 Other Safety Equipment .......................................................................... 11

2.5 Number of Recreational Boaters .............................................................. 12

2.6 Miscellaneous Amendments .................................................................... 12

2.6.1 Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacons .............................. 12

2.6.2 Conditions for Port Phillip Heads and Lakes Entrance Bar for commercial vessels .................................................................. 12

2.7 Need for Regulation.................................................................................. 13

3 THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS ...................................... 153.1 Legislative Authority.................................................................................. 15

3.2 Personal Flotation Devices........................................................................ 15

3.2.1 Open Area while Underway .......................................................... 15

3.2.2 Times of Heightened Risk.............................................................. 20

3.2.3 Children ........................................................................................ 21

3.2.4 Standard of Personal Flotation Devices ........................................ 21


3.4 Enforcement ............................................................................................ 26

4 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSAL .............................. 294.1 Broad Alternatives .................................................................................... 29

4.1.1 Education Campaigns.................................................................... 30

4.1.2 PFD Subsidy Program .................................................................. 31

4.2 PFD Alternatives ...................................................................................... 33

4.3 Other Safety Equipment Alternatives ........................................................ 34

5 COSTS AND BENEFITS .................................................. 355.1 Number of Boats and Personal Flotation Devices .................................... 36

5.1.1 Costs of Purchase ........................................................................ 37

5.1.2 Servicing Costs.............................................................................. 40

5.1.3 Benefits ........................................................................................ 40

5.1.4 Evaluation ...................................................................................... 43

5.1.5 Sensitivity Analysis ........................................................................ 45


5.2.1 Costs and Benefits ........................................................................ 47

5.2.2 Evaluation ...................................................................................... 49

6 CONSULTATION .............................................................. 517 COMPETITION EFFECTS ................................................ 538 EVALUATION STRATEGY ................................................ 53APPENDIX A: SUMMARY OF PUBLIC RESPONSES ................ 55APPENDIX B: OPTION DESCRIPTION...................................... 58APPENDIX C: SAFETY EQUIPMENT COSTS ............................ 59APPENDIX D: DRAFT REGULATIONS ...................................... 62


page 1

1 STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVESThis Regulatory Impact Statement is concerned with the mandatory wearing of personal flotation devices (PFDs) on recreational vesselsand the adoption of the National Standard for Recreational Boat Safety Equipment. These are proposed as a means to improve marinesafety by reducing fatalities as a result of marine accidents. With respect to standards for items of safety equipment, the adoption of the national standard will also promote consistent national standards and provide a performance basis for the standard of equipment.

Marine Safety Victoria (MSV) is responsible for marine safety on Victorian waters and this is partially achieved through theadministration of the Marine Act 1988. The purposes of the Act are to:

1 re-enact with amendments the law relating to the registration of vessels and the pollution of State waters; and

2 implement certain international conventions; and

3 provide for the efficient and safe operation of vessels on State waters.

The third purpose provides the basis for MSV’s role and functions in the area of marine safety of recreational vessels. The MarineRegulations 1999, made under the Act, provide for the compulsory carriage of PFDs and other safety equipment, and for thecompulsory wearing of PFDs in limited circumstances. The proposal being assessed would extend compulsory wearing to a greaterrange of vessels and boaters, and vary some of the other safety equipment requirements to bring them more into line with the nationalstandard approved by the Australian Transport Council in 2004.

The proposal to require recreational boaters to wear PFDs under certain conditions was prompted by several coronial reports overthe recent past. The reports involved incidents where the circumstances of the death associated with recreational boating led theCoroner to recommend that it should not only be compulsory to carry PFDs but also to wear them.

The adoption of the variations to the safety equipment standards is also expected to contribute to the objective of improving the safetyof recreational boating. In addition, it will contribute to:

• equipment that is contemporary and assessed at the national level as the minimum level required for marine safety in accordancewith the National Marine Safety Strategy

• nationally agreed standards and mutual recognition of the standards by all marine authorities. Victoria is a participant in theNational Marine Safety Committee Inc which was established by Ministers of Transport to improve marine safety, including thedevelopment of national standards

• performance standards for the items of safety equipment. This is to ensure that they are not subject to rigid design requirementsthat restrict innovation.

The proposal also includes miscellaneous amendments relating to the following:

• carriage of Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacons (EPIRBs), as required by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority(AMSA), to assist efficient and effective search and rescue

• minor amendments to the conditions applying to trading vessels traversing Port Phillip Heads and Lakes Entrance Bar with theintention of removing unintentional consequences of the existing regulations.


page 2 Regulatory Impact Statement for the Marine (Personal Flotation Devices and Other Safety Equipment) Regulations 2005

page 3Regulatory Impact Statement for the Marine (Personal Flotation Devices and Other Safety Equipment) Regulations 2005

2 THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE PROBLEMThe only formal requirements for a person to operate a powered boat in Victoria is that the operator holds a boat operator licenceand that the vessel is registered. Boat operator licensing ensures there is at least a basic knowledge of operating rules but does notinclude a practical component. As a result there is a wide variety of expertise and knowledge within this group as some boaters mayhave undertaken further training or have vast experience while others may only operate when on holidays or at a particular time of year.

Like many other recreational activities the risks associated with boating are often overlooked or not understood, particularly by thosewho participate infrequently, but also by those who are regular participants who have become complacent about their personal safety.

There is often a lack of understanding of the risks that boaters are exposing themselves to in order to participate in boating at whatmight be an inappropriate time, for example, often boaters will travel great distances to a specific location in order to fish for a particular species of fish. When arriving at their destination the weather conditions may be inappropriate for them to operate safelywith their vessel however a decision is made to launch the boat. In these circumstances more emphasis is placed on enjoying theactivity rather than accurately assessing the conditions and determining the abilities and competencies of themselves and their vessel.

Research undertaken by Quantum Research indicates that many boaters, regardless of experience and knowledge, are reluctant to wear PFDs (57 per cent reported that they do not wear PFDs and 26 per cent wear them on some occasions) and in addition, thatmany boaters are unable to judge when they are at risk and should take pre-emptive measures to ensure their safety (46 per cent indicated bad weather as a signal to wear a PFD however awareness of other conditions and circumstances were low).

The results of research undertaken by the Victorian Coroner’s Office (State Coroner, 2002) into 40 deaths from 30 recreational vesselincidents in Victorian waters between 1999 and 2002 support those findings as research revealed that, in most instances, thesedeaths resulted from a combination of three factors:

• hazardous environmental conditions

• vessel occupants suddenly and unexpectedly entering the water

• absence of PFD use.

The research illustrated that the main types of fatal incidents involved vessels capsizing and person overboard (50 per cent and 14per cent of all fatalities respectively), as shown in Figure 1. It was also found that prevailing environmental conditions and operatorerror, (either inexperience or poor judgement), caused many of the capsize incidents.

Figure 1: Fatal Recreational Marine Incidents by Type, 1987/88 to 2001/02

Other/unknown 4%

Crossing bar 6%

Vessel sank 4%

Swim to shore 6%

Trapped in boat 1%Waders 2%

Collision 7%

Fell overboard 14%

Swamped 6%

Overturned 50%


MSV has attempted to address this problem through a number of initiatives which to date have included:

• increased educational programs and campaigns aimed at increasing the level of boater awareness of safety issues

• the introduction of recreational boat operator licensing

• encouraging the use of vessel construction standards

• improved safety signage at boat launching ramps providing information on local hazards.

Whilst these efforts are improving the general level of boater education and safety information available, there is still a significantsegment of the boating community who do not understand or are ignorant of the risks associated with recreational boating.

Therefore the underlying intention behind the proposed regulations for the compulsory wearing of PFDs is to address the situationswhen boaters, regardless of experience and knowledge, are most at risk based on vessel type, size and operating conditions.

MSV has identified when boaters are most at risk, based on their vessel type, size and operating conditions. It is proposed, as outlinedin Figure 2, that PFDs should be worn by boaters most at risk which are:

• vessels that are up to and including 4.8 metres in length, which have minimal buoyancy and stability and offer little assistance tothe occupants as the stability of a boat reduces exponentially with respect to reducing vessel dimensions, even when operatingin good weather conditions

• all boaters when operating at times of heightened risk.

Occupants of larger vessels (over 4.8 metres) in length would not be required to wear PFDs when operating in good conditions asthe vessel design is able to offer the occupants assistance in remaining safe, as larger vessels are inherently more stable and lessprone to capsize (see Section 3.2 for further details).

Figure 2: Proposed Requirement to Wear PFD by Vessel Type and Risk

Operating Conditions

Vessel Type Good Adverse (Heightened Risk)

Mechanically powered <_ 4.8 metres Wear PFD Wear PFD

> 4.8 metres Vessel assist Wear PFD

PWC Wear PFD Wear PFD

Tenders Wear PFD Wear PFD

Sail powered Off the beach yachts Wear PFD Wear PFD

Yachts Vessel assist Wear PFD

Human powered Kayaks Wear PFD* Wear PFD

Fun and pedal boats Wear PFD* Wear PFD

Tenders Wear PFD* Wear PFD

Kite and sail boards Wear PFD* Wear PFD

Note: * wearing PFDs is not required if certain conditions are met, such as, wearing wet suits and operating within 400 metres of the shore.


For the purposes of this proposal, heightened risk includes:

(a) when the vessel is crossing or attempting to cross an ocean bar or operating within a designated hazardous area; or

(b) when the vessel is being operated by a person who is alone; or

(c) when the vessel is being operated during the period commencing one hour after sunset and ending one hour before sunrise; or

(d) when the vessel is being operated during a period of restricted visibility; or

(e) when there is a significant likelihood that –

(i) the vessel may capsize or be swamped by waves; or

(ii) the occupants of the vessel may fall overboard or be forced to enter the water; or

(f) when the vessel is operating in an area where –

(i) a wind warning; or

(ii) a severe weather warning; or

(iii) a severe thunderstorm warning –

issued by the Bureau of Meteorology, is current; or

(g) if the vessel is a yacht –

(i) when there are no safety barriers, lifelines, rails, safety harnesses or jacklines in use; or

(ii) when it is operating under reduced or reefed sail.

2.1 Coroner’s ReportsOver many years, the State Coroner has made recommendations on the wearing of personal flotation devices by recreational boatersin Victoria as a result of investigations into fatal incidents. The wearing of PFDs by children was made mandatory following suchrecommendations in the mid-1990s.

As a result of a 2003 Coronial investigation, the Coroner commented and recommended as follows:

Marine Safety Victoria, as the regulating body of the safety equipment required to be carried on board recreational vessels in Victoria, should seek to have amended the Marine Act 1988 and Marine Regulations 1999 to require occupants ofrecreational vessels in Victoria to wear a PFD Type 1 at all times in the event that PFD Type 1 standards are raised to at leastthe level of the international standards. (State Coroner’s Office, July 2003)

This finding followed an earlier recommendation, in the same year, that resulted from a fatality involving a yachtsman, where theCoroner made the following recommendations regarding PFDs:

Recommendation 1

That in circumstances where yacht crews are required to work on the deck of a yacht the wearing of PFDs (as a minimumsafety requirement) should be a mandatory requirement and not left to the skill and good judgement of a skipper or individualcrew member. This should occur for recreational sailing, in flat water, on bay and ocean racing…”

Recommendation 2

The Australian Standard (AS 1512) be reviewed in relation to the design and style of PFDs required to be carried on yachts for use by crew (in the light of Recommendation 1 and the general comments in this case). By way of example, some of theissues to be considered in this review would be:

– ensuring the PFD remains on the wearer in most water entry situations (considering distance from vessel to water)

– the unit is functional and comfortable for wear at all times (in most weather and/or work situations)

– appropriate contemporary fastening devices

– level buoyancy is improved (as compared with the European Standard). (State Coroner’s Office, May 2003)


In light of these recommendations, and in accordance with the responsibility of the Director of Marine Safety to develop appropriatestandards for the construction, crewing, equipment and operation of vessels and to take steps to ensure that those standards aremaintained (S65 of the Marine Act), a project to examine appropriate responses to the recommendations was commenced.

A review of all fatal incidents over the four years from 1999 to 2002 was undertaken; in that time there were 40 fatalities resulting from30 recreational boating incidents. These incidents were analysed by the State Coroner’s Office on behalf of MSV (Bugeja 2003). This investigation found that 32 of the 40 deaths involved people who were not wearing PFDs at the time the incident occurred andthat some of the deaths may have been avoided had the person involved been wearing a PFD.

Unfortunately, the review does not include a statistical analysis of fatal incidents so it is not possible to say the exact number of deathsthat the Coroner’s Office assessed as avoidable. A statistical analysis is reported in Section 2.2 below.

Bugeja (2003) examined fatal incidents for various vessel lengths/types. The main findings with respect to PFDs were as follows:

• Non-motorised vessels: There were three fatal incidents and three fatalities. Deaths resulted mainly from incidents where thevessel was considered inappropriate for the prevailing environmental conditions and where the occupant was not wearing a PFD.MSV requires that occupants on board these vessels either wear a PFD Type 1, 2 or 3 or carry one on board. One of the threedeceased was wearing a PFD

• Motorised vessels less than 4 metres: There were nine fatal incidents and 13 fatalities. Absence of PFD use appeared to be a significant contributing factor in these cases. In the 10 fatalities where the information was available, a PFD was worn by three,a PFD was available on board but not worn by three, and a PFD was not available to the remaining four people, even thoughcarriage is compulsory

• Motorised vessels between 4 and 8 metres: There were 14 fatal incidents and 19 fatalities, or about 50 per cent of the total.Although this category accounted for vessels up to 8 metres in length, the maximum vessel length was 6.4 metres and only two of the vessels were more than 6 metres. The major contributing factor identified was that PFDs were not worn; although theywere available in all but one of the incidents, only two people were wearing them. In most cases, it was assessed that there wassufficient time to fit a PFD prior to entering the water

• Yachts: There were four incidents involving five fatalities. One was less than 4 metres, another was between 4 and 8 metres andthe remaining two were over 8 metres. The two major contributing factors identified were the prevailing environmental conditionsand the lack of wearing the available PFDs. The Coroner specifically recommended that wearing PFDs should be madecompulsory in the inquiry into one of the incidents.

2.2 Fatal IncidentsSince 1988 there have been 112 fatal incidents resulting in 144 deaths of people engaged in recreational boating in Victoria1. This represents an average of 6.5 fatal incidents and 8.3 deaths per year, and 1.3 fatalities per incident. Although there have beensome years significantly worse than average, the trend over time appears fairly constant, as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Fatal Incidents and Fatalities involving Recreational Vessels, Victoria 1988 to 2004

0

5

10

15

20

1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

Year

reb

mu

N

Fatal Incidents Fatalities

1 The database includes five fatal incidents involving hire and drive vessels. Although these vessels have similar characteristics to recreational vessels they areexcluded from the analysis. The proposal does not affect hire and drive vessels.


Powerboats are the most common type of vessel involved in fatal incidents, followed by canoes/kayaks as shown in Table 2.1. It should be noted that in 34 per cent of incidents the vessel type is not recorded in the incident database.

There are more incidents and fatalities involving small vessels (less than 4.8 metres) than larger ones, although vessel length is notknown in 16 per cent of cases. Large vessels experience more severe incidents in terms of fatalities per incident. This is particularlythe case for vessels between 4.8 and 6.5 metres. An increase in severity in larger vessels is expected as these vessels are capable of carrying more passengers and generally operate in a wider range of conditions, and are therefore exposed to a wider range of risks. Yachts experience the most severe fatal incidents overall and when less than 6.5 metres in length.

Table 2.1: Fatal Incidents and Fatalities by Vessel Type

Vessel Type Number of Incidents Fatalities per Incident

<_ 4.8 m > 4.8 m- > 6.5 m Total <_ 4.8 m > 4.8 m- > 6.5 m Total< 6.5 m < 6.5 m

Powerboat 20 14 2 42 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.3

Yacht 2 1 9 16 1.5 2.0 1.1 1.6

PWC 4 0 0 4 1.0 na na 1.0

Sail board 2 0 0 2 1.0 na na 1.0

Canoe/kayak 10 0 0 10 1.1 na na 1.1

Total 65 17 14 112 1.2 1.5 1.4 1.3

Note: PWC = Personal WatercraftTotals include incidents where vessel type and/or length are not known.

There is insufficient information to make any useful exposure related analysis of fatal incidents by vessel type or size. The only potentialdata are the number of registered vessels and they are deficient as they do not take account of how much a vessel is used (MUARC2002, p2). It would be inappropriate to assume the same level of usage for vessel types in the same way that it would be inappropriateto assume that all cars travel the same distance. Vessel usage is largely dependent on vessel design and manufacturer’sspecifications, owner preferences, weather conditions, location, and many other factors. For example, it would be incorrect toassume that a small tinnie designed for fishing on inland lakes would be used as much as cruising yachts designed for long coastal journeys.

In addition, in Victoria only powered vessels are required to be registered. Sail and human powered vessels not are required to beregistered and therefore only indicative estimates of the number of these vessel types operating on Victorian waters is available.


Nevertheless, Table 2.2 below shows fatal incidents per 1000 boats for the main vessel types and length of powerboats. Althoughpowerboats are less likely to be involved relative to the number of vessels, they account for 38 per cent of all fatal incidents and 65per cent where the vessel type is known. Powerboats less than 4.8 metres in length are 30 per cent of all fatal incidents where vesseltype and length are known. The high absolute number of incidents is a significant reason for examining whether the wearing ofpersonal flotation devices should be made compulsory.

Table 2.2: Fatal Incidents per 1000 Vessels

Vessel Type <_ 4.8 m > 4.8 m-< 6.5 m > 6.5 m Total

Powerboat 0.24 0.29 0.39 0.31

Yacht1 1.77

PWC 0.86

Kite/sailboard 4.00

Canoe/kayak 2.00

Total 0.71

Note: 1 Insufficient information on the yacht length to fill cells.Totals include incidents where vessel type and/or length are not known.

Table 2.3 summarises the information on PFD availability and use in fatal incidents. In over half the cases we do not know PFD status.Nevertheless, the information provides some insights on the wearing of PFDs, as follows:

• wearing a PFD does not prevent deaths in all recreational vessel incidents. They were known to be worn in eight of the 112 fatalincidents, although in some of these cases they were not fitted properly before entering the water

• PFDs were not available in 11 of the incidents, even though they are required to be carried on all recreational vessels. In six ofthe 11 cases the vessel type is known: the known vessel types are two open boats, one yacht, two canoes and one other vessel.

Table 2.3: Personal Flotation Device Status in Fatal Incidents

Length (metres) Available Worn Not Available Unknown Total

<_ 4.8 19 4 9 33 65

4.8 to 6.5 10 1 0 6 17

More than 6.5 8 0 2 6 16

Unknown 4 3 0 9 16

Total 41 8 11 54 112


The wearing of a PFD will not always prevent recreational vessel fatalities. In incidents that have been investigated by the Coronerand a recommendation has been made for mandatory wearing, we can be reasonably confident that a fatality can be prevented. Butan investigation is not recorded for all fatal incidents and in those that are recorded as investigated, the recommendation has notalways been associated with PFD use. A coronial investigation is recorded for 35 fatal incidents (or 31 per cent) and a recommendation on mandatory wearing made in 15 of those investigations (see Table 2.4). These 15 incidents are 43 per cent ofthose investigated and 13 per cent of all fatal incidents. In a further 44 incidents (not recorded as investigated by the Coroner), peopleentered the water before they died. It is likely that some of these incidents would have had less severe outcomes if a PFD had beenworn; sudden and unexpected entry into the water was a major factor in the incidents where the Coroner made a recommendationon compulsory wearing of PFDs.

Weather and water conditions at the time of fatal incidents are not always recorded on the MSV incident database. A national analysis(including Victorian data) of boating fatalities reported that most fatal boating incidents occur in good conditions. There was no windor light or moderate wind in 75 per cent of incidents, and the seas were calm to moderate in 69 per cent of incidents (O’Connor2004, p17). Fatal incidents do not predominately occur in poor conditions; this is one reason why encouraging boaters to wear PFDsonly in poor conditions is expected to affect only a small number of fatal incidents.

Table 2.4: Fatal Incidents by Coronial Investigation

Length (metres) Investigation No Investigation Total

Wear PFD Other Entered Water Other

<_ 4.8 6 10 25 24 65

4.8 to 6.5 4 4 8 1 17

More than 6.5 3 3 7 1 14

Unknown 2 3 4 7 16

Total 15 20 44 33 112

More recommendations for wearing PFDs were made for vessels under 4.8 metres than for any other length of vessel. This is partlyrelated to the relative number of incidents and vessels. Small vessels also have the highest number of incidents where people enteredthe water, where wearing a PFD is likely to reduce the risk of death. This is likely to be related to the inherent instability of small vessels,which increases the likelihood of swamping or capsize.

Current requirements for the carriage of safety equipment, including personal flotation devices, vary by the area of operations. The requirements are more stringent for coastal waters which include areas in the ocean or offshore, than inland waters which includerivers, lakes and enclosed or partially enclosed bays (e.g. Port Phillip Bay). As shown in Table 2.5, most fatal incidents occur on inland(43 per cent) and coastal waters (37 per cent). Powerboats also experience a high number of fatal incidents on enclosed waters.


Table 2.5: Fatal Incidents by Vessel Type and Area of Operations

Vessel Type Area of Operations

Coastal Enclosed Inland Unknown Total

Powerboat 16 12 12 2 42

Yacht 7 3 5 1 16

PWC 1 1 2 0 4

Canoe/kayak 1 2 6 1 10

Sailboard 0 2 0 0 2

Unknown 12 7 18 1 38

Total 37 27 43 5 112

There is insufficient information to assess whether the number of fatal incidents by area of operation is exposure related. Surveys ofboaters in connection with education/promotion of the use of PFDs indicate that 13 per cent usually go boating in coastal areas, 40 per cent on enclosed waters and 47 per cent on inland waters, but this says nothing about the amount of time spent boating(Quantum 2003). Nevertheless, they do provide some support that coastal waters are more risky than enclosed and inland waters.

When examined by vessel length, only small vessels (less than 4.8 metres) experience more fatal incidents on inland waters (see Table2.6). It is highly probable that small vessels are used more on inland waters than coastal waters and large vessels on coastal watersso this is partially exposure related.

Table 2.6: Fatal Incidents by Vessel Length and Area of Operations

Vessel Length Area of Operations

(metres) Coastal Enclosed Inland Unknown Total

<_ 4.8 13 15 35 2 65

4.8 to 6.5 11 3 2 1 17

More than 6.5 4 5 4 1 14

Unknown 9 4 2 1 16

Total 37 27 43 5 112


2.3 Injury IncidentsMUARC (2002) included injury incidents in its analysis of marine incidents undertaken for MSV. The Victorian Injury Surveillance Data(VISD) contains 1,726 injuries requiring hospital admission over a 14 year period (July 1987 to June 2001) or 123 per year. Injuriesare more common than fatalities, which average about eight per year (see Section 2.2). There were 214 injuries involving recreationalboats in a three year period (July 1999 to June 2001) compared with 44 on the MSV database, suggesting significant under-reportingof injuries (p20). The most common boat types were jetski/hovercraft (27 per cent), waterski (21 per cent) and windsurfer/surfboard(16 per cent).

MUARC also analysed the Victorian Emergency Minimum Dataset (VEMD) which records injury treatment at emergency departmentsof hospitals. Over a two year period (July 1999 to December 2001), there were 676 marine injuries treated or 270 per year, with 4per cent requiring hospital admission. The most common boat types were boats for which no particular type was specified (37 percent) and waterski (35 per cent).

It is possible that injuries or their severity could be affected by whether a PFD is worn or not. To assess whether that is the case wouldrequire analysis of the types and causes of injuries. No such analysis is currently available.

2.4 Other Safety EquipmentThe risks associated with recreational boating can be decreased by reducing the likelihood of incidents occurring and, if they dooccur, by minimising their consequences. Requirements for safety equipment (other than PFDs) are clearly aimed at reducingconsequences once an incident has occurred, e.g. keeping a vessel afloat by provision of a bailer or bilge pump, securing a disabledvessel with an anchor, retrieving a person who has fallen overboard with a lifebuoy, or providing a means of raising the alarm in anemergency.

The available incident data are insufficient to establish precisely which types of safety equipment support the objective to reducedeaths due to recreational vessel accidents. Analyses quoted in the Regulatory Impact Statement for the national standard providesupport for the use of safety equipment generally and/or the requirements in the national standard as follows:

• Marine and Safety Tasmania (MAST 2000), following an analysis of coronial records of fatal recreational boating accidents in the 13 years from 1987 to 1999, concluded that safety equipment standards for registered boats with motors were adequate, non-registered boats with motors (less than 4 HP) should carry the same equipment as registered boats, boats without motorsshould carry PFDs and a bailer, and personal watercraft (PWC) should carry an anchor

• the Marine and Safety Authority of New Zealand review of the safety of recreational vessels included a comparison of regulationand safety levels in several countries to determine the effect of regulation on safety requirements (MSA 1999). It was inconclusivedue to the difficulties of making international comparisons, although it provided guidance on the safety management optionsevaluated for adoption. The analysis of accidents indicated that the lack of safety equipment was the main causal factor in fatalaccidents, making a contribution to 79 per cent of them. The data on non-fatal accidents was poor but seemed to suggest thatthe lack of safety equipment was significantly less important as a causal factor. Thirteen safety management options were subjectto cost-benefit analysis, with the preferred options being improved operator knowledge and the carriage of safety equipment. At the time of the review there was no regulation of recreational boats which is likely to have affected the preferred options; in Victoria the proposal is to vary existing requirements in relatively minor ways so the effects will be more difficult to identify.


2.5 Number of Recreational BoatersThere is no comprehensive information on the number of people who engage in recreational boating in Victoria. As part of theevaluation of the proposed implementation of the compulsory wearing of personal flotation devices a pre-intervention observationalstudy of numbers of people who currently wear PFDs was undertaken during the most recent summer boating season (Cassell andCongiu 2005). The purpose of the survey is discussed in more detail in Section 8 below; it included several items of information thatgives some indication of the numbers involved, as follows:

• sports participation surveys report that 86,900 people aged 15 years and over engage in the three most popular recreationalboating activities of water skiing/power boating, sailing and rowing. These surveys also report that 59,500 people engage infishing, although it is not known how many of these people fish from boats

• the observational surveys recorded an average of 2.5 people per powerboat at the sites where PFD use was counted. The siteswere selected from the most popular boat ramps to maximise the number of boats counted. There were 1,074 boats observedcontaining 2,682 people, with 45 per cent of these people in boats less than 4.8 metres in length and 55 per cent in boats over4.8 metres. If those boats are representative of all recreational boats then that implies that there are about 395,000 people whoare recreational boaters (based on 158,705 recreational boats as shown in Table 5.1 below)

• not all recreational boaters will be affected by the proposal as some of them already wear PFDs. The observational surveyrecorded that overall 17 per cent of boaters wore PFDs. This proportion reduces to 6 per cent when those for whom PFD use iscurrently compulsory are excluded, i.e. children and PWC riders.

On the basis of the above, the best estimate is that there are about 315,000 recreational boaters who have the potential to be affectedby changes to regulations about the wearing of personal flotation devices. About 125,000 boaters use vessels that are less than 4.8 metres and 190,000 use vessels that are more than 4.8 metres. Whether these estimates are a true reflection of the number of recreational boaters who may be affected by changes to the existing regulations depends on whether the selected boat rampsand powerboats are representative of all boating.

In addition, this does not include the users of non-powered vessels which is unknown as these vessel are not required to be registeredor their operators licensed.

2.6 Miscellaneous Amendments

2.6.1 Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacons

The proposal for the carriage of EPIRBs is required in anticipation of the switch to 406 MHz EPIRBs. The international council thatcontrols the search and rescue satellite system has decided to cease processing 121.5 MHz analogue EPIRB signals on 1 February2009. From that date only digital 406 MHz beacons will be detected by satellite.

This proposal is not assessed due to its limited effect.

2.6.2 Conditions for Port Phillip Heads and Lakes Entrance Bar for Commercial Vessels

The proposal makes minor changes to the conditions applying to trading vessels of less than 16 metres in length that carrypassengers in or through Port Phillip Heads. The current regulation specifies certain conditions depending on the 24 hour weatherforecast for that area, and requires all passengers to wear a lifejacket or PFD.

The 24 hour weather forecast requirement was found to be unnecessarily restrictive. The proposal is that the conditions apply if themost recent weather forecast predicts certain conditions for the time of passage. This reflects more accurately the original intentionof the provision.

The same change is proposed to the regulation about weather forecasts for trading vessels carrying passengers through the Lakes Entrance Bar.

The PFD requirement did not reflect the original intent of the regulation in that it required passengers of all trading vessels, includingdive charter boats, to wear a lifejacket or PFD. The proposal is that a passenger on a dive charter vessel can either wear specifieddive gear or comply with the lifejacket and PFD requirements. The effect of this regulation is therefore to reduce the complianceburden on certain trading vessels.

These proposals are not assessed further as they have little or no effect on the costs, although they do reduce the compliance burdenon operators of trading vessels.


2.7 Need for RegulationThe number of fatal boating incidents and deaths associated with them indicate a risk to recreational boaters. The next question is how that is best addressed; in particular, is regulation required or are there other means to increase the wearing of personal flotationdevices to achieve the objective of reducing recreational boating deaths?

Regulation may be required where a lack of information and/or poor decisions lead to unsafe behaviour which imposes costs on others and/or other alternatives to improve safety are not effective. Recreational boating has these characteristics to some extent:

• Bugeja (2004) reports that 48 per cent of the fatalities are passengers on recreational vessels. It is likely that these passengers would expect that the boat operator would meet legal requirements and act in a safe manner on the water. This is obviously not so in all cases

• costs are also imposed on the community when unsafe behaviour of boaters leads to search and rescue operations. MSVprovides funding in the order of $2.3 million per year for several safety-related activities, including maintenance of navigation aids($400,000), marine distress and emergency communications systems ($300,000), vessels and training to volunteer marine searchand rescue groups ($700,000) and Victoria Police for search and rescue and enforcement activities (approximately $900,000).The Water Police and AusSAR (the national search and rescue organisation) also perform search and rescue functions whenrecreational boaters get into difficulties2.

A potentially effective alternative to regulation is education and/or promotion directed to boaters about the safety benefits of the useof personal flotation devices, although they are most likely to be used in conjunction with regulation to improve compliance. MSVconducted a major recreational boating safety program for the first time over the 2002-03 summer boating period which focussedon the wearing of PFDs and the use of safety equipment (see Section 4.1 for a more complete description). The evaluation of thecampaign concluded that the use of PFDs by recreational boat owners is low. Most boaters never wear a PFD, are unable to describethe type of PFD they should carry and are unable to identify conditions where PFDs should be worn. The campaign did increaseawareness of PFDs and the conditions in which they would be most useful, but it did not appear to affect wearing rates (QuantumMarket Research 2003). This suggests that education/promotion alone is not a substitute for regulation; this conclusion is supportedby Dr James Nichols, reported in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, who found that while education programs are essentialto changing public behaviour, they do not generally result in significant behavioural change unless complemented with appropriatelegislation and consistent enforcement (Nichols 1994).

We therefore conclude that government regulation is an alternative worthy of investigation, as reported in this Regulatory Impact Statement.

2 AusSAR incurred incident costs of $4.8 million in 2003/4, some of which would be applicable to recreational boating activities in Victoria.



3 THE PROPOSED REGULATIONSThe proposed regulations are described below for both wearing personal flotation devices (PFDs) and the carriage of safetyequipment. The description includes a comparison with the existing requirements to facilitate the assessment of proposed changesand their effects.

3.1 Legislative AuthorityThe proposed regulations are made under Section 105 of the Marine Act 1988.

3.2 Personal Flotation Devices The proposal is that PFDs will have to be worn while a recreational vessel is underway in most circumstances; for some lower riskvessels PFDs will only need to be worn at times of heightened risk. The type of PFD will vary depending on the area of operation(coastal, enclosed or inland waters) to reflect differences in the risks by area.

The current regulation requires that all recreational vessels carry a PFD Type 1 for all persons on board, while the proposal allowssome variation in the type of PFD (see Box 1 for a description of the types of PFDs). The existing position and the proposal aresummarised in Table 3.1 in situations where a PFD will have to be worn in an open area while a vessel is underway. The position at times of heightened risk is described in Section 3.2.2.

The current regulation has no variation in requirements by area of operations. The proposal will apply differentially to three areas ofoperation: coastal, enclosed and inland waters (see Box 2 for a description of areas of operation). These three areas are currentlyused to apply requirements for other types of safety equipment (see Section 3.3). It is proposed that the definition of coastal watersbe amended to clarify its intent, and that some coastal waters become enclosed waters to better reflect risks: Port Phillip Bay andWestern Port Bay will be added by the addition of para (f) and para (g), as shown in Box 2. There is no protection from the land whenboating on coastal waters as there is for boating on enclosed waters; as coastal waters are subject to severe changes in wind andsea conditions there is less chance of being rescued in the event of an emergency.

3.2.1 Open Area while Underway

These types of operations will be specified by definitions of open area and underway as shown in Box 3. In essence the requirementswill apply when a person is not in an enclosed area of a vessel and the vessel is underway.

Box 1: Types of Personal Flotation Devices

PFD Type 1 are lifejackets; they provide the highest level of buoyancy and are designed to keep the wearer’s head above water and body in a safefloating position. They are currently designed to meet Australian Standard (AS) 1512. They can be:

• yoke styles that are available as either solid foam garments, commonly referred to as ‘pillows’ which have a strap that tightens around thewearer’s waist, or as inflatable yoke garments which the wearer inflates upon entering the water

• vest style garments that have a zipper closer and buckles that fasten around the wearer for a tight fit. They are generally easier to fit when theuser is already in the water (e.g. when a passenger is thrown overboard unexpectedly) than the yoke style as it is possible to roll into the jacketand close the zipper and strap clips.

PFD Type 2 are buoyancy vests and not lifejackets. They provide sufficient buoyancy to keep the wearer’s head above water but are not designed tomaintain a person in a safe floating position. They are designed to meet AS1499, and are most suited for water sports such as skiing, canoeing or foruse on personal watercraft (PWC).

PFD Type 3 are also buoyancy vests or garments that have the same buoyancy as PFD Type 2. They are different to the Type 2 in that they aremanufactured in colours other than the high-visibility safety colours. They are designed to meet AS2260 and are mostly used for water skiing and byPWC riders.

Both PFD Type 1 and 2 are made from high visibility colours with retro-reflective patches, which aid search and rescue personnel when searching formissing persons.


Box 2: Definition of Areas of Operation

Table 3.1: Current and Proposed Requirements to Wear Personal Flotation Devices, where wear = on open area while vessel is underway

Vessel Type Current Proposal Difference

Powerboat <_ 4.8 m1 Carry PFD 1 Coastal & enclosed, wear PFD 1 Yes, wearInland, wear PFD 1, 2 or 3 Yes, wear; but PFD 2 or 3 2

Powerboat > 4.8 m1 Carry PFD 1 Carry PFD 1 No

Canoe, kayak, rowing boat, Wear PFD 1, 2 or 3 3 Coastal, wear PFD 1 or 2 Yes, no PFD 3raft, pedal boat or fun boat Enclosed & inland, wear PFD 1, 2 or 3 No

Off-the-beach yacht, Wear PFD 1, 2 or 3 Coastal, wear PFD 1 Yes, no PFD 2 or 3Yacht (with no motor) Enclosed & inland, wear PFD 1 or 2 Yes, no PFD 3

Kite board and sail board Wear PFD 1, 2 or 3 3, 4 Wear wetsuit Yes< 400 m from shore

Kite board and sail board Wear PFD 1, 2 or 3 3, 4 Coastal, wear PFD 1 or 2 Yes, no PFD 3> 400 m from shore Enclosed & inland, wear PFD 1, 2 or 3 No

PWC Wear PFD 1, 2 or 3 3 Coastal, wear PFD 1 or 2 Yes, no PFD 3 Enclosed & inland, wear PFD 1, 2 or 3 No

Tender Nil Coastal, wear PFD 1 YesEnclosed, wear PFD 1 or 2 YesInland, wear PFD 1, 2 or 3 Yes

Notes: 1 Includes yachts with motors engaged.2 Ski boats are currently required to carry a PFD 1 for all occupants, but skiers can wear a PFD 1, 2 or 3. As skiers generally prefer to wear

a PFD 3 while skiing, two sets of PFDs have to be carried for skiers.3 Wearing is not required under the regulations but occurs in practice: the regulations require the carriage of a PFD 1 and a full set of safety

equipment, while there is an exemption from carrying safety equipment if a PFD 1, 2 or 3 is worn.4 Unlikely to be worn in practice.

Coastal waters means all waters other than inland waters or enclosed waters.

Enclosed waters means –

(a) the waters inside the seaward entrance of the ports of Apollo Bay, Anderson Inlet, Gippsland Lakes, Snowy River, Mallacoota, and Port Fairydesignated under Part 10 of the Act; and

(b) the waters of the Port of Barwon Heads upstream of the Barwon Heads-Ocean Grove road bridge; and

(c) the waters of the Port of Corner Inlet and Port Albert east of a line between Port Welshpool shipping pier and Bentley Point (inside the entrances); and

(d) the waters of Shallow Inlet; and

(e) the port waters (inside the entrance) of the Port of Portland;

(f) the waters of Port Phillip Bay landward of an imaginary line drawn between Point Lonsdale and Point Nepean as shown on the chart AUS 144“Approaches to Port Phillip”, published by the Hydrographic Service, Royal Australian Navy, 9 November 2001; and

(g) the waters of Western Port landward of its western entrance joined by an imaginary line drawn between West Head to the southern tip of SealRocks to Point Grant and landward of its eastern entrance joined by an imaginary line drawn between Cape Woolami and Griffith Point as shownon the chart AUS 150 “Western Port”, published by the Hydrographic Service, Royal Australian Navy, 22 March 1995.

Inland waters means –

(a) rivers (inside the seaward entrance), creeks, canals, lakes, reservoirs and any similar waters either naturally formed or man made and whichare either publicly or privately owned; and

(b) the waters inside the seaward entrance of any rivers, creeks or streams which flow into port waters or ports designated under Part 10 of the Act.

page 17

Box 3: Definition of Open Area while Underway

The features of the proposed requirements by vessel type are as follows:

Powerboat

Powerboats include tinnies, open boats, half cabin boats, cabin cruisers, house boats, inflatable vessels and yachts with motors. All powerboats are currently required to carry a PFD Type 1 for all persons on board. The proposal is that requirement will remain forpowerboats that are more than 4.8 metres in length but there will be changes for boats that are 4.8 metres or less. This breakpointwas selected because users of vessels less than 4.8 metres are involved in most of the fatal boating incidents (see Table 2.2). Thisfinding is not unexpected as boats become rapidly less stable with reducing size. In fact the stability of a boat reduces exponentiallywith respect to reducing vessel dimensions.

The dimensions and weight of the human crew remain a constant however and with reducing vessel size (and consequentexponentially reducing stability) the crew exert a much greater influence in small boats than in only slightly larger craft. This becomesmost noticeable in vessels of around 4.8 metres where the weight of the occupants is the single biggest influence on vessel stability. The International Standards Organisation (ISO) selected this 4.8 metre vessel length break point for the stability and buoyancyperformance testing in their recreational vessel standards.

The ISO has developed standards for the construction of small vessels in relation to buoyancy and stability (ISO 12217-3) and whilstrecreational vessels are not currently required to be constructed to this standard, it does provide a sound basis for the break point.In developing this standard it was recognised by the ISO development team that there are very limited effective options with regardsto specifying buoyancy and stability standards for the construction of vessels under 4.8 metres in length as any design measures to address stability are far outweighed by the overriding effect of the size and weight of the occupants of the vessel. It is only whenvessels are greater than 4.8 metres in length that it is practical to include meaningful design options for addressing buoyancy andstability issues. Due to increased size and the effects of the exponential increase in stability, larger vessels are inherently capable of performing at higher standards that provide occupants with greater levels of protection and have therefore been so prescribed in the ISO standard.

Observations of vessels indicate that there is a significant change in the vessel configuration as vessel size increases from ‘dinghies’to ‘small boats’ and up to ‘yachts and cruisers’. In general terms the majority of ‘typical’ recreational vessels can be classified as follows:

Vessel length less than 4.8 metres: Generally referred to as ‘dinghies’, i.e. small boats requiring the occupants to ‘balance’ the craftat all times by carefully distributing their weight to avoid capsizing or swamping.

Vessel length between 4.8 and 6 metres: Recognised by the general public as ‘small boats’, having sufficient stability to allow theoccupants to move around carefully, with a greater ability to withstand unbalanced loads without capsizing or swamping.

Open area in the case of –

(a) a trading vessel, means an area –

(i) that is not closed or locked; and

(ii) that is open on the boundary on its aft side; and

(b) on a recreational vessel (other than a kayak or canoe) –

(i) that has a weathertight deck for the whole or part of the length of the vessel, means all deck areas including coach roofs, superstructures,open flying bridges, trampolines and nets, excluding areas within a deck house, a cabin, a half cabin or a securely enclosed under-deckspace; or

(ii) that does not have a weathertight deck for the whole or part of the length of the vessel, means the whole vessel;

(c) a kayak or canoe, means the whole vessel.

Underway in relation to a vessel, means when the vessel is not –

(a) at anchor; or

(b) made fast to the shore; or

(c) ashore.



Vessel length greater than 6 metres: Considered by the average boater to be ‘yachts or cruisers’, due to the exponential stabilityincrease has twice the stability of a similar shaped 4.8 metre vessel enabling the craft to withstand considerable movement of theoccupants and/or offset loading with little effect on vessel heeling or loss of freeboard and consequently a much greater inherentability to withstand capsizing or swamping.

‘Dinghies’ are simpler in design and construction and there are low reserves of stability and less inherent capacity for the vessel to be able to protect the occupants in the event of hazardous conditions. As vessels become larger (typically above 4.8 metres long),decks and other structures such as cabins are able to be introduced onto the vessel design and therefore such larger craft are ableto offer the occupants some form of protection in adverse conditions.

A major measure to improve the chances of survival for occupants of small craft is to include inherently buoyant material such as foam into a vessel. This can be done successfully in ‘small boats’ 4.8 to 6 metres long where there is sufficient space within thevessel to distribute sufficient foam buoyancy and maintain the vessel in an upright and stable attitude even when swamped and fullof water. It is almost impossible to incorporate such inherent buoyancy into ‘dinghies’ below 4.8 metres long and therefore the onlyeffective method is to require personal buoyancy to be worn, i.e. PFDs.

In developing the proposed regulations, an original break point of 6.5 metres was chosen and included in the discussion paperreleased for public comment. Based on feedback from both the public and industry representatives, the break point length wasreduced to 4.8 metres. Many stakeholders believed that they would not be able to support the proposed regulations if the proposed6.5 metre break point was retained as it was felt that this would require the occupants of many well constructed vessels (typicallybetween 5.5 and 6.5 metres) with good buoyancy and stability to wear PFDs at all times when in fact the vessel design would provideadequate protection in good operating conditions.

Therefore, MSV has adopted the recommendations of many stakeholders and reduced the break point to 4.8 metres so that the proposed regulations target those boaters most at risk.

The type of PFD is varied by area of operation to reflect differences in risk. PFD Type 1 will continue to be required on coastal andenclosed waters while any of the 3 types of PFD will be able to be worn on inland waters. PFD Type 1 has a higher level of flotationthan Types 2 and 3, and a collar to hold the wearer’s head up, a benefit in the choppy sea conditions possible on coastal and enclosed waters.

Canoe, kayak, rowing boat, raft, pedal boat or fun boat

These non-motorised boats are currently required to carry PFD Type 1 for all persons on board, but are exempted from thisrequirement and the requirement to carry safety equipment if they wear any of the three types of PFDs. In practice users of theseboats take advantage of the exemptions and wear PFDs so this is shown as the current position in Table 3.1. The proposal will requireoccupants of these non-motorised boats to wear either a PFD Type 1 or 2 on coastal waters, which is more restrictive relative to thecurrent situation as a PFD Type 3 can no longer be worn. On enclosed and inland waters, there is no difference between the currentsituation and the proposal.

Off the beach sailing yacht and Yacht (with no motor engaged)

The current regulation requires that any of the three types of PFDs (in Box 1) can be worn (while racing) while the proposal varies thetype of PFD by area of operation. In coastal waters, PFD Types 2 and 3 will no longer be permitted due to the risks of operating inthese waters. The requirement to wear a PFD Type 1 on coastal waters is a restriction relative to the current situation. On inland andenclosed waters, the proposal allows either PFD Type 1 or 2 to be worn, again a restriction as PFD Type 3 will no longer be permitted.This restriction is being proposed to bring the regulations into line with Yachting Victoria rules which do not permit the use of PFDType 3; they do not have reflective tape, which reduces the likelihood of being found in a night search.

Kiteboard and sailboard

The users of these boards are currently required to carry PFD Type 1 for all persons on board, but are exempted from this requirementand the requirement to carry safety equipment if they wear any of the three types of PFDs. In practice, very few if any users wearone. The proposal recognises this fact by attempting to provide some protection to users with a solution that will encouragecompliance. In particular, a PFD will not be required to be worn if the user is operating within 400 metres of the shore and is wearinga wetsuit (see Box 4 for the definition of a wetsuit). There will also be changes where operations are in excess of 400 metres fromthe shore in coastal waters; they are considered to have higher risks so a PFD Type 3 will no longer be permitted.

page 19

Personal Watercraft (PWC)

The current situation with respect to PWCs is the same as for non-motorised vessels such as canoes, i.e. the practice is that anyone of the three types of PFD can be worn in place of the requirements to carry a PFD Type 1 and other safety equipment. Wearinga PFD is therefore shown as the current position in Table 3.1. The proposal will not affect PWCs operating on enclosed and inlandwaters, but PFD Type 3 will not be permitted on coastal waters due to higher risks.

Tender

A tender is an open boat attached to a vessel and used on a short journey when the vessel is anchored away from the shore. A newdefinition is proposed to clarify the purpose and prevent abuse of the free registration available to bona fide tenders. A tender is notcurrently defined in the regulations but is in the exemptions to the regulations and in the registration regulations; there are differencesin these definitions as shown in Box 5. The main effects of the proposed definition are that length will reduce from 5 to 4.8 metresand PWCs cannot be used as tenders.

Tenders are currently exempt from the existing PFD and other safety equipment requirements, while the proposal will require PFDsto be worn depending on the area of operation: a PFD Type 1 in coastal waters, a PFD Type 1 or 2 in enclosed waters, and PFD Type1, 2 or 3 in inland waters.

Box 4: Definition of Wetsuit

Box 5: Tender Definitions

Current notice of exemption: means a vessel not more than 5 metres in length which is used as a means of transportation on any inland watersor on waters of a port or an associated port –

(a) between the shore and another vessel not more than 300 metres from the shore; or

(b) between vessels which are not more than 300 metres from the shore.

Current registration exemption (Regulation 406): a vessel of not more than 5 metres in length that is used or intended to be used as a meansof transport on inland waters or enclosed waters and that conspicuously displays the name of its mother vessel or the registration number of thatvessel and the letter “T” and that operates or is intended to operate –

(i) between the shore and another vessel not more than 300 metres from the shore; or

(ii) between vessels not more than 300 metres apart and not more than 300 metres from the shore

Proposed definition of a recreational tender: means a vessel, other than a personal watercraft –

(a) that does not exceed 4.8 metres in length; and

(b) that is used, or that is intended to be used, as a means of transportation but not for towing; and

(c) that conspicuously displays the name of its mother vessel or the registration number of that vessel and the letter ‘T’; and

(d) that operates or is intended to operate –

(i) between the shore and another recreational vessel that is no more than 300 metres from the shore and no more than 300 metres from thepoint of its entry to the water; or

(ii) between recreational vessels that are no more than 300 metres apart and no more than 300 metres from the shore.

Wetsuit means a thermal insulation garment of a kind that –

(a) covers the whole of the trunk of a person’s body in one garment; and

(b) allows water to permeate on to the body of the person wearing it –

but does not include a vest or singlet.



3.2.2 Times of Heightened Risk

Boaters on powerboats between 4.8 and 12 metres and yachts of all lengths will be required to wear a personal flotation device atcertain times of heightened risk, an extensively defined term (see Box 6). The types of risks included in the definition are crossing bars,boating alone, boating at night or in restricted visibility or in rough waters or in poor weather, and when under reduced or reefed sail.

Mandating the wearing of PFDs for these vessels at times of heightened risk will provide a measure of protection for boaters withsome potential to be involved in fatal boating incidents by virtue of either the environment they are operating in (e.g. crossing an oceanbar), or the circumstances of their operation (e.g. boating alone).

Powerboat between 4.8 and 12 metres

These boats are not involved in as many fatal incidents as those smaller than 4.8 metres. The proposal is therefore to provide a measure of protection for boaters with some potential to be involved in fatal boating incidents by virtue of either the environmentthey are operating in or the circumstances of their operation. A maximum length is included, else some very large and sophisticatedboats where occupants are less likely to enter the water due to vessel characteristics will be covered. Large recreational boats arebuilt to higher standards, are inherently more stable, and have more freeboard.

The proposal will mean that the PFD Type 1 currently required to be carried on these boats will have to be worn on coastal andenclosed waters at times of heightened risk. People on boats on inland waters will be permitted to use a PFD Type 2 or 3 in placeof a PFD Type 1.

Box 6: Definition of Time of Heightened Risk

Yacht

Yachts are currently required to carry a PFD Type 1 for each person on board. It is proposed that a PFD Type 1 must be worn attimes of heightened risk on coastal waters. It is proposed that a PFD Type 1 or 2 must be worn at times of heightened risk while onenclosed and inland waters. PFD Type 3 will not be permitted to harmonise requirements with Yachting Victoria. Unlike powerboatsbetween 4.8 and 12 metres, persons on yachts will be able to wear a PFD Type 2 on enclosed waters; this will assist them toundertake strenuous activities requiring movement when sailing, e.g. operating winches, avoiding booms, raising spinnakers.

Time of heightened risk means –





(e) when there is a significant likelihood that –

(i) the vessel may capsize or be swamped by waves; or

(ii) the occupants of the vessel may fall overboard or be forced to enter the water; or

(f) when the vessel is operating in an area where



(iii) a severe thunderstorm warning –


(g) if the vessel is a yacht –



page 21

3.2.3 Children

Children under 10 years of age are currently required to wear personal flotation devices when a vessel is underway but not if they arewithin a deck house, a cabin, a half-cabin or a securely enclosed under-deck space. The proposal has the same intent although thewording is different to correct a practical problem with the current regulation. The problem in the current regulation is that a PFD Type1 is required for all persons on board but children can wear any one of the three types; this can mean that more than one type ofPFD has to be available for children to wear. The proposal corrects the problem by requiring that the type of PFD worn by childrenbe the same as required for all other persons on board.

3.2.4 Standard of Personal Flotation Devices

As can be seen from Box 1, the three types of PFD are all currently required to meet an Australian Standard. The national standardand the proposal will make a variety of construction standards acceptable in Victoria for PFD Type 1 as follows:

• Australian Standard AS1512

• Australian Maritime Safety Authority Marine Orders Part 25, Appendix 1, Section 2 Life-jackets (SOLAS)

• Uniform Shipping Laws Code, Section 10, Appendix R (for Coastal Lifejackets)

• the following personal flotation devices approved by a recognised appraiser (see Box 7):

– European Standard EN399 or EN396 or EN395

– Canadian General Standards (CAN/CGSB-65.11-M88 for adults and CAN/CGSB-65.15-M88 for children)

– Underwriters Laboratories Standards UL1180

– New Zealand Standards NZ5823:2001, Type 401

– any standards or specifications approved by the Director.

The standard of many of the personal flotation devices in the proposed alternative standards are equivalent or higher than AS1512;many are also inflatable. The proposal will broaden the scope and availability of styles and potentially reduce purchase costs of thehigher standard personal flotation devices. They were included in the national standard to:

• increase the choice of devices that could be used, and particularly ones that have a higher standard in life-saving situations

• increase wearing rates where inflatable devices are selected

• reduce the need for some boats to carry two sets of PFDs, i.e. one that meets the Australian Standard for compliance purposesand one that is worn and used for safety reasons (as reputedly occurs on large yachts).

The proposal permits a European standard (EN393) alternative to AS1499 for Type 2 PFDs.

Box 7: Definition of Recognised Appraiser

(a) a certifying body accredited by the Joint Accreditation Scheme of Australia and New Zealand (JAS-NZ); or

(b) a laboratory with National Association of Testing Authorities (NATA) accreditation; or

(c) a notified body in accordance with the European Union Maritime Equipment Directive, Module B (MED-B); or

(d) a body approved by the Director.



3.3 Other Safety EquipmentThe proposal for the carriage of safety equipment, other than personal flotation devices, is shown in Table 3.2. The types of equipmentrequired to be carried vary by vessel type and area of operation. Larger vessels, reflecting higher passenger carrying, are required tocarry more items of safety equipment, and those operating on coastal waters more than those on enclosed waters and both of thosemore than on inland waters. In other words, the types of equipment vary with vessel risks and operational risks. As noted in Section3.2, changes are being made to the definitions of waters that will affect the types of safety equipment to be carried. The proposal isthat different safety equipment must be carried on enclosed and inland waters, and Port Phillip Bay and Western Port Bay be movedfrom coastal to enclosed waters. The majority of boating on enclosed waters occurs in these two bays.

Table 3.2: Proposed Items of Safety Equipment by Vessel Type and Area of Operation

Item of Equipment Coastal Waters Enclosed Waters Inland Waters

Powerboat up to and including 4.8 metres

Anchor and chain and/or line 1 1 0

Bilge pump or bailer1 1 1 1

Bucket with lanyard 1 1 1

Compass 1 (> 2 nm) 0 0

Hand held flares – orange smoke 2 2 0

Hand held flares – red smoke 2 2 0

Red star parachute flares 1 (> 2 nm) 0 0

Paddles or oars with rowlocks 1 1 1

Waterproof buoyant torch 1 1 1

Marine radio 1 (> 2 nm) 0 0

Powerboat greater than 4.8 metres

Anchor and chain and/or line 1 1 0

Bilge pump and bailer1 1 1 1








Lifebuoy 1 (8-12 m) 1 (8-12 m) 1 (8-12 m)2 (> 12 m) 2 (> 12 m) 2 (> 12 m)

One dinghy or liferaft 1 (> 12 m) 0 0

Personal Watercraft


m = vessel length in metres, nm = nautical miles from the coast.Notes: 1 If no electric or manual bilge pumping.

page 23

Table 3.2: Proposed Items of Safety Equipment by Vessel Type and Area of Operation (cont.)

Item of Equipment Coastal Waters Enclosed Waters Inland Waters

Off the beach yacht

Bilge pump or bailer 1 1 1





Paddle 1 1 1


Yacht (no motor)

Anchor and chain or line 1 1 0




Hand held flare – orange smoke 2 2 0

Hand held flare – red smoke 2 2 0

Red star parachute flare 1 (> 2nm) 0 0



Lifebuoy 1 (8-12 m) 1 (8-12 m) 1 (8-12 m)

2 (> 12 m) 2 (> 12 m) 2 (> 12 m)

One dinghy or liferaft 1 (> 12 m) 0 0

Kayak, canoe, raft and rowing boat



Hand held flares – orange smoke 2 (> 2 nm) 0 0

Hand held flares – red smoke 2 (> 2 nm) 0 0

Spare paddles or oars with rowlocks 1 (> 2 nm) 0 0

Waterproof buoyant torch 1 (> 2 nm) 0 0

m = vessel length in metres, nm = nautical miles from the coast.Notes: 1 If no electric or manual bilge pumping.



The table does not include fire fighting equipment as there is no variation proposed by area of operation. All recreational boats whichcarry fuel on board, or are equipped with an electric start motor, gas installation or fuel stove will be required to have at least one fireextinguisher complying with AS1850:1997. The number required to be carried, which varies according to vessel length, is the sameas in the current regulations, with:

• one required for boats less than 8 metres

• two for boats between 8 and 12 metres

• three for boats greater than 12 metres.

The types of fire extinguisher required vary with the volume of flammable or combustible liquids carried. The fire extinguishers in the Australian Standard are up to date and designed for the specific types of fires likely to be encountered in specific situations, i.e. the fire extinguisher proposal has a performance basis.

It is also proposed to require that boats with cooking facilities inside the boat carry a fire blanket. This item of equipment is notrequired by current regulation nor the national standard however it is recommended in the Australian Standard for portable fireextinguishers (AS 2444) for boats and caravans where cooking appliances are installed. This has been proposed as fire blankets area simple, effective and efficient means of fighting cooking-related fires.

The proposal is based on the national standard where the requirements in that standard were developed using a qualitative riskanalysis, i.e. by identifying the marine incident and emergency situations likely to occur, ranking the types of safety equipment in theirability to reduce adverse consequences in each situation, and then matching the appropriate equipment with the type of boat to beused and the waters in which it would be used.

The national standard defines three areas of operations (smooth, inshore, offshore), which is different to the existing regulation whichhas two areas (inland/enclosed, coastal). The proposal contains three areas of operations (see Box 2) by splitting inland and enclosedin the existing regulations; the definitions of the proposed three areas are not completely in alignment with the national standard. Ithas been decided to broadly maintain the current water classifications in Victoria as adoption of those in the national standard wouldresult in Port Phillip Bay being divided into two areas; the effect would be that boaters would require different sets of safety equipmentdepending on where they were operating in Port Phillip Bay. This would clearly be impractical.

The effect of the proposal is that boats operating in coastal and enclosed waters will require more safety equipment than for inlandwaters, as shown in Table 3.3. The effects are most pronounced for boats operating in coastal waters more than 2 nautical milesfrom the coast, in accordance with the risk approach used to develop the national standard. The effect on boats operating onenclosed waters is overstated as the overwhelming majority of enclosed waters operations is on Port Phillip and Western Port Baysand they are being moved from coastal to enclosed waters3. That means that the anchor and chain/line and orange and red flareswill not be extra safety equipment.

3 This is based on surveys of boaters; indeed in the main survey the two bays were the only enclosed waters used by those surveyed (Quantum 2003).

page 25

Table 3.3: Changes in Items of Safety Equipment by Vessel Type and Area of Operation

Type of Change Coastal Waters Enclosed Waters1 Inland Waters


Increase Bucket/lanyard (< 8 m) Anchor & chain &/or line Bucket/lanyard (< 8 m)

Compass (> 2 nm) Bucket/lanyard (< 8 m)

Parachute flare (> 2 nm) 2 Orange flares

Marine radio (> 2 nm) 2 Red flares

Powerboat more than 4.8 metres

Increase Bucket/lanyard (< 8 m) Anchor & chain &/or line Bucket/lanyard (< 8 m)

Compass (> 2 nm) Bucket/lanyard (< 8 m) Lifebuoy (8-12 m)



Lifebuoy (8-12 m) Lifebuoy (8-12 m)

Dinghy/liferaft (> 12 m)

Decrease Bucket/lanyard (> 12 m) Bucket/lanyard (> 12 m) Bucket/lanyard (> 12 m)

Off the beach yacht

Increase due to exemption removal2 Bilge pump or bailer3 Bilge pump or bailer3 Bilge pump or bailer3

2 Orange flares Paddle Paddle

2 Red flares

Paddle

Increase Compass (> 2 nm) 2 Orange flares

Parachute flare (> 2 nm) 2 Red flares

Marine radio (> 2 nm)

Yacht

Increase due to exemption removal 4 Dinghy/liferaft (> 12 m and > 2 nm)

Increase Bucket/lanyard Anchor & chain &/or line Bucket/lanyard

Compass (> 2 nm) Bucket/lanyard Lifebuoy (8-12 m)



Lifebuoy (8-12 m) Lifebuoy (8-12 m)

Decrease Bucket/lanyard (> 12 m) Bucket/lanyard (> 12 m) Bucket/lanyard (> 12 m)

2 Paddles (< 5 m) 2 Paddles (< 5 m) 2 Paddles (< 5 m)


Increase Compass (> 2 nm)

Spare paddles or oars with rowlocks

Waterproof torch (> 2 nm)

Personal Watercraft

Increase Waterproof buoyant torch Waterproof buoyant torch Waterproof buoyant torch

m = vessel length in metres, nm = nautical miles from the coast.Notes: 1 Change is relative to existing requirements in enclosed waters. Most boaters will move from coastal to enclosed waters so there will be no effect

on the need for anchor and chain/line, and orange and red flares.2 These items are currently required if not wearing a PFD; in practice most would wear a PFD and not carry the items.3 If no electric or manual bilge pumping.4 Currently required in the regulations, but there is an exemption for recreational boats.



The differences in Table 3.3 take into account the essence of the differences only. Terminology and/or specifications of safetyequipment in the national standard may have some minimal effect. For example, the current regulation requires an “efficientwaterproof torch or efficient waterproof lantern” and a “manual pump or efficient bilge pumping arrangement” without actuallyspecifying what ‘efficient’ means. The proposal is that the performance standards for items of safety equipment from the nationalstandard will be included in the new regulation.

3.4 EnforcementThe proposed regulations will be enforced by Victoria Water Police, MSV and other officers authorised under the Marine Act 1988 inthe same manner as undertaken now. No additional resources will be required beyond the existing levels.

Enforcement of the regulations is primarily undertaken via the use of on-water vessel intercepts and checks which is a component ofthe Water Police and Authorised Officer patrols. In addition to standard patrols, additional checks may be undertaken in areas whereit has been identified that there are high levels of non-compliance or where particular issues are brought to the attention of the Police.The level of these activities varies throughout the year.

The Victorian Water Police are engaged by MSV to enforce the Marine Act and associated regulations on behalf of MSV. The increasein funding for the Water Police announced in the 2005-06 Victorian State Budget will provide additional resources which can and willbe utilised to enforce marine regulations. Whilst the additional funding has been provided to increase port security in Victoria’s majorports, the increased on-water police presence will benefit marine safety. It is anticipated that recreational vessel checks will also beundertaken during these patrols where necessary. In addition, the increased on-water police presence will have a flow-on effect onboater behaviour in the high recreational boat use areas, that is Port Phillip Bay.

There are also 59 waterway managers appointed under the Marine Act located across the state who are eligible to have officersappointed under the Marine Act as Authorised Officers. This appointment enables them to undertake vessel management activitiesand enforce the marine regulations, and where necessary, issue infringement notices for breaches of the regulations. Currently thereare approximately 250 appointed Authorised Officers with Parks Victoria having the largest group of officers, which are dispersedacross the state at key locations.

MSV has a team of Boating Safety Officers (BSO) who are also appointed as Authorised Officers. The BSOs primary role is educationand the promotion of safe boating practices around the state, however as they are authorised under the Marine Act, they are able toenforce the Marine Regulations when required.

The pre-implementation surveys of PFD use provide an indication of compliance levels with existing wearing requirements. They showthat 74 per cent of children and 91 per cent of PWC riders comply with the requirement to wear PFDs (Cassell and Congiu 2005).

Feedback received to the PFD Review Discussion Paper indicated that there was strong support for the concept of wearing of PFDsat times of heightened risk. This, combined with the relatively high compliance with current requirements to wear PFDs suggests thatthere will be a reasonable level of compliance to wear PFDs at times of heightened risk. It is expected that there will be someresistance to the requirement to wear PFDs in vessels less than 4.8 metres in length however it is also anticipated that compliancerates will increase over time as boater behaviour and perceptions change. An example of this would be the introduction of thecompulsory wearing of bicycle helmets. Whilst many cyclists resisted the changes initially, over time it has become an accepted, evenexpected part of cycling to wear a safety helmet. It is acknowledged that behavioural changes cannot be forced quickly andacceptance of the requirement to wear PFDs will increase over time, especially as new, innovative designs of PFDs enter the marketand become standard pieces of equipment.

PFD related offences for the past eighteen months have been low, with 225 offences for failure to have sufficient PFDs on board forall passengers and only 16 offences for persons under 10 years of age being permitted to travel on a boat without wearing a PFD.

Compliance with the changes to the recreational boat safety equipment is anticipated to be high. For many boaters there are fewchanges from current requirements. Over the past eighteen months there have been 68 offences for failure to have safety equipmentreadily accessible and in good working order.

page 27

Penalties for non-compliance with the requirement to wear PFDs and carry the required safety equipment will be set at the maximumof 5 penalty units, with an infringement notice of 1.25 penalty units. The proposed penalty for the requirement to carry certain piecesof safety equipment is in line with the current penalty for this offence.

The penalty levels have been set to encourage changes in boater behaviour without imposing significant financial hardship. Inaddition, the penalty for non-compliance with the requirement to wear PFDs is in line with penalties under the Road Safety (RoadRules) Regulations 1999 for not wearing seat belts. Comparisons with Tasmania and New South Wales which also have compulsoryPFD wearing requirements indicates that Victoria’s proposed penalties via an infringement notice fall between the penalty levels inthose two jurisdictions, with the penalty in New South Wales being $200 per person and $50 in Tasmania. The maximum penalty($524 or 5 penalty units) in Victoria is higher, however as most marine related offences are dealt with via infringement notices, thiswould only be applied in exceptional circumstances. The penalty via an infringement notice would be 1.25 penalty units or $131.




4 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSALThe feasibility of broad alternatives to the proposal for the compulsory wearing of PFDs were investigated in the development of thecurrent proposal. They are discussed in Section 4.1. The specific alternatives to the PFD wearing proposal are described in Section4.2 and safety equipment is discussed in Section 4.3.

4.1 Broad AlternativesThe main objective of the proposal is to reduce deaths due to recreational vessel accidents. This objective could be achieved by a range of measures not simply by wearing PFDs. Safety risks can generally be reduced by strategies aimed at reducing thelikelihood of unsafe events and/or by reducing the consequences of the events once they occur. Wearing a PFD is aimed at reducingconsequences.

Wearing a PFD is likely to be most useful in events that lead to boaters unexpectedly entering the water. The main types of eventsare sinking, capsizing, swamping, grounding and person overboard. MUARC (2002) reports that they account for 14 per cent ofrecreational vessel incidents and 76 per cent of fatal incidents, i.e. these incidents have very severe consequences in terms of liveslost once they have occurred. This suggests that strategies aimed at reducing consequences require some priority.

Strategies aimed at reducing the likelihood of occurrence are not being ignored, although they are not the subject of this proposedregulatory change. These strategies include boat operator licensing, boating education programs and materials, Boating Safety andFacilities funding, operating regulations, and signs and navigation aids. A significant strategy currently being pursued at the nationallevel, with the support of MSV, is the introduction of a buoyancy standard for most recreational boats of less than 6 metres in length. Requiring buoyancy in these vessels will reduce the likelihood of sinking and/or capsizing, depending on the standardadopted by vessel builders.

Despite these strategies, boaters will enter the water in some incidents; at that stage, strategies aimed at the consequences of entering the water are the priority in meeting the objective of reducing deaths, e.g. carriage/wearing personal flotation devices andother items of safety equipment, search and rescue services, training, and specific education programs. They have all been adoptedby MSV to a greater or lesser extent.

There is no doubt that wearing a PFD increases the chance of survival once a person has entered the water. O’Connor (2004) reportsan analysis of boating fatalities in Australia that includes a comparison of survival rates and PFD wearing in fatal incidents where somesurvived and some died (which effectively excludes environmental conditions as an independent factor). He concludes that:

…the proportion wearing a PFD was higher among those who survived compared to those who died. The odds ratio was 2.1,indicating that people who were alive were more than two times more likely to have been wearing a PFD. (O’Connor 2004, p35)

The broad alternatives are not formally assessed in Section 5 below as they are not regarded as feasible:

• education/promotion on the grounds that it is not a cost effective means of achieving the objective of safe recreational boating on its own

• PFD subsidy program on the grounds that it is not a cost effective means of achieving the safety objective and is difficult to implement equitably

• application of wearing in accordance with vessel characteristics on the grounds of implementation difficulties.


4.1.1 Education Campaigns

The MSV Life Jackets Save Lives campaign referred to in Section 2.4 is an example of a specific marketing/education campaignaimed at encouraging boat users to wear PFDs. The program included a major media campaign focussing upon the theme of ‘LifeJackets Save Lives’ and a range of programs and events launched during Boat Safety Week. The media campaign was supportedby the Boat Safety Equipment Check Campaign which involved checking equipment on almost 4,000 recreational vessels by MSVrepresentatives over summer. The costs of the campaign and its evaluation were $1.1 million over two summer boating seasons.

It was assessed via market research before (November 2002) and after (February 2003) the first year of the campaign that was aimedat determining awareness of requirements and the effects of the campaign on behaviour. Characteristics of the samples and theirresponses are summarised in Table 4.1.

Quantum (2003) reported that there was a good awareness of the campaign, and there was some improvement in attitudes but notmuch effect on behaviour. Unprompted, 25 per cent could accurately recall the campaign and, when prompted, 48 per cent.

The proportion of boaters who were aware that they should wear a PFD at the first sign of bad weather or in an emergency increasedafter the campaign. The researchers nevertheless concluded that it is unlikely that most actually do put one on because most boatersnever wear a PFD. This conclusion is supported by the fact that more than two thirds of those who had been involved in anemergency did not put on their life jacket, and that there were reported falls in wearing in bad weather and emergencies.

Those who wear a life jacket every time or every second time they go boating are less likely to have been caught out in bad weather.This is likely to suggest they have a better appreciation of the risks involved and that requiring wearing at times of heightened risk is an alternative to wearing at all times. The proposal includes this alternative for larger vessels in response to consultation on theoriginal proposal to require wearing on vessels less than 6.5 metres in length. It is not proposed for small vessels (less than 4.8 metres)because of the large number of fatalities associated with these vessels and the fact that most fatal incidents occur in good water andweather conditions (see Section 2.2).

Table 4.1: Results of Market Research on Life Jackets Save Lives Campaign

Characteristic/Response Before After

Number in survey 351 350

Male 98% 97%

Age 35 to 64 years 80% 77%

Type of PFD carried:

– PFD Type 1 59% 63%

– Do not know what type 33% 41%

Wear PFD:

– Never 57% 55%

– Always 13% 13%

Others on the boat wear PFD:

– Always or mostly 44% 39%

– Never 20% 13%

Agree that children should always wear a PFD 20% 13%

Agree that should wear a PFD in an emergency 13% 17%

Put PFD on in an emergency 32% 29%

Agree should wear PFD in bad weather 46% 54%

Have been caught in bad weather 53% 48%

Wear a PFD and have been caught in bad weather 45% 37%

Agree should wear a PFD when crossing a bar or rip 8% 14%

After seeing advertising:

– More likely to wear PFD na 39%

– Not likely to change wearing behaviour na 59%

Source: Quantum (2003).


Quantum concludes that 39 per cent of boaters say they are more likely to wear a life jacket as a result of seeing the advertising,which on face-value is quite high, however given the type of barriers we know exist, we expect that it would not translate to behaviour.Overall, however, this is a positive shift in attitude. In other words, while awareness of situations that may require a life jacket is quitehigh, this does not translate to actual behaviour. This does not suggest that the $1.1 million cost of the campaign is a cost effectivealternative, on its own, of increasing the wearing of PFDs.

Education and/or promotion could be a precursor to mandatory wearing to increase awareness of the benefits and/or could be a complement to encourage compliance. This appears to be confirmed by the number of fatal incidents, which have remainedrelatively constant, over the period of the campaign (see Figure 1). It is also supported by research undertaken in Canada into optionsto improve PFD wearing rates, including training courses in safety, social marketing/education campaigns, subsidising PFD purchase,insurance rebates, PFD designs and standards, and legislation. It concludes that legislation is the preferred approach, although it maytake some time to achieve in view of resistance by boaters (SmartRisk 2003).

As part of the consultation process, more innovative alternatives were explored but not to any positive effect. The main one suggestedwas to require that wearing requirements for PFDs depend on vessel characteristics rather than boat type or length. For example,the more stable the vessel the less the need to wear a PFD on the grounds that if a vessel remains afloat there will be less chanceof ending up unexpectedly in the water. The main problem with such alternatives is developing readily applicable mechanisms tosimply identify vessel characteristics. In addition, risks of persons falling overboard are not covered and there was little interest shownin such an approach at either of the workshops held with key industry stakeholders as part of the consultation process.

4.1.2 PFD Subsidy Program

A program to subsidise the cost of replacement PFDs has been considered on several occasions, both as an alternative to theproposed regulations and in addition to the proposed regulations, with the aim of providing financial assistance to persons wantingto upgrade their current PFDs.

Currently in Victoria, all recreational boats must carry one Australian Standards approved PFD-Type 1 for every person on the boat.However, research has shown that although compliance with the PFD carriage requirements is generally very high, many recreationalboaters (approximately 80%) currently own low quality pillow styled PFDs, typically purchased to meet the current legislativerequirement to carry an approved PFD but with no intention of wearing it. Their cost is generally around $20 and many of these PFDsare still in their original packaging and stowed away out of reach or are mis-used, for example, as seat cushions.

A program to encourage boaters to upgrade their PFDs to more comfortable designs would assist in upgrading the quality of PFDscurrently in use to designs which are more comfortable and able to be worn for longer periods. The upgraded lifejackets would alsoreduce operator risk by replacing aged/deteriorated equipment with modern effective equipment.

In establishing an equitable program that encourages boat owners or operators to upgrade equipment, there are many issues thatmust be considered, for example:

• who would be eligible to receive the subsidy (owners of registered boats, all boat owners, all boaters, concession card holders, etc.)

• what level of subsidy would be offered (10% of purchase price, a fixed amount per item or a varying amount dependent on thetype of PFD purchased, etc.)

• the types of PFDs eligible for a subsidy

• limits on the number of PFDs for which a subsidy is available per person (per boat, per purchase)

• establishing an administratively simple program that is able to detect fraudulent claims

• what happens to the old PFDs, should they be reclaimed or be allowed to be kept on board vessels as ‘back up’ equipment

• what length of time should the subsidy be available for (one boating season, twelve months, etc.).

Earlier original estimates found there is a requirement for approximately 400,000 lifejackets to be stored on Victoria’s poweredrecreational boat fleet. The estimated take-up rate was expected to be high (35 per cent) which would result in excess of 280,000PFDs to be purchased during the rebate period.


The total cost of such a program varies greatly with the program specifics however an indicative program is presented below.

Proposed program: $20 Rebate on Purchase of PFDs for All Boaters

This rebate would be available to any Victorian resident and offers a $20 rebate on the purchase of any approved PFD.

Purchasers of PFDs during the rebate period would be able to send in their proof of purchase (a receipt clearly detailing the retailer,type of PFD, cost and date of purchase) to MSV or its contractor and be eligible for a $20 rebate on each PFD purchased. A similarscheme is the rebate system made available to Victorians when purchasing water efficient home appliances.

Costs associated with the scheme assuming 35% of PFDs are replaced

Rebate $2.8 million

Public awareness campaign $0.5 million

Administration and audit of scheme $0.4 million

TOTAL $3.7 million

Advantages

• funds expended go directly to purchase of new PFDs

• substantial discount available to all Victorians

• saving goes directly to all boat operators and users

• no involvement with a third party (retailers or manufacturers)

• easy to administer.

Disadvantages

• administration and audit costs are moderate

• potential for fraudulent claims

• as only a small proportion of the boating community are members of clubs and boating organisations it would be difficult toinform boaters of the rebate opportunity.

In considering the overall impact of a subsidy scheme, it was determined that, whilst it may be appealing to some members of theboating community and encourage boaters to upgrade current PFDs, this would not necessarily translate into higher wearing rates.There is a considerable risk that such a scheme would be viewed by many as a means of obtaining new equipment at a reducedprice and not influence boater behaviour with regards to wearing PFDs.


4.2 PFD AlternativesThe alternatives assessed in Section 5 are:

Option 1 (<_4.8 metres): The proposal, which includes wearing one of the three types of PFDs while underway dependingon vessel type, a 4.8 metre breakpoint for powerboats, variation by area of operation, and wearing at times of heightenedrisk on powerboats between 4.8 and 12 metres and yachts.

Option 2 (<6.5 metres): Similar to the proposal but with a 6.5 metre breakpoint for powerboats, and some variation by area of operation and vessel type. This was MSV’s preferred option in the discussion paper. As the 6.5 metre breakpoint was notwell accepted in the consultation process, the 4.8 metre breakpoint is now included in the proposal. The option is includedas there remain significant numbers of boating fatalities associated with vessels between 4.8 and 6.5 metres (see Section 2.2).

Option 3 (Coroner): The Coroner’s recommendation, i.e. wearing a PFD Type 1 on all vessel types and all times of operation. This option will have the greatest effect as it covers all recreational vessels.

The options by boat and area of operation are shown in detail in Appendix B.

The three alternatives give a good range of lengths, and variations by boat type and area of operation. Other breakpoints couldpotentially be assessed, e.g. the 6 metres that applies in Tasmania or the 7 metres that was introduced in Ireland in 2004, althoughthe choice of lengths for assessment is somewhat limited by the boat length data that are available.

Carriage of PFDs for all persons on a recreational boat is required in all other states and the Northern Territory, with limitedrequirements to wear. PFD Type 1 is specified except in South Australia, where any one of the three types of PFD are permitted, andin Queensland, where a PFD Type 2 is permitted on smooth waters. NSW requires that all occupants of recreational boats wear aPFD Type 1 when crossing surf bars and Tasmania that all occupants wear a PFD on vessels under 6 metres and children under 12years of age wear any one of the three types of PFD while in an unsecured area of a boat of any length that is underway.

The proposal for the wearing of PFDs will make requirements in Victoria more extensive than in other States and Territories exceptTasmania. Tasmania was the first place in the world to make wearing a PFD mandatory on such a wide scale. The Victorian proposalvaries requirements with the risks of different vessel types and areas of operation and therefore has a more targeted safety focus thanthe requirements in any other jurisdiction. The consideration of mandatory wearing follows directly from several recommendationsfrom the Coroner and the safety responsibilities of the Director of Marine Safety, as discussed in Section 2.

MSV believes that the decision to take the lead in relation to this issue and propose a scheme to address multiple risk factors is justified as it will result in addressing both vessel and operating related risks. To date, the approaches taken in other jurisdictions,whilst straight forward to implement, fall short of addressing the problem fully, in that, only some of the risk factors facing the varyingsegments of the boating community have been addressed. For example, in New South Wales it is compulsory to only wear a PFDwhilst crossing a bar, however there are many other times when boaters are at risk of unexpectedly entering the water.

In addition, in Victoria there is the issue of more extreme weather and water temperatures due to the southerly geographic location.Victorian boaters are exposed to highly changeable and extreme weather conditions. This threat is compounded by the sparselylocated search and rescue services which may require boaters to wait for extended periods before search and rescue services reachthem in the event of an incident.

Arguably, it is not reasonable to do nothing in these circumstances. The specific response of course must have some justification to which the consultation process to date and this Regulatory Impact Statement are directed.


4.3 Other Safety Equipment AlternativesNo alternatives to the proposal for the carriage of safety equipment are assessed, after taking into account the following factors:

• the proposal is based on the national standard to the extent possible in the Victorian boating environment

• the requirements in the national standard were developed using a qualitative risk analysis, as described in Section 3.3. There is no reason to expect that the conclusions would differ significantly if a further risk analysis was performed

• the available incident data are insufficient to establish precisely which types of safety equipment support the objective to reducedeaths due to recreational vessel accidents (see Section 2.4).

It is possible that there are alternatives to the proposal for individual items of equipment. If that is the case, the public consultationprocess is an opportunity for boaters and other interested parties to make suggestions.

There are considerable differences in the types of safety equipment required by the states and Northern Territory. The RegulatoryImpact Statement for the national standard estimated that costs of safety equipment would increase overall but this increase in costwould be outweighed by (unquantified) safety benefits (NMSC 2004). The differences between the states and the Northern Territorywill be largely eliminated when the national standard has been implemented, as is now proposed in Victoria.


5 COSTS AND BENEFITSTo estimate the costs of the proposal for the compulsory wearing of PFDs, the costs to boaters of the type and number of PFDs thatare required currently are compared with the cost to boaters of the type and number of PFDs that will be required by the proposalfor the compulsory wearing of PFDs. Figure 5.1 sets out the steps involved in estimating the costs of the proposal for compulsorywearing of PFDs. Differences in the total cost between the current regulation and the proposal for compulsory wearing of PFD arisefrom changes in ‘Number and type of PFD per boat’ and the ‘Cost per PFD by type’ as set out in the diagram.

To simplify the calculations, the costs considered have been calculated on an annualised basis using standard techniques. Thisapproach may be regarded as conservative, as it assumes that the type and number of PFDs used changes at the time the proposedregulation is introduced. As the types of jackets purchased are expected to change when wearing becomes mandatory for reasonsof comfort or convenience, it might be more appropriate to consider that boaters convert to more comfortable new jackets over time.The appraisal method used does not allow for a period of conversion to more comfortable new jackets, so some costs are assumedto occur sooner than they may otherwise do so.

For consistency, the benefits in terms of reduced fatalities are also calculated on an annualised basis. The benefits of compulsorywearing of PFDs are not dependent on boaters purchasing new equipment and the benefits are expected to be immediate ascurrently all powered vessels are required to carry an approved PFD Type 1.

Figure 5.1: Calculating the Incremental Cost of Personal Flotation Devices

Estimation of the costs and benefits of the options require several assumptions which are detailed in this section along with the resultsof the analysis. The effects of the assumptions on the results are reported below to enable the sensitivity of the assumptions to be determined.

Current regulation

xNumber and

type ofPFD per boat

x Cost perPFD by type = Total cost

of PFD

Compulsory wearing of PFD

x Number and type of PFD x Cost per

PFD by type = Total cost of PFD

IncrementalCost of

Regulation

Numberof boats –

=


5.1 Number of Boats and Personal Flotation DevicesThe number of boats of each type and the number of PFDs per boat (based on maximum carrying capacity) are shown in Table 5.1.The boat numbers are actual figures for those that are required to be registered (boats with motors, including personal watercraft).The proposal has a breakpoint of 4.8 metres, slightly higher than the registration data breakpoint of 4.5 metres. The registration datais not able to provide the number of vessels at the break point of 4.8 metres and to enable the analysis to better reflect the proposal,the number of vessels between 4.5 metres and 4.8 metres has been estimated and the vessels numbers adjusted accordingly. Thefigures are estimated for other boat types (non-registered) and PFDs per boat, based on advice from representative associations andboat capacity formulae.

Table 5.1: Number of Boats and Personal Flotation Devices

Boat Type/Length (m) Number of Boats PFDs/Boat Number of PFDs

PowerboatLess than 4 57,980 2 115,9604 to 4.5 26,063 4 104,2524.5 to 4.81 10,797 5 53,9854.8 to 5.51 25,194 6 151,1645.5 to 6.5 11,655 7 81,585More than 6.5 5,151 8 41,208

Sub-total Powerboat 136,840 4.1 548,154

Yacht (with motor)Less than 4 83 2 1664 to 4.5 46 4 1844.5 to 4.81 212 5 1,0604.8 to 5.51 495 6 2,9705.5 to 6.5 824 7 5,768More than 6.5 2,897 8 23,176

Sub-total Yacht (with motor) 4,557 7.4 33,324

Personal Watercraft 4,665 2 9,330Off the beach yacht 4,000 2 8,000Yacht (with no motor) 500 5 2,500Canoe/kayak, etc. 5,000 1.5 7,500Kite/sailboard2 500 1 500Tender 2,643 2 5,286

Total 158,705 3.9 614,594

Notes: 1 Estimated vessel numbers based on total numbers of vessels in registration categories 4 to 4.5 metres and 4.5 to 5.5 metres.2 Wetsuits not PFDs.

The table shows that an average of 4.1 PFDs per powerboat and 3.9 over all vessel types is implied by the estimates and boatcapacity formulae. This is in excess of the 2.5 people per boat observed in the observational surveys (see Section 2.5). It is possiblethat more personal flotation devices are carried in the event that the full capacity of a boat is used on some occasions.

page 37

5.1.1 Costs of Purchase

The main assumptions underlying the estimation of the costs of the options are shown in Box 8. The cost results are reported for thelowest price of PFDs for each PFD type as this is the minimum required by the proposed regulation; users may choose to purchasePFDs with a higher price but this will be because they get some benefit over and above the minimum from a higher priced PFD.

The average price of a PFD Type 1 depends on the specific types purchased by recreational boaters. The existing types in use arederived from data collected during boat checks as part of the Life Jackets Save Lives campaign4. Box 8 shows that the overwhelmingmajority are currently foam blocks which can be purchased for as little as $20. Only 1 per cent of jackets currently in use are inflatable.

The types of jackets purchased are expected to change when wearing becomes mandatory because the foam block PFD Type 1 isnot comfortable or convenient enough to wear for long periods of time. It is assumed that inflatable PFDs and fitted vests will replacethe majority of foam blocks, although 40 per cent of boaters will continue to wear them. The behaviour in Tasmania followingintroduction of mandatory PFD wearing was used as a guide, although not adopted completely as only Australian Standard jacketsare permitted there to date5.

The alternative to making some assumption about changes in the types of PFD Type 1 is to assume there is no change in buyingpractice and to claim no comfort/convenience benefit; this would be more in line with the assumption on purchase price. Thealternative was not used because there is evidence that comfort/convenience is a major factor in the non-use of PFDs and theopposition to any changes in the existing regulations. It is also not supported by the behaviour in Tasmania. Sensitivity tests arereported in Section 5.1.4.

Expanding the types of PFDs to cover national and international standards other than the Australian Standard means that somecheaper inflatable jackets will be permitted under the regulation. This is included in the assumptions in Box 8, where the minimumpurchase price of inflatable personal flotation devices is assumed to fall from $200 to $100.

It is assumed that users of sailboards and kiteboards will not be affected by the proposal (Option 1) as they all already wear wetsuits.It is estimated that 98 per cent of users do not comply with the current regulations so there is not expected to be any material effecton the cost estimates as a result of these assumptions. For Options 2 and 3, it is assumed that the costs of the requirements forPFDs will not be offset by reductions in costs for wetsuits, i.e. that board riders will continue to wear wetsuits underneath their lifejackets.


4 Based on a sample of 6,894 PFDs.5 Advice from MAST is that 75 per cent are fitted vests, 25 per cent inflatable (comprising 22 per cent inflatable jackets and 3 per cent inflatable yokes).


Box 8: Assumptions Used in Estimating the Costs of PFDs

Notes: 1 Shares estimated from boat checks.2 Lowest cost ($20 foam block) is easily stolen.3 Based on survey of boat users (Quantum 2003).

Cost of PFD by Type Share Price

Existing Situation1

PFD Type 1 Foam block 88% $20Fitted vest 11% $85Inflatable 1% $200Average price $29

Options

PFD Type 1 Foam block 40% $20Fitted vest 40% $85Inflatable yoke 20% $100Average price $62

Existing Situation and Options

PFD Type 2 $50PFD Type 3 $50Wetsuit $80

Carry/Use of PFD by Type

PFD PFD PFDType 1 Type 2 Type 3

Existing Situation1

Powerboat (including yachts) 100% na naPWC Nil 2% 98%Off the beach yacht Nil 100% NilYacht (no motor) 100% Nil NilCanoe, kayak, etc. Nil 30% 70%Tender Nil Nil Nil

Options 1 and 2

Powerboat 80% 10% 10%Yachts (with motor) 100% Nil NilPWC (Type 1, 2 or 3) Nil 2% 98%PWC (Type 1 or 2) Nil 100% naOff the beach yacht Nil 100% Nil/naYacht (no motor) 100% Nil NilCanoe, kayak, etc. (Type 1, 2 or 3) Nil 30% 70%Canoe, kayak, etc. (Type 1 or 2) Nil 100% naTender (Foam block)2 100% na na

Option 3

All boats 100% na naKite/sailboard

Existing situation All use wetsuitsOptions All operations within 400 metres of the shore, all wear wetsuits

Use of Vessel by Area of Operations3

Coastal Enclosed InlandAll vessels 13% 40% 47%

page 39

Purchase costs and equivalent annual costs are reported in Table 5.2. The latter are calculated using a PFD life of six years based onsurvey data (Quantum Market Research 2003), and a discount rate of 6 per cent. Overall, Option 1 of the proposal has the lowest costs;this is to be expected because the lowest number of boats is affected. Most costs will be imposed on powerboats for a similar reason.

No costs are included for the requirement to wear a PFD at times of heightened risk. It is more difficult to make estimates of whetherthere will be a change in the types of personal flotation devices purchased because there is no information on the times that boatsencounter heightened risks or whether the amount of time is sufficient to make users purchase a different type of PFD.

Table 5.2: Costs of Personal Flotation Devices by Option ($’000)

Boat Type Base Case Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 (<_ 4.8 m) (< 6.5 m) (PFD Type 1)

Purchase costs of base case and options

Powerboat 15,869 24,622 32,052 33,986

Yacht (with motor) 965 1,011 1,300 2,079

Personal Watercraft 467 467 467 578

Off the beach yacht 400 412 451 496

Yacht (with no motor) 72 72 72 155

Canoe/kayak 375 375 375 465

Kite/sailboard 40 40 25 31

Tender 0 106 0 328

Total 18,188 27,105 34,742 38,118

Annualised costs relative to the base case1

Powerboat 1,780 3,291 3,684

Yacht (with motor) 9 68 225

Personal Watercraft 0 0 23

Off the beach yacht 3 10 20

Yacht (with no motor) 0 0 17

Canoe/kayak 0 0 18

Kite/sailboard 0 5 6

Tender 21 0 67

Total 1,814 3,375 4,060

Note: 1 Equivalent annual cost of the purchase cost discounted at 6 per cent over six years.Numbers may not add due to rounding.

The options affect powerboats and yacht (with motors) differentially by length, as shown in Table 5.3.



Table 5.3: Powerboat and Yacht Costs by Length and Option ($’000 per year)

Length (m) Option 1 Option 2 Option 3(<_ 4.8 m) (< 6.5 m) (PFD Type 1)

Powerboat

Less than 4 753 753 779

4 to 4.5 677 677 701

4.5 to 4.8 350 350 363

4.8 to 5.5 0 981 1,016

5.5 to 6.5 0 530 548

More than 6.5 0 0 277

Total 1,780 3,291 3,684

Yacht

Less than 4 1 1 1

4 to 4.5 1 1 1

4.5 to 4.8 7 7 7

4.8 to 5.5 0 20 20

5.5 to 6.5 0 39 39

More than 6.5 0 0 156

Total 9 68 224

Numbers may not add due to rounding.

5.1.2 Servicing Costs

All PFDs are required to be kept in good order so that they are fit for service. Inflatable PFDs have an added item affected by thisrequirement, i.e. the inflation mechanism. Many manufacturers recommend servicing at a specified service interval (between one andtwo years), with the costs of a service in the order of $20. The question then arises whether the costs of servicing the inflationmechanism should be included in assessing the effect of the proposed regulations. It has not been included on the grounds that theregulations do not impose a requirement to service in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendation. These sorts ofrecommendations are made for many types of equipment, but it would be unusual for them to be regarded as a cost of governmentregulation even if the equipment is required to be used in some circumstances. A sensitivity test is reported in Section 5.1.4.

5.1.3 Benefits

The main benefit of compulsory wearing of personal flotation devices is the estimated savings in lives lost, based on the incidentsanalysed in Section 2 above.

There are two components to the estimates of lives saved:

1. The first component is the fatal incidents identified by the Coroner that would have been avoided if PFDs were worn, of which therewere 15 fatal incidents (see Table 2.4). We have assumed that all fatalities associated with these incidents would not occur withmandatory wearing of PFDs.

2. The second component is the fatal incidents where people entered the water. As noted in Section 4.1, analysis in O’Connor (2004)showed that people who enter the water and survive are more than twice as likely to be wearing a PFD. We therefore estimate thatlives would be saved in half of the incidents where people enter the water (44 incidents in Table 2.4).

The implication of the assumptions is that 37 of the 112 fatal incidents would be affected and 49 lives saved (reductions of 33 and34 per cent respectively).

page 41

These estimated savings are consistent with the experience in Tasmania, where mandatory wearing was introduced in January 2001for users of recreational boats less than 6 metres in length. Although the numbers of incidents are relatively small, the data in Table5.4 show that:

• fatal incidents fell significantly for smaller recreational boats (from 2 to 0.4 per year or 80 per cent)

• incidents fell also (from 7 to 4.4 per year or 39 per cent), which suggests that about half of the fall in fatal incidents is not relatedto wearing PFDs

• incidents and fatal incidents for boats longer than 6 metres also fell, which also suggests that part of the fall in fatal incidents isexplained by factors other than wearing PFDs.

We therefore conclude that the Tasmanian experience is consistent with our estimate of lives saved of 34 per cent if the wearing ofPFDs was made mandatory for all recreational boat users.

Table 5.4: Incidents and Fatal Incidents in Tasmania Before and After Mandating of PFD Wearing (per year)

Length Before (1998 to 2000) After (2001 to 2004)(metres) Incidents Fatal Incidents Incidents Fatal Incidents

Less than 6 7.0 2.0 4.4 0.4

More than 6 9.7 0.3 1.0 0.0

Unknown 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0

Total 16.7 2.3 6.8 0.4

The estimated lives that could be saved in total and by year, remembering that the 112 fatal incidents occurred over a 17 year period,are shown in Table 5.5. It is estimated that up to three lives could be saved per year if all boat users wore PFDs. These estimates areconservative because they take no account of any benefit from the improved standard of personal flotation devices or better matchingof the type of PFD to the type of vessel and area of operation. There is simply insufficient information on the characteristics of incidentsand risks to enable benefits to be estimated.

Table 5.5: Estimated Effect on Fatal Marine Incidents of Wearing Personal Flotation Devices

Boat Type Avoided Reduced Severity Lives Saved

Incidents Deaths Incidents Deaths Total Per Year

Powerboat 6.3 8.8 8.4 11.3 20.1 1.2

Yacht1 2.8 3.9 3.4 4.6 8.4 0.5

PWC 0.4 0.5 0.8 1.0 1.4 0.1

Canoe/kayak, etc. 0.9 1.1 1.9 2.4 3.5 0.2

Kite/sailboard 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.02

Unknown 4.4 5.7 7.2 9.2 14.9 0.9

Total 15.0 20.2 22.0 28.9 49.1 3.0

Numbers may not add due to rounding.Notes: 1 With and without motors, and off the beach.

2 Less than 0.1, i.e. 0.04 lives saved per year in Options 2 and 3. These are infrequent incidents, partly because there are few users (only 500 as shown in Table 5.1).

As noted in Section 2.2, there are several fatal incidents for which boat type or boat length or both are unknown. It would not berealistic to ignore these fatal incidents in calculating benefits simply because of some missing data. The procedure adopted was toinclude the incidents on the basis of the known proportions. For example, if 60 per cent of powerboat incidents of known length wereless than 4.8 metres, then 60 per cent of those where length was unknown were added to the less than 4.8 metre length category.



The estimated lives saved each year by option, which range from 1.5 to 3.0 lives p.a., are shown in Table 5.6. They increase with eachoption as more users of recreational boats are required to wear PFDs, with the main savings occurring for powerboats. The yachtcategory includes those with/without motors and launched off the beach as the incident data is not disaggregated. No reduction infatalities is included for kite/sailboards for the proposal (Option 1) as it is assumed that wetsuits are currently worn and that is whatwill be required.

The safety benefit of wearing PFDs is quantified using a value of saving life of $2 million, based on values commonly used in transportevaluations. This value includes lost earnings (paid and unpaid work), loss of quality of life, as well as direct costs such ashospital/medical, Police, justice, etc. The value is a combination of human capital and willingness to pay components. The use ofvalues based solely on willingness to pay now occurs in most countries and would result in a significantly higher value of saving life 6.Table 5.7 shows that safety benefits by option range from $3 million to $6 million p.a., and that:

• the overwhelming majority of benefits accrue to powerboats, reflecting their share in current fatalities

• if Option 3 is pursued, benefits to yachts would increase significantly as most yacht fatalities occur on those that are longer than6.5 metres

• there is no difference between the options for PWCs, canoe/kayaks or kite/sailboards as they are all assumed to be under 4.8 metres in length and there is insufficient information to estimate fatalities due to different types of PFD.

Table 5.6: Estimated Lives Saved by Option and Boat Type (per year)

Boat Type Option 1 Option 2 Option 3(<_ 4.8 metres) (< 6.5 metres) (PFD Type 1)

Powerboat 1.1 1.8 1.9

Yacht1 0.1 0.2 0.7

PWC 0.1 0.1 0.1

Canoe/kayak, etc. 0.2 0.2 0.2

Kite/sailboard na 0.0 0.02

Total 1.5 2.4 3.0

Numbers may not add due to rounding.See notes to Table 5.5.

Table 5.7: Safety Benefits by Option and Boat Type ($’000 per year)


Powerboat 2,172 3,681 3,897

Yacht 248 371 1,482

PWC 167 167 167

Canoe/kayak, etc. 417 417 417

Kite/sailboard na 83 83

Total 3,004 4,719 6,046


Further benefits will result from cost savings as some users of recreational boats will no longer have to buy more than one PFD forsome occupants. The occupants affected are children, skiers and people on yachts. There is insufficient information to makeestimates of the cost savings.

6 For example, the current value of saving life used in transport evaluations is $2.7 million in New Zealand, $4.0 million in the United Kingdom, and $7 millionwas used in evaluations of improvements to air quality by the (then) National Environment Protection Council (based on values used in the USA).

page 43

There are several other benefits of the options relative to the existing situation that cannot be quantified, as follows:

• benefits are only assessed for reductions in fatalities while injuries are significantly more common (see Section 2.3). It is possiblethat injuries or their severity could be reduced if PFDs were worn

• the requirements are set out in a clear manner for each boat type and area of operation. In addition, exemptions will no longerbe required

• variations in the types of personal flotation devices to be worn in Options 1 and 2 reflect the risks associated with boat type andarea of operation. They also take into account concerns raised in public consultation and are consistent with requirements ofYachting Victoria with respect to prohibition on the use of PFD Type 3 on yachts

• the requirement, in Option 1, for occupants of larger boats (greater than 4.8 metres) to wear PFDs at times of heightened risktargets high risk operations of boats with lower risks. This also takes into account comments raised in public consultation

• a wider range of personal flotation devices will be permitted, improving safety and comfort, and reducing costs in some situations.A significant issue raised in public consultation was the poor comfort level of many PFD Type 1 garments; a greater range,including inflatable vests and jackets, has the potential for improved comfort

• the requirements for kite/sail board riders in Option 1 are intended to ensure that comfort improves and hence compliance andsafety. Wetsuits will be permitted in place of PFDs when operating within 400 metres of the shore. This proposal acknowledgesthe fact that existing compliance is very low (2 per cent) and that there are lower risks when operating close to shore.

5.1.4 Evaluation

Table 5.8 shows the results of the analysis of the quantified costs and benefits by boat type and option. The analysis shows the following:

• over all boat types, the quantified benefits of all options are greater than the quantified costs. There are several unquantifiedbenefits (see Section 5.1.3) and no costs are included for the proposed requirement to wear PFDs on powerboats between 4.8 and 12 metres in length and yachts at times of heightened risks (see Section 5.1.1). These unquantified costs and benefitsare not expected to reverse the overall conclusion that benefits are greater than costs

• overall, Option 3 is the preferred option on the basis of the quantified benefits and costs. The reason for this is the relatively largerbenefits of requiring all occupants of yachts to wear a PFD Type 1 at all times. Most fatal incidents involving yachts occur in thosewith a length greater than 6.5 metres, as shown in Table 2.1. This may suggest that more onerous PFD wearing requirementsare justified for yachts. This conclusion may not affect all yacht types to the same extent. Yacht fatalities cannot be separatelyidentified for the three yacht types: yacht with motor, off the beach yacht and yacht with no motor.



Table 5.8: Benefits and Costs by Boat Type and Option ($’000 per year)


Powerboat

Reduction in fatalities 2,172 3,681 3,897

PFD cost 1,780 3,291 3,684

Net Benefit 392 390 212

Yacht

Reduction in fatalities 248 371 1,482

PFD cost 12 79 260

Net Benefit 236 293 1,222

Personal Watercraft

Reduction in fatalities 167 167 167

PFD cost 0 0 23


Canoe/kayak, etc.


PFD cost 0 0 18


Kite/sailboard


PFD cost 0 5 6

Net Benefit 0 78 77

Tender

Reduction in fatalities na na na

PFD cost 21 0 67

Net Benefit -21 0 -67

All Boat Types


PFD cost 1,814 3,375 4,059

Net Benefit 1,190 1,344 1,987

Benefit Cost Ratio 1.66 1.40 1.49


page 45

• The proposal (Option 1) which restricts wearing of PFDs to vessels up to and including 4.8 metres follows Option 2 on the basisof quantified costs and benefits. However, Option 1 has a higher benefit cost ratio than Option 2. It is also the preferred optionfor powerboats, which are 86 per cent of the boat fleet (see Table 5.1). Option 3 is the least preferred of the three options for powerboats

• Benefits exceed costs for all other boat types except tenders. Tenders are not separately identified in the fatality statistics; anyincidents will be included with powerboats. As only costs can be identified it is not possible to assess the economic worth of theproposal for tenders

• With respect to the boat types of personal watercraft and canoe/kayak, etc., Options 1 and 2 have the same results and arepreferred to Option 3, which would require a PFD Type 1 to be worn at all times. There are no costs associated with Options 1and 2 because the costs of PFD Type 2 and PFD Type 3 are the same. If all users of these boats currently wear PFDs (i.e. takeadvantage of the concession with respect to the carriage of other safety equipment), then it is likely that the reduction in fatalitiesis overestimated in Options 1 and 27

• There are no costs or benefits estimated for kite/sailboard users for Option 1. The overwhelming majority of users currently weara wetsuit and the analysis assumes that the majority of board use is within 400 metres of the shore, where wearing of a PFD willnot be required. The results for Options 2 and 3 suggest that the wearing of PFDs is justified.

The above analyses are based on the annual costs and benefits. Table 5.9 presents the Net Present Value of the proposal overperiods of four and ten years.

Table 5.9: Benefits and Costs Option ($’000 total)

Timeline Option 1 Option 2 Option 3(<_ 4.8 metres) (< 6.5 metres) (PFD Type 1)

Four years


PFD cost 6,284 11,693 14,063

Net present value 4,125 4,658 6,885

Ten years


PFD cost 13,348 24,837 29,871

Net present value 8,761 9,895 14,625

Note: PFD costs are net of the residual value of the PFDs at the end of the appraisal period.

5.1.5 Sensitivity Analysis

The effect of some assumptions in the analysis was tested as shown in Table 5.10.

Table 5.10: Net Benefit of Sensitivity Tests by Option ($’000 per year)

Sensitivity Test Option 1 Option 2 Option 3(<_ 4.8 metres) (< 6.5 metres) (PFD Type 1)

Main results (Net benefit for all vessel types) 1,190 1,344 1,987

No change in type of PFD Type 1 2,939 4,622 6,245

Reduction in foam block PFDs1 859 718 1,175

Servicing inflatable PFD 680 381 737

74 per cent of users wear PFDs 409 117 415

95 per cent of users wear PFDs 1,040 1,108 1,685

Four year life of PFDs2 430 -70 286

Notes: 1 30% foam block, 50% fitted vest and 20% inflatable.2 In line with the current sunset date of the Marine Regulations 1999.


7 The observational surveys recorded 91 per cent use of PFDs by PWC riders.


Change in types of PFD Type 1

The assumption in the main results is that 40 per cent of boaters will continue to purchase foam blocks with a wearing requirementeven though they are known to be uncomfortable and inconvenient to many boaters.

To test this assumption it was assumed that the share of foam blocks fell to 30 per cent. Option 1 would continue to have a positivenet present value and the costs for powerboats would exceed the benefits by a relatively small amount ($64,000). In other words, theproposal has safety benefits greater than costs even if the share of foam block PFDs purchased by powerboat users falls by aconsiderable amount.

If there is no change in the types of PFD Type 1 purchased as a result of the regulations, then net present values increase significantly,and more so for the options that require occupants on more vessels to wear PFDs (Options 2 and 3).

Servicing Costs

If servicing costs of $20 every two years8 for inflatable PFDs are included then the economic worth reduces, but a positive net benefitoverall remains. However, there is a negative net benefit for powerboats (-$113,000 for Option 1).

Compliance

The analysis implicitly assumes full compliance, both with the current and the proposed requirements, which may over estimatebenefits. For example, the observational surveys show 12 per cent of powerboat users wear a PFD even though they are not currentlyrequired to do so, and 74 per cent of children and 91 per cent of PWC riders wear PFDs, complying with the current requirementsto wear PFDs (Cassell and Congiu 2005). Lower compliance levels are tested by reducing benefits in line with compliance levels, i.e.if compliance is 95 per cent then only 95 per cent of the reduction in fatalities is included as a benefit. Compliance may be lower than100 per cent as is suggested by existing compliance levels in Victoria and the 95 per cent compliance level in Tasmania. The resultsof tests with compliance levels of 74 per cent and 95 per cent in Table 5.10 show that the net present value remains positive over allvessels. They are also positive for all vessel types except tenders, as in the main results.

A compliance rate of 60 per cent would be required to achieve a cost-benefit ratio of 1.

The final sensitivity test uses a life of four years for personal flotation devices rather than the average life of six years used in the mainresults. The regulations will have a life of four years before being reviewed as the Marine Regulations 1999 sunset on 21 December2009. The net benefit is reduced but remains positive, despite the fact that no account is taken of the remaining life of the devicesafter four years. It is reasonable to assume that the regulations will be continued after 21 December 2009 and therefore that thebenefits of the proposed regulations will also continue into the future.

The sensitivity tests suggest that the proposal is likely to result in improved safety at a cost less than the benefits of the safetyimprovement over a range of assumptions.

On the basis of the quantified benefits and costs, the proposal (Option 1) is preferable to the alternatives for all boat types, exceptyachts for which Option 3 is preferred. When the unquantified benefits and costs are included, it is expected that the benefits willcontinue to exceed the costs. The main unquantified benefits are:

• cost savings as more than one PFD will not need to be carried for some users

• possible reductions in injuries or their severity

• clear requirements including removal of exemptions and removal of inconsistencies

• regulations based on operational risks

• availability of a wider range of jackets, including those with superior performance and comfort

• improved compliance.

8 As the cost-benefit analysis was undertaken using annualised purchase costs, the service costs was modelled by increasing the purchase cost by anequivalent amount.

page 47

The analysis takes no account of potential reactions to requiring PFDs to be worn at all times other than changes in the types ofpersonal flotation devices purchased and used. Other reactions are possible, for example, changing the type of boat used or, in theextreme, giving up boating. There is no information currently available to estimate whether such reactions are likely and what the costsand benefits of them would be. Feedback from initial consultation indicated that some boaters would consider giving up boatingaltogether however this reaction was also suggested when recreational boat operator licences were first introduced in Victoria. Sincethat time there has not been a noticeable decrease in boating activities as a result of the introduction of licensing and it is not expectedas a result of the requirements to wear PFDs.

There may be a change in boat purchase patterns with a trend towards larger vessels, particularly by those people consideringpurchasing a vessel around 4.8 metres in length. The cost differential would be minor assuming that all other aspects of the vesseldesign and equipment remained the same.

The experience in Tasmania has indicated that since the introduction of the requirement to wear PFDs the perception of boating haschanged and it is now viewed as a safer pastime. Anecdotal evidence suggests that it has also increased boat sales and has drawnmore people into boating activities. There has also been a steady increase in recreational boat registrations and no evidence ofboaters dropping out of the sport.

It is estimated that about 125,000 recreational boaters could be affected by the proposal (see Section 2.5). For powerboat users, theaverage price of a PFD Type 1 will increase from $29 to $62, but in some circumstances a lower priced PFD Type 2 or Type 3 willnow be permitted ($50).

The wearing requirements will be more extensive in Victoria than in other jurisdictions except Tasmania, but they will also be bettermatched to the risks of different vessel types and areas of operation.

5.2 Other Safety EquipmentIt is not possible to make a quantitative evaluation of the proposal for safety equipment. The number of vessels affected by most of the proposals is just simply not available 9. Further, the effect on safety performance of different types of equipment is not able to be discerned from the available data.

5.2.1 Costs and Benefits

The proposal is estimated to increase the costs of recreational boat safety equipment overall, with variations by boat type. This conclusion is based on the costs for specific boat types, as shown in Table 5.11. A more detailed table showing each type of equipment and its cost is contained in Appendix C.

The most common type of vessel is a small powerboat (less than 4.8 metres in length); they are 53 per cent of the fleet. The highestcost for safety equipment occurs for those that operate more than 2 nautical miles from the coast ($293). The numbers involved will be small because only 13 per cent of vessels are used on coastal waters and only a proportion of them are expected to operatemore than 2 nautical miles from the coast. This applies to all vessels subject to significant costs per vessel listed in the coastal column of the table. These vessels are also subject to higher risks as they operate on coastal waters and being larger generally carrymore people. The risks are higher and the consequences of an incident more severe so a higher standard of safety equipment will be justified.

Most vessels operating on enclosed waters will experience costs in the order of $5 for a bucket with lanyard as they currently operatein Port Phillip and Western Port Bays. A small number that operate in the existing enclosed waters (‘Other’ in Table 5.11) will experience costs in the order of $200 as a result of requirements for anchor and chain/line, and orange and red flares. It is notpossible to be more specific about the number of vessels affected.

The overwhelming majority of boats operating on inland waters will experience costs of $5 for a bucket with lanyard. This is estimatedto affect the largest number of boats (in the order of 65,000) because 47 per cent of boats operate on inland waters.

Some vessels will experience a reduction in the costs of safety equipment, with the most significant being for yachts less than 5 metres in length (paddles will no longer need to be carried at cost saving of $40). It is estimated that about 150 yachts will be affected.


9 Limited boat length categories are used in the boat registration data, with the greatest one being greater then 8.6 metres. Many of the requirements applyto vessels between 8 and 12 metres and greater than 12 metres. More important is the lack of area of operation data. That used in the PFD analysis is froma survey, but the small survey size does not allow further disaggregation by boat type and/or vessel length, which would be required to make estimates ofthe number of vessels affected.


Table 5.11: Safety Equipment Purchase Costs per Vessel by Area of Operation and Vessel Type

Vessel Types Affected Coastal Enclosed Inland

Bays Other


All vessels 0 0 188 0

< 8 m 0 5 5 5

< 8 m & not operating > 2 nm 5 5 0 0

< 8 m & operating > 2 nm 293 5 0 0



< 8 m 0 5 5 5

< 8 m & not operating > 2 nm 5 5 0 0

< 8 m & operating > 2 nm 293 5 0 0

8 to 12 m & not operating > 2 nm 90 90 90 90

8 to 12 m & operating > 2 nm 378 0 0 0

> 12 m & not operating > 2 nm 2995 -5 -5 -5

> 12 m & operating > 2 nm 3378 0 0 0

Off the beach yacht


Operating > 2 nm 288 0 0 0

Yacht


< 5 m -40 -40 -40 -40

8 to 12 m & not operating > 2 nm 90 90 90 90

8 to 12 m & operating > 2 nm 378 90 0 0

> 12 m & not operating > 2 nm -5 -5 -5 -5

> 12 m & operating > 2 nm 3288 0 0 0


Operating > 2 nm 150 0 0 0

Personal Watercraft


The safety equipment costs in Table 5.11 are purchase costs. All items of equipment have a life in excess of one year so the annualcost will be lower. For the majority of vessels operating on the Bays and inland waters the cost is estimated to be less than $5 per year.

No costs are included in Table 5.11 for fire fighting equipment. The fire extinguisher proposal is not expected to increase costs, as it does not increase the numbers to be carried and the standards are based on currently available equipment. The costs to boatswith cooking facilities inside will increase by $30 as a result of the fire blanket requirement.


5.2.2 Evaluation

The main objective of the safety equipment proposal is to improve the safety of recreational boating. It will do that because of the riskbased approach inherent in the specification of safety equipment in the national standard. It is not possible to quantify the safetybenefits but they are expected to be greater than the costs due to targeting safety equipment requirements to vessels and areas of operation that are associated to higher risks, and requiring items of safety equipment that address the identified risks.

In addition, the proposal is based on the national standard to the extent possible in the Victorian environment. It will therefore havethe benefits of:

• requiring equipment that is contemporary

• assisting consistent national standards and mutual recognition of the standards by all marine authorities

• having a performance basis for the items of safety equipment.

No specific alternatives to the proposal for safety equipment were assessed. They would be difficult to assess due to data deficiencies.The national standard was subject to a comprehensive development process, including risk assessment and consultation withaffected parties. Arguably, that should be sufficient justification for the adoption of the national standard in Victoria.



6 CONSULTATIONFollowing recommendations of the Coroner that MSV amend PFD requirements with respect to wearing and the standard of PFDs,a workshop was convened in November 2003. It discussed the Coroner’s recommendations, the use of PFDs more generally andideas and opinions aimed at satisfying the recommendations. The workshop discussions were used in the formulation of the optionscontained in a discussion paper that was released for public comment in March 2004 (MSV 2004).

The discussion paper covered the current legislative requirements for the carriage and use of PFDs, boating fatalities and incidents,interstate and overseas boating fatalities and incidents, recent reviews of PFD design, and potential options to address the Coroner’srecommendations. Public comment was requested, including through the use of a questionnaire. There were three options one ofwhich was the retention of the status quo (Option 1). The other two options were as follows:

Option 2: Vary the requirement to wear PFDs based on vessel length, area of operation and operating conditions. The length cut off proposed was 6.5 metres based on analysis of fatal incidents.

Option 3: Adopt the Coroner’s recommendations in full, i.e. all boaters must wear a PFD Type 1 at all times.

The discussion paper, along with supporting documentation, was available from the MSV web site or as a printed version. Severalmethods were used to inform the general public of the review, which included:

• an information flyer distributed with vessel registration renewal to an estimated 20,000 boaters over a four week period

• letters, information brochures and posters forwarded to key stakeholders requesting onward distribution. It is estimated that anadditional 20,000 people were informed through bodies such as Parks Victoria and Yachting Victoria

• information brochures to an estimated 10,000 stakeholders via internal databases of interested persons.

The three month public comment period closed in June 2004. There was an overwhelming response, with just over 3,000 formalresponses submitted. Apart from the views obtained on the options, the submissions provided useful information on the boatingcommunity and were used to further develop the proposal.

A second workshop was held in June 2004 with key boating stakeholders including Victoria Police, Yachting Victoria, Boating IndustryAssociation Victoria and Victorian Recreational Fishing, at which a summary of the public comments received was presented forreview. A revised proposal for the use of PFDs by recreational boaters was presented for discussion at the workshop. Attendees wererequested to discuss the revised option with their colleagues and advise MSV of any major concerns or suggestions.

The responses to the discussion paper were received from individuals (recreational, commercial, anglers), boating and recreationalclubs/associations, and commercial businesses. A description of the responses is contained in Appendix A. The main findings and issues raised were as follows:

• approximately 80 per cent of respondents were recreational boat operators. Many of the responses were in the form of a ‘petition’ and seemed to indicate that the research contained in the discussion paper had not been read and that there wassome confusion as to the proposed coverage of vessel types

• almost half (45 per cent) of respondents supported no change to current PFD requirements (Option 1). This is perhaps notunexpected in view of the large response from individuals, but still a factor that needed to be taken into account in developingthe proposal. One third of respondents supported some change to the current PFD requirements, with preferences spread overOptions 2 and 3

• an overwhelming level of respondents noted comfort and manoeuvrability as the main issues for not changing currentrequirements. It was acknowledged that PFDs increase survival chances, but also said that many current designs are bulky/unsuitable for continuous use, and that the impact of wearing PFDs may lead to a reduction in the pleasure of boating.The comfort of personal flotation devices is taken into account in the proposal by including an increased range of standards, on the basis of the national standard

• there was support for wearing PFDs when in hazardous conditions such as crossing bars, when operating alone, when operatingat night and when underway. This is included in the proposal

• of those supporting varying requirements by area of operation, 75 per cent supported amended requirements for coastal waters.There was support for use of PFD Type 1 on coastal waters and PFD Types 1, 2 or 3 on enclosed and inland waters, largelyadopted in the proposal

• there was low support for the use of vessel size for a blanket requirement affecting all vessels. However there was support for small vessels being covered, with varying breakpoints recommended. The proposal is that a lower breakpoint (4.8 metres) be used relative to the discussion paper (6.5 metres). Options that do not involve breakpoints would be more complicated andare not considered feasible at this time, as discussed in Section 4.1


• of those that supported varying requirements by vessel type, opinion was divided between passive/powered/sailing vessels.There was support for the requirement to wear PFDs to apply to small vessels, by design characteristics, open vessels, andvessels without adequate lifelines, etc.

• several alternatives were suggested to compulsory wearing of PFDs. They covered other equipment types (lifelines/safetyharnesses, buoyancy aids, safety rails), operating requirements (safety in the licensing process, boater awareness, skipperresponsibility), improved equipment design and annual vessel checks. These matters are covered in the discussion of options in Section 4.1.

In December 2004, an information brochure was sent to all registered recreational boat owners and made available on MSV’s website. MSV has also continued to respond to public enquiries regarding the proposal.


7 COMPETITION EFFECTSFrom 1 January 1996, a proposed regulatory change that is subject to the regulatory impact statement requirement under theSubordinate Legislation Act 1994, must be assessed as to whether or not it contains restrictions on competition.

The proposed regulations are concerned with the safe operation of boats by recreational users so they do not have the ability to restrict competition.

8 EVALUATION STRATEGYIf regulations to require the wearing of PFDs are introduced, either in accordance with the proposal currently subject to assessmentor some other alternative, it is proposed to independently assess their effect on wearing rates.

The main component of the evaluation strategy will be observational surveys of boaters to determine the numbers wearing PFDs inaccordance with the regulations. The pre-implementation surveys were conducted in the 2004/05 summer boating season coveringthe period 1 January to 31 March (Cassell and Congiu 2005). During this time, surveys were conducted during January, on longweekends and at Easter at 34 sites that were selected from the most popular boat launching ramps. The timing and siting of surveyswere selected to maximise the number of boaters observed. There were 2,682 boaters in 1,074 vessels successfully observed.

The surveys are restricted to powered vessels, i.e. powerboats of various types and personal watercraft (PWC). Surveyors will recorda range of factors to assist assessment of the proposed regulations, including type of vessel, length of vessel (less or more than 4.8 metres), trip purpose, number of persons on the boat, age/sex, and PFD use by type of PFD.

It is planned to repeat the observational surveys during future boating seasons, on the assumption that the regulations will then apply.The changes in wearing rates can then be assessed and used to direct enforcement efforts and education/publicity programs to theareas of greatest need.


ReferencesBugeja L (2003) Recreational Vessel Fatalities in Victoria 1999-2002 A joint initiative of the State Coroner’s Office, The Department of Human Services and Marine Safety Victoria, September.

Cassell E and M Congiu (2005) “Personal Flotation Device (PFD) use in powered recreational vessels: an observational study of the impact of mandatory PFD wear legislation” Phase 1: Pre-intervention survey (2004/05 boating season), Monash University Accident Research Centre (MUARC) for MSV.

Marine and Safety Tasmania (MAST) (2000) Recreational Boating Safety Review April.

SmartRisk (2003) Will it Float? Mandatory PFD Wear Legislation in Canada For the Canadian Safe Boating Council.

Life Saving Society (2003) National Boating Fatalities Report – 2003 Edition Ontario: Life Saving Society, May.

US Coast Guard (USCG) (2003) Boating Statistics 2001 Washington: US Coast Guard, February.

Irish Water Safety Authority (2003) “Press release: 81 Accidental Drownings in a Decade of Boating Tragedies” Galway: Irish Water Safety, February.

Finnish Maritime Administration (2003) Safety in Water Campaign Helsinki: www.vesiturvallisuus.net.

Maritime Safety Authority (MSA) (1999) Pleasure Boat Safety Advisory Group Final Report Wellington: Maritime Safety Authority of New Zealand, December.

Monash University Accident Research Centre (MUARC) (2002) Marine Safety in Victoria Prepared for Marine Safety Victoria, October.

National Marine Safety Committee (NMSC) (2004) Regulatory Impact Statement: National Standard for Recreational Boat SafetyEquipment July.

Nichols J (1994) “Changing Public Behaviour for Better Health: Is Education Enough?”American Journal of Preventive Medicine Vol 10, Supplement 1, pp19-22.

O’Connor P (2004) National Assessment of Boating Fatalities in Australia 1992-1998 The findings of phase 2 of the assessment of fatal and non-fatal injury due to boating in Australia Prepared by Flinders Consulting Pty Ltd for the National Marine Safety Committee Inc, March.

Quantum Market Research (2003) “Lifejacket and Licensing Evaluation Campaigns” Wave 2 Quantitative Findings, February.


APPENDIX A: SUMMARY OF PUBLIC RESPONSESOver 3,000 responses to the discussion paper were received from:

• individuals (recreational, commercial, anglers)

• boating and recreational clubs and Associations

• commercial businesses.

Approximately 80 per cent of respondents were recreational boat operators.

Issues with the Review

• ‘petition’ approach taken by some

• demonstrated lack of reading of the research

• responses based on how changes will affect the individual and not on each specific issue

• confusion as to which vessels are included in the review, i.e. there were many comments regarding racing conditions and commercialvessels which were not included in the proposal.

45% of respondents supported no change to current PFD requirements by supporting Option 1 in the discussion paper.

One third of respondents supported some change to the current PFD requirements spreading preferences over Option 2 (users on boats < 6.5 metres and variation with operational risks) and Option 3 (users on all boats wear a PFD Type 1 in accordance withthe Coroner’s recommendation).

Impact on Boaters

An overwhelming level of respondents noted comfort and manoeuvrability as the main issue for not changing requirements to wearPFDs. Boaters noted that:

• PFDs increase survival chances

• many current designs are bulky/unsuitable for continuous use (designed for emergency only)

• that the impact of wearing PFDs may lead to a reduction in the pleasure of boating.

Other issues raised included:

• new designs required

• concern with the cost of new equipment

• damage to PFDs if required to be used at all times

• wearing is appropriate whilst underway

• education campaigns required

• concern about theft from tenders.

Operating Conditions

There was support for wearing PFDs when:

• crossing bars

• in hazardous conditions (unclear definitions, similar to NSW legislation)

• when operating alone

• when operating at night

• whilst underway.


APPENDIX A: SUMMARY OF PUBLIC RESPONSES (cont.)Other conditions raised included:

• weather conditions

• use of overboard devices (lifelines, etc.)

• declared dangerous locations

• size of the body of water (large bodies of water more prone to sudden weather changes)

• distance from shore.

Area of Operation

Of those supporting the use of area of operation, 75% supported amended requirements for coastal waters. There was support for use of:

• PFD Type 1 on coastal waters

• PFD Type 1, 2 or 3 on enclosed and inland waters.

Other hazards raised included:

• sea state

• wave height

• adverse conditions

• distance to shore

• recognised dangerous waters

• operating at high speed.

Vessel Size

There was low support for the use of vessel size for a blanket requirement affecting all vessels. However there was support for smallvessels, with varying breakpoints recommended.

Other issues included:

• if wearing is to be mandatory, it should be mandatory for all

• weather conditions more appropriate than size

• operator experience more appropriate than size.

Vessel Type

Of those that supported using vessel type, opinion was divided between passive/mechanical/sailing vessels.

There was support for the requirement to wear PFDs to apply to:

• small vessels (tinnies/sailing vessels)

• vessel design characteristics

• open vessels

• vessels without adequate lifelines, etc.


APPENDIX A: SUMMARY OF PUBLIC RESPONSES (cont.)Other issues:

• alternative would be use of lifelines/safety harnesses/buoyancy aids/safety rails

• should be a decision for the skipper/operator

• over regulation by Government

• conditions for divers, houseboats

• boater awareness programs including skipper responsibility

• more emphasis on safety in the licensing process, including practical tests

• design of safety equipment supplied with new vessels

• seat designs do not allow for driver to comfortably wear a PFD whilst operating the vessel

• equipment will be damaged if used more

• government subsidy for provision of new equipment

• annual vessel checks.


APPENDIX B: OPTION DESCRIPTION

Vessel Type Existing Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

All Waters Coastal Enclosed Inland Coastal Enclosed Inland All Waters

Powerboat

< 4 m Carry 1 Wear 1 Wear 1 Wear 1, 2 or 3 Wear 1 Wear 1 Wear 1, 2 or 3 Wear 1

> 4 <_ 4.8 m Carry 1 Wear 1 Wear 1 Wear 1, 2 or 3 Wear 1 Wear 1 Wear 1, 2 or 3 Wear 1

> 4.8 < 5.5 m Carry 1 Carry 1a Carry 1a Carry 1a Wear 1 Wear 1 Wear 1, 2 or 3 Wear 1

> 5.5 < 6.5 m Carry 1 Carry 1a Carry 1a Carry 1a Wear 1 Wear 1 Wear 1, 2 or 3 Wear 1

> 6.5 m Carry 1 Carry 1a Carry 1a Carry 1a Carry 1a Carry 1a Carry 1a Wear 1

Yacht (with motor)

< 4 m Carry 1 Wear 1 Wear 1 Wear 1 Wear 1 Wear 1 Wear 1 Wear 1

> 4 <_ 4.8 m Carry 1 Wear 1 Wear 1 Wear 1 Wear 1 Wear 1 Wear 1 Wear 1

> 4.8 < 5.5 m Carry 1 Carry 1a Carry 1a Carry 1a Wear 1 Wear 1 Wear 1 Wear 1

> 5.5 < 6.5 m Carry 1 Carry 1a Carry 1a Carry 1a Wear 1 Wear 1 Wear 1 Wear 1

> 6.5 m Carry 1 Carry 1a Carry 1a Carry 1a Carry 1a Carry 1a Carry 1a Wear 1

PWC Carry any Wear 1 or 2 Wear 1, 2 or 3 Wear 1, 2 or 3 Wear 1, 2 or 3 Wear 1, 2 or 3 Wear 1, 2 or 3 Wear 1

Off the beach yacht Carry any Wear 1 Wear 1 or 2 Wear 1 or 2 Wear 1 Wear 1 Wear 1, 2 or 3 Wear 1

Yacht (no motor) Carry 1 Carry 1 Carry 1 Carry 1 Carry 1 Carry 1 Carry 1 Wear 1

Canoe/kayak, etc. Carry any Wear 1 or 2 Wear 1, 2 or 3 Wear 1, 2 or 3 Wear 1, 2 or 3 Wear 1, 2 or 3 Wear 1, 2 or 3 Wear 1

Kite/sailboard Wet suit Wet suit b Wet suit b Wet suit b Wear 1, 2 or 3 Wear 1, 2 or 3 Wear 1, 2 or 3 Wear 1

Tender Nil Wear 1 Wear 1 or 2 Wear 1, 2 or 3 Nil Nil Nil Wear 1

a When operating not at times of ‘heightened risk’.b If not wearing a wet suit, must wear PFD Type 1 or 2 on Coastal waters and a PFD Type 1, 2 or 3 on enclosed or inland waters.


APPENDIX C: SAFETY EQUIPMENT COSTS


Equipment Cost ($) Equipment Cost ($) Equipment Cost ($)


All vessels Anchor & chain/line 130

2 Orange flares 32

2 Red flares 26

Total 188

< 8 m Bucket/lanyard 5 Bucket/lanyard 5

< 8 m & not operating > 2 nm Bucket/lanyard 5

< 8 m & operating > 2 nm Bucket/lanyard 5

Compass 100

Parachute flare 38

Marine radio 150

Total 293


All vessels Anchor & chain/line 130

2 Orange flares 32

2 Red flares 26

Total 188

< 8 m Bucket/lanyard 5 Bucket/lanyard 5

< 8 m & not operating > 2 nm Bucket/lanyard 5

< 8 m & operating > 2 nm Bucket/lanyard 5

Compass 100

Parachute flare 38

Marine radio 150

Total 293

8 to 12 m & not operating > 2 nm Lifebuoy 90 Lifebuoy 90 Lifebuoy 90

8 to 12 m & operating > 2 nm Compass 100

Parachute flare 38

Marine radio 150

Lifebuoy 90

Total 378


APPENDIX C: SAFETY EQUIPMENT COSTS (cont.)



Powerboat more than 4.8 metres (cont)

> 12 m & not operating > 2 nm Dinghy/liferaft 3000

Bucket/lanyard* -5 Bucket/lanyard* -5 Bucket/lanyard* -5

Total 2995 -5 -5

> 12 m & operating > 2 nm Compass 100

Parachute flare 38

Marine radio 150

Lifebuoy 90

Dinghy/liferaft 3000

Total 3378

Off the beach yacht

All vessels Bilge pump/bailer 5 Bilge pump/bailer 5 Bilge pump/bailer 5

2 Orange flares 32 2 Orange flares 32 Paddle 20

2 Red flares 26 2 Red flares 26

Paddle 20 Paddle 20

Total 83 83 25

Operating > 2 nm Compass 100

Parachute flare 38

Marine radio 150

Total 288

Yacht

All vessels Bucket/lanyard 5 Anchor & chain/line 130 Bucket/lanyard 5

Bucket/lanyard 5

2 Orange flares 32

2 Red flares 26

Total 5 193 5

* Reduction in costs.


APPENDIX C: SAFETY EQUIPMENT COSTS (cont.)



Yacht (cont)

< 5 nm 2 Paddles* -40 2 Paddles* -40 2 Paddles* -40

8 to 12 m & not operating > 2 nm Lifebuoy 90 Lifebuoy 90 Lifebuoy 90

8 to 12 m & operating > 2 nm Compass 100

Parachute flare 38

Marine radio 150

Lifebuoy 90

Total 378

> 12 m & not operating > 2 nm Bucket/lanyard* -5 Bucket/lanyard* -5 Bucket/lanyard* -5

> 12 m & operating > 2 nm Bucket/lanyard* -5

Compass 100

Parachute flare 38

Marine radio 150

Dinghy/liferaft 3000

Total 3288


All vessels Spare paddles/oars 40

Operating > 2 nm Compass 100

Torch 10

Total 110

Personal Watercraft

All vessels Torch 10 Torch 10 Torch 10

* Reduction in costs.

Settled Final Draft 13 September 2005

STATUTORY RULES 2005

No.

Marine Act 1988

Marine (Personal Flotation Devices and Other Safety Equipment) Regulations 2005

The Governor in Council makes the following Regulations:

Dated:

Responsible Minster:

Peter Batchelor Minster for Transport

Clerk of the Executive Council

1. Objectives

The objectives of these Regulations are to amend the Marine Regulations 1999 —

(a) to make provision in relation to the wearing of personal flotation devices by people who are operating, on board, or being towed by, recreational vessels; and

(b) to make further provision in relation to the equipment which is required to be carried on board recreational vessels; and

(c) to prescribe new requirements about the use of emergency position-indicating radio beacons; and

(d) to make other miscellaneous amendments.

2. Authorising provision

These Regulations are made under section 105 of the Marine Act 1988.

3. Commencement

(1) These Regulations, except regulation 7, come into operation on 1 December 2005.

(2) Regulation 7 comes into operation on 1 February 2009.

4. New definitions inserted

In regulation 103 of the Marine Regulations 19991—

(a) in the definition of “enclosed waters”, after paragraph (e) insert—

“(f) the waters of Port Phillip Bay landward of an imaginary line drawn between Point Lonsdale and Point Nepean as shown on the chart AUS 144 "Approaches to Port Phillip", published by the Hydrographic Service, Royal Australian Navy, 9 November 2001; and

APPENDIX D: DRAFT REGULATIONS

page 62

(g) the waters of Westernport Bay landward of its western entrance joined by an imaginary line drawn between West Head to the southern tip of Seal Rocks to Point Grant and landward of its eastern entrance joined by an imaginary line drawn between Cape Woolami and Griffith Point as shown on the chart AUS 150 "Western Port", published by the Hydrographic Service, Royal Australian Navy, 22 March 1995;”;

(b) for the definition of “open area" substitute —

““open area ” in the case of —

(a) a trading vessel, means an area —

(i) that is not closed or locked; and

(ii) that is open on the boundary on its aft side; and

(b) a recreational vessel (other than a kayak or canoe) —

(i) that has a weathertight deck for the whole or part of the length of the vessel, means all deck areas including coach roofs, superstructures, open flying bridges, trampolines and nets, excluding areas within a deck house, a cabin, a half cabin or a securely enclosed under-deck space; or

(ii) that does not have a weathertight deck for the whole or part of the length of the vessel, means the whole vessel;

(c) a kayak or canoe, means the whole vessel;”;

(c) for the definition of “portable fire extinguisher ” substitute —

““portable fire extinguisher ” means a dry chemical type fire extinguisher—

(a) that complies with Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 1841 Portable Fire Extinguishersas formulated, issued, prescribed or published jointly by the Standards Association of Australia and Standards New Zealand from time to time; and

(b) that is rated in accordance with Australian Standard AS 1850:1997 Portable Fire extinguishers – Classification, rating and performance testing as formulated, issued, prescribed or published by the Standards Association of Australia from time to time;”;

(d) in the definition of “Port Phillip Heads ” -

(a) for “Shortland Bluff” substitute “Point Lonsdale”; and

(b) for all words and expressions commencing “2 May 1973” and ending at the end of the definition substitute “2 May 1973;”;

(e) insert the following definitions—

ʻ”Australian Mariti me Safety Authorit y” means the Authority established under the Australian Maritime Safety Authority Act 1990(Commonwealth);

“coastal waters ” means all waters other than inland waters or enclosed waters;

“designated ha zardous area ” means —

(a) any ocean bar; and (b) Port Phillip Heads; and (c) the Lakes Entrance Bar; and (d) any area of State waters designated by the Director under regulation 104;

“dive charter vessel ” means a trading vessel used or intended to be used wholly or principally for carrying passengers who engage in recreational diving activities during a voyage;

“drysuit ” means a thermal insulation garment of a kind that—


(b) does not allow water to permeate on to the body of the person wearing it;

“marine radio ” means

(a) a 27MHz or HF marine radio transceiver approved by the Australian Communications Authority; or

(b) a VHF marine radio transceiver approved by the Australian Communications Authority that complies with Australian and New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 4415.2: 2003: Radio Telephone transmitters and receivers for the maritime mobile service operating in the VHF band – technical characteristics and methods of measurement – major coast stations, limited coast stations, ship stations and hand held stations (non DSC) (ETS 300 162: 1998, MOD) as formulated, issued, prescribed or published jointly by Standards Australia and Standards New Zealand from time to time;

“ocean bar ” means an area in State waters comprising a ridge of sand or gravel near or slightly above the surface of the water—

(a) that is located near or at the entrance to the sea from a bay, inlet, river or other waterway; and

(b) that extends across the mouth of that bay, inlet, river or waterway or parallel to the shore; and

(c) that is permanent or occurs from time to time—

and includes all waters within 500 metres of the ridge;

“off the bea ch sailing yacht” means an unballasted open sailing boat, including a centreboard dinghy, skiff and multihull yacht, but does not include a cabin boat, fixed keel vessel, kite board or sail board;

“power boat ” means a recreational vessel that has an engine that is used, or capable of being used, for propulsion;

“personal flotation de vice” means a PFD Type 1, a PFD Type 2 or a PFD Type 3;

“PFD Type 1” means a personal flotation device of a type described in Part 2 of Schedule 2;



“Prevention of Collisions Convention ” has the same meaning as in Part 6 of the Act;

“recreational tender ” means a vessel, other than a personal watercraft —

(a) that does not exceed 4.8 metres in length; and

(b) that is used, or that is intended to be used, as a means of transportation but not for towing; and

(c) that conspicuously displays the name of its mother vessel or the registration number of that vessel and the letter "T"; and

(d) that operates or is intended to operate—

(i) between the shore and another recreational vessel that is no more than 300 metres from the shore and no more than 300 metres from the point of its entry to the water; or

(ii) between recreational vessels that are no more than 300 metres apart and no more than 300 metres from the shore;

“red star para chute distress ro cket” means a parachute distress rocket that complies with—

(a) the Uniform Shipping Laws Code Section 10 Life Saving Appliances Appendix V 7as formulated, issued, prescribed or published from time to time;”; or

(b) Australian Standard AS 2092 – 2004 Pyrotechnic Marine Distress Flares and Signals for Pleasure Craft as formulated, issued, prescribed or published by the Standards Association of Australia from time to time;

“restri cted visibilit y” means conditions in which visibility is restricted by fog, mist, falling snow, heavy rainstorms, sandstorms or any other similar cause;

“trailerable yacht” means a sailing vessel with a cabin that is capable of being towed on a trailer by a motor vehicle in accordance with the Road Safety Act 1986;

“under way”, in relation to a vessel, means when the vessel is not—

(a) at anchor; or

(b) made fast to the shore; or

(c) ashore;

“wetsuit ” means a thermal insulation garment of a kind that —


(b) allows water to permeate on to the body of the person wearing it—

but does not include a vest or singlet;

“yacht” includes —

(a) a monohull yacht; and (b) a trailerable yacht; and (c) a multihull yacht—

that is ballasted or has a cabin or a fixed keel; ”; and

(e) after the definition of “testing offi cer” insert —

“Note:

Section 6(3) of the Act provides that, unless specifically provided otherwise by any provision of the Act, the Act applies to and in relation to— (a) a trading vessel proceeding on an intra-state voyage; and (b) an Australian fishing vessel, a hire and drive vessel, or a recreational vessel,

proceeding on— (i) an intra-state voyage; or (ii) that part of an inter-state voyage which began in Victoria where the

vessel is not within the jurisdiction of another State or a territory of the Commonwealth; and

(c) a vessel connected with Victoria that is an Australian fishing vessel, a hire and drive vessel, or a recreational vessel, proceeding on an interstate voyage which began in Victoria; and

(d) an Australian fishing vessel proceeding on an inter-State voyage, a hire and drive vessel, or a recreational vessel, where the vessel is within State waters; and

(e) any other vessel within State waters—

and to and in relation to the owner, master and crew of any such vessel.”.

5. New regulation 104 inserted

After regulation 103 of the Marine Regulations 1999 insert —

“104. Director may designate ha zardous areas for purposes of Regulations

The Director may, by notice published in the Government Gazette, designate an area of State waters described in the notice as a designated hazardous area for the purposes of these Regulations.”.

6. Revocation of redundant pro vision about personal flotation de vices

Regulation 200 of the Marine Regulations 1999 is revoked.

7. New EPIRB require ments fro m 1 Februar y 2009

For regulation 207 of the Marine Regulations 1999 substitute —

“207. Vessel not to operate unless pro vided with certain t ype of EPIRB

A person must not operate a vessel on coastal waters more than 2 nautical miles from the shore unless the vessel is provided with an emergency position indicating radio beacon—

(a) that has an operational frequency of 406 MHz; and

(b) that complies with Australian and New Zealand Standard 4280.1:2003: 406 MHz Satellite Distress Beacons - Maritime Emergency Position-indicating Radio Beacons (EPIRB) as formulated, issued, prescribed or published jointly by the Standards Association of Australia and Standards New Zealand from time to time.

Penalty: 5 penalty units.”.

8. Conditions for Port Phillip Heads

(1) In regulation 209(1) of the Marine Regulations 1999, after “trading vessel that” insert“is less than 16 metres in length and”.

(2) In regulation 209(1)(a) of the Marine Regulations 1999 —

(a) after ”daylight” insert “or in periods of restricted visibility”; and

(b) for sub-paragraphs (ii) and (iii) substitute —

“(ii) if the most recent coastal waters forecast issued by the Bureau of Meteorology for northern Bass Strait predicts for the time of passage—

(A) sea and swell conditions exceeding 2 metres in height; or

(B) wind exceeding a speed of 20 knots coming from a direction that is in the southerly semi-circle of the compass; or

(iii) if the actual sea and swell conditions exceed 2 metres in height; or

(iv) if the actual average wind speed exceeds 20 knots and comes from a direction that is in the southerly semi-circle of the compass; and”.

(3) For regulation 209(1)(b) of the Marine Regulations 1999 substitute —

“(b) when the vessel enters, and while the vessel traverses, Port Phillip Heads each passenger and each crew member is wearing—

(i) in the case of a dive charter vessel, a fully sealed drysuit or wetsuit that is at least 5 millimetres thick; or

(ii) in any other case, a PFD Type 1; and”.

(4) In regulation 209(2) of the Marine Regulations 1999, after ”trading vessel that” insert“is less than 16 metres in length and”.

(5) In regulation 209(2)(a) of the Marine Regulations 1999—

(a) after “”daylight” insert “or in periods of restricted visibility”; and

(b) for sub-paragraphs (ii) and (iii) substitute —

“(ii) if the most recent coastal waters forecast issued by the Bureau of Meteorology for northern Bass Strait predicts for the time of passage—

(A) sea and swell conditions exceeding 2 metres in height; or

(B) wind exceeding a speed of 20 knots coming from a direction that is in the southerly semi-circle of the compass; or

(iii) if the actual sea and swell conditions exceed 2 metres in height; or

(iv) if the actual average wind speed exceeds 20 knots and comes from a direction that is in the southerly semi-circle of the compass; and”.

(6) For regulation 209(2)(b) of the Marine Regulations 1999 substitute —

“(b) when the vessel enters, and while the vessel traverses, Port Phillip Heads each passenger and each crew member is wearing—

(i) in the case of a dive charter vessel, a fully sealed drysuit or wetsuit that is at least 5 millimetres thick; or

(ii) in any other case, a PFD Type 1; and ”.

(7) After regulation 209(2) of the Marine Regulations 1999 insert —

“(3) Sub-regulations (1)(a)(ii), (1)(a)(iii) and (1)(a)(iv) and (2)(a)(ii), (2)(a)(iii) and (2)(a)(iv) do not apply in the case of a vessel that has already entered, and is traversing, Port Phillip Heads –

(a) when the weather forecast referred to is issued by the Bureau of Meteorology; or

(b) when the actual sea and swell conditions exceed 2 metres in height; or

(c) when the actual average wind speed exceeds 20 knots and comes from a direction that is in the southerly semi-circle of the compass.”.

9. Conditions for Lakes Entran ce Bar

(1) For regulation 211(1) of the Marine Regulations 1999 substitute —

“(1) The owner of a trading vessel that is carrying passengers in or through the Lakes Entrance Bar must take all reasonable steps to ensure that—

(a) the vessel does not proceed to sea by crossing or attempting to cross the Lakes Entrance Bar if the most recent coastal waters forecast issued by the Bureau of Meteorology for eastern Bass Strait predicts for any time during the voyage—

(i) sea and swell conditions exceeding 2 metres in height; or

(ii) wind exceeding a speed of 20 knots coming from a direction that is in the southerly semi-circle of the compass; and

(ab) the vessel does not cross, or attempt to cross, the Lakes Entrance Bar—

(i) outside the hours of daylight or in periods of restricted visibility; or

(ii) if the actual sea and swell conditions exceed 2 metres in height; or

(iii) if the actual average wind speed exceeds 20 knots and comes from a direction that is in the southerly semi-circle of the compass; and

(b) each passenger and crew member is wearing a PFD Type 1 while the vessel crosses, or attempts to cross, the Lakes Entrance Bar; and

(c) before the vessel crosses, or attempts to cross, the Lakes Entrance Bar, each passenger is given a briefing regarding safety, emergency and evacuation procedures; and

(d) all passengers are located in the open area of the vessel when the vessel crosses, or attempts to cross, the Lakes Entrance Bar; and

(e) the vessel prominently flies Code Flag “R” of the International Code of Signals, when the vessel crosses, or attempts to cross, the Lakes Entrance Bar.”.

(2) For regulation 211(2) of the Marine Regulations 1999 substitute —

“(2) The master of a trading vessel that is carrying passengers in or through the Lakes Entrance bar, must ensure that—

(a) the vessel does not proceed to sea by crossing, or attempting to cross, the Lakes Entrance Bar if the most recent coastal waters forecast issued by the Bureau of Meteorology for eastern Bass Strait predicts for any time during the voyage—

(i) sea and swell conditions exceeding 2 metres in height; or

(ii) wind exceeding a speed of 20 knots coming from a direction that is in the southerly semi-circle of the compass; and

(ab) the vessel does not cross, or attempt to cross, the Lakes Entrance Bar—

(i) outside the hours of daylight or in periods of restricted visibility; or

(ii) if the actual sea and swell conditions exceed 2 metres in height; or

(iii) if the actual average wind speed exceeds 20 knots and comes from a direction that is in the southerly semi-circle of the compass; and

(b) each passenger and crew member is wearing a PFD Type 1 while the vessel crosses, or attempts to cross, the Lakes Entrance Bar; and

(c) before the vessel crosses, or attempts to cross, the Lakes Entrance Bar, each passenger is given a briefing regarding safety, emergency and evacuation procedures; and

(d) all passengers are located in the open area of the vessel when the vessel crosses, or attempts to cross, the Lakes Entrance Bar; and

(e) the vessel prominently flies Code Flag “R” of the International Code of Signals, when the vessel crosses, or attempts to cross, the Lakes Entrance Bar.

(3) Sub-regulations (1)(a), (1)(ab)(ii) and (1)(ab)(iii), (2)(a) and (2)(ab)(ii) and (2)(ab)(iii) do not apply in the case of a vessel that has already entered, and is crossing, the Lakes Entrance Bar–

(a) when the weather forecast referred to is issued by the Bureau of Meteorology; or

(b) when the actual sea and swell conditions exceed 2 metres in height; or

(c) when the actual average wind speed exceeds 20 knots and comes from a direction that is in the southerly semi-circle of the compass.”.

10. New require ments for e quip ment to be carried on re creational vessels


“230. Carriage of safet y equip ment on re creational vessels

(1) If a recreational vessel is of a class of vessel specified in column 2 of Table A in Schedule 4 and a number other than “0” appears in column 4 opposite an item of equipment listed in column 3, a person must not operate the vessel in coastal waters unless the vessel is equipped with that item of equipment in the relevant quantity specified in column 4 in respect of that item.

Penalty: 5 penalty units.

(2) If a recreational vessel is of a class of vessel specified in column 2 of Table A in Schedule 4 and a number other than “0” appears in column 5 opposite an item of equipment listed in column 3, a person must not operate the vessel in enclosed waters unless the vessel is equipped with that item of equipment in the relevant quantity specified in column 5 in respect of that item.


(3) If a recreational vessel is of a class of vessel specified in column 2 of Table A in Schedule 4 and a number other than “0” appears in column 6 opposite an item of equipment listed in column 3, a person must not operate the vessel in inland waters unless the vessel is equipped with that item of equipment in the relevant quantity specified in column 6 in respect of that item.


(4) A person must not operate a recreational vessel unless each item of equipment that is required to be carried on board the vessel under sub-regulation (1), (2) or (3) complies with any requirements that are specified in Table B in Schedule 4 for that item of equipment.


230A. Portable fire extinguishers and fire fighting e quip ment on re creational vessels

A person who operates a recreational vessel that carries fuel on board, or that is equipped with an electric start motor, gas installation or fuel stove, must ensure, at all times—

(a) that the vessel is equipped with the number of portable fire extinguishers specified in column 2 of Table C in Schedule 4 for the size of the vessel shown in column 1 of that Table; and

(b) that each portable fire extinguisher carried on the vessel is of the minimum nominal capacity specified in Column 2 of Table D in Schedule 4 for the size of vessel shown in Column 1 of that Table; and

(c) that if cooking facilities are located within an enclosed space on the vessel, a fire blanket that complies with Australian and New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 3504: 1995 – Fire Blankets as formulated, issued, prescribed or published jointly by the Standards Association of Australia and Standards New Zealand from time to time is located in a conspicuous location and that it is readily accessible to a person using the cooking facilities.

. Penalty: 5 penalty units.

230B. Maintenan ce and pla cement of safet y equip ment and fire extinguishers

(1) A person must not operate a recreational vessel unless all lifesaving equipment, fire extinguishers and other safety equipment required to be carried on board the vessel under regulations 230 and 230A—

(a) are placed or located in a conspicuous and readily accessible position at all times; and

(b) are kept in good order at all times; and

(c) are maintained or serviced in a way that ensures that they are able to operate at all times in the way that they were designed to operate; and

(d) in the case of portable fire extinguishers, are maintained in accordance with Australian and New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 1851-Maintenance of fire protection equipment, Part 1 - Portable fire extinguishers and fire blankets as formulated, issued, prescribed or published jointly by Standards Australia and Standards New Zealand from time to time; and

(e) are serviced on or before the date specified by the manufacturer for that item of equipment.


(2) If more than one fire extinguisher of the same type is required under regulation 230A to be carried on board a recreational vessel, a person must not operate the vessel unless each fire extinguisher of that type is located in a separate position on the vessel.

Penalty: 5 penalty units.”.

11. New require ments for wearing P FDs on re creational vessels


“232. Wearing of P FD required on certain re creational vessels at all ti mes

(1) A person who is on an open area of a recreational vessel of a type listed in Column 2 of Table A in Schedule 5 must—

(a) wear a personal flotation device of a type specified in Column 3 of the Table opposite that type of vessel at all times when the vessel is underway on coastal waters; and

(b) wear a personal flotation device of a type specified in Column 4 of the Table opposite that type of vessel at all times when the vessel is underway on enclosed waters; and

(c) wear a personal flotation device of a type specified in Column 5 of the Table opposite that type of vessel at all times when the vessel is underway on inland waters.


(2) Sub-regulation (1) does not apply to a person who is operating a kite board or sail board if—

(a) the person is no more than 400 metres from the shore; and

(b) the person is wearing a wetsuit that is at least 3 millimetres thick.

232A. Wearing of P FD on certain re creational vessel re quired during ti me of heightened ris k

(1) A person who is on an open area of a recreational vessel of a type listed in Column 2 of Table B in Schedule 5 must, during a time of heightened risk—

(a) wear a personal flotation device of a type specified in Column 3 of the Table opposite that type of vessel when the vessel is underway on coastal waters; and

(b) wear a personal flotation device of a type specified in Column 4 of the Table opposite that type of vessel when the vessel is underway on enclosed waters; and

(c) wear a personal flotation device of a type specified in Column 5 of the Table opposite that type of vessel when the vessel is underway on inland waters.


(2) In this regulation “time of heightened ris k” means—





(e) when there is a significant likelihood that—

(i) the vessel may capsize or be swamped by waves; or (ii) the occupants of the vessel may fall overboard or be forced to

enter the water; or

(f) when the vessel is operating in an area where—



(iii) a severe thunderstorm warning—


(g) if the vessel is a yacht—



232B. Children under 10 to wear PFD at all ti mes

Despite regulations 232 and 232A, the operator of a recreational vessel of a type listed in Column 2 of Table A or Table B in Schedule 5, must ensure that every person aged less than 10 years old who is on an open area of the vessel wears, at all times—

(a) a personal flotation device of a type specified in Column 3 of those Tables opposite that type of vessel when the vessel is underway on coastal waters; and

(b) a personal flotation device of a type specified in Column 4 of those Tables opposite that type of vessel when the vessel is underway on enclosed waters; and

(c) a personal flotation device of a type specified in Column 5 of those Tables opposite that type of vessel when the vessel is underway on inland waters.


232C. Person being to wed by recreational vessel to wear PFD

(1) A person who is being towed by a recreational vessel must, at all times, wear a PFD Type 1, a PFD Type 2 or a PFD Type 3.


(2) Sub-regulation (1) does not apply to a person on board a vessel that is being towed by another vessel.

232D. Person not to operate re creational vessel until ea ch person wears a PFD

(1) The person operating a recreational vessel must not allow the vessel to start a voyage until each person on board complies—

(a) with regulation 232 or 232B (as the case may be); or

(b) with regulation 232A, if a time of heightened risk exists.

(2) If a time of heightened risk arises while the vessel is underway, the person operating the vessel must take all reasonable steps to ensure that each person on board complies with regulation 232A.


(3) The person operating a recreational vessel must not allow the vessel to start towing a person unless the person is wearing a PFD Type 1, a PFD Type 2 or a PFD Type 3.

(4) In this regulation, “time of heightened risk” has the same meaning as it has in regulation 232A(2).”.

12. Revocation of redundant pro vision about sto wage of e quip ment

Regulation 235 of the Marine Regulations 1999 is revoked.

13. Recreational tenders exe mpt fro m registration

In regulation 406 of the Marine Regulations 1999, for paragraph (a) substitute -

“(a) a recreational tender; or”.

14. Schedule 2 substituted

For Schedule 2 to the Marine Regulations 1999 substitute -

“SCHEDULE 2

Types of personal flotation de vices

Regulation 103 PART 1 – DEFINITION

In this Schedule “recognised appraiser ” means—

(a) a certifying body accredited by the Joint Accreditation Scheme of Australia and New Zealand (JAS-ANZ); or

(b) a laboratory with National Association of Testing Authorities (NATA) accreditation; or

(c) a notified body in accordance with the European Union Maritime Equipment Directive, Module B (MED-B) as formulated, issued, prescribed or published from time to time; or

(d) a body approved by the Director.

PART 2 – PFD TYPE 1

1. A personal flotation device is a PFD Type 1 if it complies with-

(a) Australian Standard AS 1512 – 1996 – Personal Flotation Devices – Type 1 as formulated, issued, prescribed or published by Standards Australia from time to time; or

(b) Australian Maritime Safety Authority Marine Orders Part 25, Appendix 1, Section 2 SOLAS (Safety of Life at Sea) Life-jackets as formulated, issued, prescribed or published from time to time; or

(c) Uniform Shipping Laws Code, Section 10, Appendix R (for Coastal Lifejackets) as formulated, issued, prescribed or published from time to time; or

(d) one of the following recognised standards for personal flotation devices, or types of personal flotation devices, that has been approved by a recognised appraiser-

(i) European Standard EN399 – 1993 Lifejackets – 275N as formulated, issued, prescribed or published by the European Union from time to time; or

(ii) European Standard EN396 – 1993 Lifejackets – 150N as formulated, issued, prescribed or published by the European Union from time to time; or

(iii) European Standard EN395 – 1993 Lifejackets – 100N as formulated, issued, prescribed or published by the European Union from time to time; or

(iv) Canadian General Standards CAN/CGSB-65.11-M88 (for adults) as formulated, issued, prescribed or published by the Canadian General

Standards Board from time to time and CAN/CGSB-65.15-M88 Personal Flotation Devices For Children as formulated, issued, prescribed or published by the Canadian General Standards Board from time to time; or

(v) Underwriters Laboratories Standards UL 1180 – Fully inflatable recreational personal flotation devices as formulated, issued, prescribed or published from time to time; or

(vi) New Zealand Standards NZ5823:2001 Type 401 as formulated, issued, prescribed or published by Standards New Zealand from time to time; or

(e) any standard or specifications approved by the Director.

2. Until 11.59pm on 3 January 2008, a personal flotation device that complies with Australian Standard AS 1512 – 1988 Personal Flotation Devices Type 1 as formulated, issued, prescribed or published by Standards Australia from time to time, is also a PFD Type 1.

PART 3 - PFD TYPE 2

1. A personal flotation device is a PFD Type 2 if it complies with-

(a) Australian Standard AS 1499-1996 —Personal Flotation Devices Type 2 as formulated, issued, prescribed or published by Standards Australia from time to time; or

(b) European Standard EN 393 – 1993 Lifejackets – 50 N as formulated, issued, prescribed or published by the European Union from time to time.

2. Until 11.59pm on 3 January 2008, a personal flotation device that complies with Australian Standard AS 1499 – 1988 Personal Flotation Devices Type 2 as formulated, issued, prescribed or published by Standards Australia from time to time, is also a PFD Type 2.

PART 4 - PFD TYPE 3

1. A personal flotation device is a PFD Type 3 if it complies with Australian Standard AS 2260-1996—Personal Flotation Devices Type 3 as formulated, issued, prescribed or published by Standards Australia from time to time.

2. Until 11.59pm on 3 January 2008, a personal flotation device that complies with Australian Standard AS 2260 – 1988 Personal Flotation Devices Type 3 as formulated, issued, prescribed or published by Standards Australia from time to time, is also a PFD Type 3.”.

15. Substitution of Schedules 4 and 5

For Schedules 4 and 5 to the Marine Regulations 1999 substitute —

“SCHEDULE 4 Table A

EQUIPMENT TO BE CARRIED ON RECREATIONAL VESSELS

Regulation 230(1), 230(2), 230(3)

Colu mn 1 Item number

Colu mn 2 Class of

Colu mn 3 Item of

Colu mn 4 Require ments



vessel e quip ment for Coastal waters

for Enclosed waters

for Inland waters

MECHANICALLY POWERED RECREATIONAL VESSELS PFD Type 1 One for each

person on board and one for each person being towed

One for each person on board and one for each person being towed

0

PFD Type 1, PFD Type 2 or PFD Type 3

- - One for each person on board and one for each person being towed

Anchor, and chain or line or both

1 1 0

Electric or manual bilge pumping system

1- if vessel has covered bilge or closed underfloor compartments, other than airtight void spaces



Bailer 1-if no electric or manual bilge pumping system

1-if no electric or manual bilge pumping system


Compass 1-if more than 2 nautical miles from the coast

0 0

Bucket with lanyard

1 1 1

Marine radio 1-if more than 2 nautical miles from the coast

0 0

Red star parachute distress rocket

1-if more than 2 nautical miles from the coast

0 0

Hand held orange smoke signal

2 2 0

Hand held red distress flares

2 2 0

Pair of oars with rowlocks or pair of paddles

1 1 1

01 Power boat up to and including 4.8 metres in length

Waterproof buoyant torch

1 1 1

02 Power boat greater than 4.8 metres in length

PFD Type 1 One for each person on board and one for each person being

One for each person on board and one for each person being

0

towed towed PFD Type 1, PFD Type 2 or PFD Type 3

- - One for each person on board or being towed


1 1 0









0 0

Bucket with lanyard

1 1 1


0 0



0 0


2 2 0


2 2 0


1 1 1

Lifebuoy 1- if vessel is 8 metres or more in length but less than 12 metres in length;2 - if vessel is more than 12 metres in length

1 - if vessel is 8 metres or more in length but less than 12 metres in length;2 - if vessel is more than 12 metres in length


One dinghy or liferaft

1 - if vessel is more than 12 metres in length

0 0

03 Personal watercraft





towed towed towed Waterproof buoyant torch

1 1 1

04 Recreational tender


One for each person on board



SAIL POWERED RECREATIONAL VESSELS PFD Type 1 1 for each

person on board

0 0

PFD Type 1 or PFD Type 2

0 1 for each person on board

1 for each person on board









0 0


0 0



0 0


2 2 0


2 2 0

05 Off the beach yacht

Paddle 1 1 1 PFD Type 1 1 for each

person on board

0 0

PFD Type1 or PFD Type 2

0 1 for each person on board



1 1 0

06 Yacht









0 0

Bucket with lanyard

1 1 1


0 0



0 0


2 2 0


2 2 0


1 1 1

Lifebuoy 1 - if vessel is 8 metres or more in length but less than 12 metres in length;2 - if vessel is more than 12 metres in length

1- if vessel is 8 metres or more in length but less than 12 metres in length;2 - if vessel is more than 12 metres in length


One dinghy or liferaft

1 - if vessel is more than 12 metres in length

0 0

HUMAN POWERED RECREATIONAL VESSELS PFD Type 1, PFD Type 2 or PFD Type 3












0 0

07 Kayak, canoe, raft and rowing boat

Hand held 2 - if vessel is 0 0

orange smoke signal

more than 2 nautical miles from coast


2 - if vessel is more than 2 nautical miles from coast

0 0


1- if vessel is more than 2 nautical miles from coast

0 0

Spare oar with rowlock, or spare pair of oars with rowlocks, or spare paddle, as the case may be, to properly operate that kind of vessel

1 if the vessel is more than 2 nautical miles from coast

0 0

08 Funboat and pedal boat






PFD Type 1 or PFD Type 2 or PFD Type 3




*Note: Refer to regulation 207 and 207A for details of requirements about the carriage of EPIRBS on recreational vessels and to regulation 230A and 230B for requirements about the carriage of portable fire extinguishers and fire fighting equipment on recreational vessels.

____________

Table B Regulation 230(4)

STANDARDS FOR EQUIPMENT ON RECREATIONAL VESSELS

Item of equip ment Mini mum standard for e quip ment Personal flotation de vice A personal flotation device must be able to be donned quickly and

correctly with a minimum of instruction. It must fit the wearer securely and afford reasonable comfort and allow freedom of movement to the wearer both in and out of the water. When fitted securely it must be incapable of displacement about the wearer in any way which may impair its performance.

Anchor , and chain or line

The anchor with chain or line or both chain and line must be of sufficient strength and durability to secure the vessel and must be appropriate for that purpose in the area of operation of the vessel. The chain or line or combination must be securely attached to both

the anchor and the vessel at all times. Bilge pu mping s ystem An electric or manual bilge pumping system must have a pump or

pumps that are capable of draining each compartment of the boat. This may require the system to comprise more than one bilge pump. The pump must have a strainer fitted to the suction pipe. The strainer must be of a sufficiently small mesh size to prevent choking of the pump by debris.

Bailer A bailer must be suitable for bailing water from the boat and must be securely attached to the vessel with a lanyard (rope) o prevent it being lost from the vessel.

Dingh y or liferaft The dinghy or liferaft must be able to support the weight of all people on board in the event of swamping.

Hand held orange smoke signal , hand held red distress flare , red star para chute distress ro cket

Hand held orange smoke signals, hand held red distress flares and red star parachute distress rockets kept on the vessel for use must not exceed the manufacturer’s expiry date.

_______

Table C

Types of Fire Extinguishers to be carried on certain si ze of vessel

Regulation 230A

Colu mn 1Vessel si ze

Colu mn 2 Number of portable fire extinguishers re quired to be carried

Vessels less than 8 metres 1 Vessels 8- 12 metres 2 Vessels greater than 12 metres

3

Table D Mini mum capacity of portable fire extinguishers for certain vessels

Regulation 230A

Colu mn 1 Volu me of fla mmable or combustible li quids carried on vessel

Colu mn 2 Mini mum nominal capacity of fire extinguisher

For vessels which carry less than 115 litres

0.9kg

For vessels which carry 115 – 350 litres

2.0kg

For vessels which carry 4.5kg

351 - 695 litres For vessels which carry more than 695 litres

9.0kg

SCHEDULE 5

PFDS TO BE WORN ON RECREATIONAL VESSELS

Table A Regulations 232, 232B, 232D


Colu mn 2 Vessel t ype

Colu mn 3 PFDrequire ments for coastal waters

Colu mn 4 PFDrequire ments for enclosed waters

Colu mn 5 PFDrequire ments for inland waters

01 Power boat up to and including 4.8 metres in length

PFD Type 1 PFD Type 1 PFD Type 1, PFD Type 2 or PFD Type 3

02 Personal watercraft





PFD Type 1 PFD Type 1 or PFD Type 2


04 Off-the-beach yacht

PFD Type 1 PFD Type 1 or PFD Type 2


05 Kite board or sail board




06 Canoe, kayak, rowing boat, raft, pedal boat or fun boat




Table B Regulations 232A, 232B, 232D


Colu mn 2 Vessel t ype

Colu mn 3 PFDrequire ments for coastal waters

Colu mn 4 PFDrequire ments for enclosed waters

Colu mn 5 PFDrequire ments for inland waters

01 Power boat greater than 4.8 metres and less than 12 metres in length

PFD Type 1 PFD Type 1 PFD Type 1, PFD Type 2 or PFD Type 3

02 Yacht PFD Type 1 PFD Type 1 or PFD Type 2


“.

Notes :

1. S. R. No. 145/1999. Reprint No. 1 as at 7 February 2002. Reprinted to S.R. No. 8/2002 and subsequently amended by S. R. Nos. 143/2003, 88/2004 and 152/2004.

2. Table of incorporated matter

TABLE OF INCORPORATED MATERIAL

Regulation nu mber /Provision Document being applied , adopted /incorporated

Extent of in corporation

Regulation 4 (amends definition of “enclosed waters”, new paragraph (f))

Chart AUS 144 "Approaches to Port Phillip", published by the Hydrographic Service, Royal Australian Navy, 9 November 2001

Whole

Regulation 4 (amends definition of “enclosed waters”, new paragraph (g))

Chart AUS 150 “Western Port”, published by the Hydrographic Service, Royal Australian Navy, 22 March 1995

Whole

Reg 4 (amends regulation 103-definition of “portable fire extinguisher”)

Australian/New Zealand Standard AS 1841- Portable Fire Extinguishers published jointly by the Standards Association of Australia and Standards New Zealand in April 1997 and reissued in April 2003

Parts 1 and 5

Reg 4 (amends regulation 103-definition of “portable fire extinguisher”)

Australian Standard AS 1850:1997 Portable Fire extinguishers – Classification, rating and performance testing, published by the Standards Association of Australia on 5 April 1997

Whole

Regulation 4 (amends regulation 103-inserts new definition of “marine radio”)

Australian and New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 4415.2: 2003: Radio Telephone transmitters and receivers for the maritime mobile service operating in the VHF band – technical characteristics and methods of measurement – major coast stations, limited coast stations, ship stations and hand held stations (non DSC) (ETS 300 162: 1998, MOD), published by Standards Australia and Standards New Zealand on 28 January 2003

Part 1 and Part 2

Regulation 4 (amends regulation 103-inserts new definition of “red star parachute distress rocket”)

Uniform Shipping Laws Code Section 10, Appendix V

Regulation 4 (amends regulation 103-inserts new

Australian Standard AS 2092 – 2004 Pyrotechnic Marine

Part 7

definition of “red star parachute distress rocket”)

Distress Flares and Signals for Pleasure Craft published by the Standards Association of Australia on 10 May 2004 ;

Regulation 7 (substitutes regulation 207)

Australian and New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 4280.1:2003: 406 MHz Satellite Distress Beacons - Maritime Emergency Position-indicating Radio Beacons (EPIRB) which was published jointly by the Standards Association of Australia and Standards New Zealand in 7 November 2003

Part 1

Regulation 10 (inserts new regulation 230A(c))

Australian and New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 3504: 1995 – Fire Blankets, published jointly by the Standards Association of Australia and Standards New Zealand on 5 January 1995

Whole

Regulation 10 (inserts new regulation 230B(1)(d))

Australian and New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 1851-Maintenance of fire protection equipment, Part 1 - Portable fire extinguishers and fire blankets published by Standards Australia and Standards New Zealand on 5 January 1995

Part 1

Regulation 14 (substitutes Schedule 2 – Part 1)

European Union Maritime Equipment Directive, Module B (MED-B)

Whole


Australian Standard AS 1512 – 1996 – Personal Flotation Devices Type 1 published by Standards Australia on 5 January 1996

Whole


Australian Maritime Safety Authority Marine Orders Part 25- -SOLAS (Safety of Life at Sea) Lifejackets published by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority on 15 February 2002

Appendix 1


Uniform Shipping Laws Code, Section 10, Appendix R (for Coastal Lifejackets)


European Standard EN399 – 1993 Lifejackets – 275N as published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 16 December 1994 and EN399/A1 published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 6 November 1998.

Whole


European Standard EN396 – 1993 Lifejackets – 150N as published in the Official Journal of the European Union, 16

Whole

December 1994 and EN396/A1 published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 6 November 1998.


European Standard EN395 – 1993Lifejackets – 100N as published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 16 December 1994 and EN395/A1 published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 6 November 1998.

Whole


Canadian General Standards CAN/CGSB-65.11-M88 (for adults) published by the Canadian General Standards Board February 1988 and amended January 1997 and CAN/CGSB-65.15-M88 Personal Flotation Devices For Children published by the Canadian General Standards Board in April 1988 and amended January 1997.

Whole


Underwriters Laboratories Standards UL 1180 – Fully inflatable recreational personal flotation devices, 15 May 1995.

Whole


New Zealand Standards NZ5823:2001 Type 401 as published by Standards New Zealand 30 March 2001.

Whole


Australian Standard AS 1512 – 1988 Personal Flotation Devices Type 1 published by Standards Australia on 4 January 1988.

Whole


Australian Standard AS 1499– 1996 - Personal Flotation Devices Type 2 published by Standards Australia on 5 January 1996.

Whole


European Standard EN393-1993 Lifejackets – 50N as published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 16 December 1994 and EN393/A1 published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 6 November 1998.

Whole


Australian Standard AS 1499 – 1988 Personal Flotation Devices Type 2 published by Standards Australia on 4

Whole

January 1988 Regulation 14 (substitutes Schedule 2 – Part 4)

Australian Standard AS 2260– 1996 Personal Flotation Devices Type 2 published by Standards Australia on 5 January 1996

Whole


Australian Standard AS 2260 – 1988 Personal Flotation Devices Type 3 published by Standards Australia on 4 January 1988

Whole

Documents

Marine (Personal Flotation Devices and Other Safety Equipment)