APPLICATION FOR EQUIVALENT SOLUTION
Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law Act 2012
Marine Order 503 (Certificates of survey – national law) 2013
Use this form to apply for National Regulator approval of an equivalent means of complying with vessel design, construction or
equipment requirements of NSCV.
If you are unsure of any information, or it is not applicable, please leave blank. Please attach supporting documentation as
required.
To lodge, send your completed application, with supporting documentation, to DVD Secretariat, Domestic Vessels, Australian
Maritime Safety Authority, GPO Box 2181, Canberra ACT 2601, or email to DVDSecretariat@amsa.gov.au
A. Applicant details
Title (Mr, Mrs, Ms, etc.)
Surname
Given name / Company name
Vessel name
Unique identifier
Street name and number
Town / suburb
State
Postcode
Postal Address
Same as street address
Town / suburb
State
Postcode
Phone
Mobile
Email
B. Equivalent solution details
1. List the required outcomes applicable to the application:
An applicant must identify and document which of the NSCV safety objectives (required outcomes) are relevant to their
application. The relevant, part, chapter and specific clauses should be identified. This step enables an applicant and an
assessor to establish and agree on the objectives for the application.
2. List the existing deemed to satisfy solution(s) to which the proposed solution is equivalent:
An applicant must identify and document the solution(s) the National Regulator currently accepts. This step establishes an
objective performance baseline for comparative analysis and risk analysis.
Note: Applications justified based on methods and/or standards accepted by other authorities do not constitute grounds for an
acceptable equivalent solution. Applicants wishing to propose a solution accepted by other authorities but not yet recognised by
the National Regulator must present an application that objectively compares the performance of the proposed solution with the
performance of solutions currently accepted by the National Regulator and demonstrate that they are equivalent.
3. Describe the proposed solution, including dependent systems that have been taken into consideration:
Some proposals cannot be considered in isolation and the effect of / or effect on surrounding systems must be included in an
assessment. Where a proposed solution impacts other systems or the solution is relied upon by another system(s) an
application must consider the impacted systems. E.g. A proposal for an equivalent shaft system may consider consequential
requirements for shaft support, bearing areas, coupling requirements, torsional vibration analysis, machinery construction
surveys etc.
AMSA649 (1/16) Page 1 of 4
4. List the assessment methodologies used in the application:
Example of assessment methods include direct calculations, expert judgment, risk analysis, failure mode and effect analysis etc.
5. List supporting documentation that has been provided with the application:
An application must use an auditable and documented methodology to demonstrate equivalence. The application must be
presented in such a manner that a reasonable person can later understand how the conclusion of equivalence was arrived at,
without additional inputs.
6. List any assumptions, numerical methods & software used in the application:
An assessment must be reliable in terms of the current state of knowledge and only make assumptions that are justifiable.
Analysis must use reliable inputs, analysis and calculations that are relevant, accurate and auditable. Any models, software and
or numerical methods applied must be validated / acceptable to ensure they are free from significant errors.
7. Outline the effectiveness of the proposed solution:
The proposed solution must provide a means of complying with the National Law that is at least as effective as the deemed to
satisfy solution(s )it replaces. This may include establishing that a proposed solution will be equivalent in terms reliability and
demonstrating that the solution performs in situ as has been indicated by analysis. A solution must not rely on a technology that
has not had sufficient testing to ensure reliability.
8a. Identify the type of control(s) being replaced (tick all that apply)
Elimination/Prohibition
Substitution
Engineering Control
Administrative control
PPE
More Effective -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Less Effective
8b. Identify the type of control(s) being proposed (tick all that apply)
Elimination/Prohibition
Substitution
Engineering Control
Administrative control
PPE
More Effective -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Less Effective
The proposed solution must be as effective as the applicable deemed to satisfy solution(s) in terms of the hierarchy of hazard
control. Replacement of an engineering control with operational/administrative control is not considered equivalent in terms of
hazard control.
9. Where applicable, describe how the application demonstrates that the proposed solution will be manufactured,
installed and implemented to the level of quality and reliability required:
10. Describe how the reliability of the solution will be maintained over time:
11. Rate the possible consequences if the proposed solution does not function as designed
Major
Serious
Moderate
Low
Major - Loss of vessel, loss of life
Serious - Injury, rescue, loss of control, loss of strength, high demand on crew
Moderate - Increased demand on crew, loss of handling characteristics,
Low - Slight effects on handling, crew duties and/or operating conditions significant measures to complete journey
AMSA649 (1/16) Page 2 of 4
The standard of evidence expected for an equivalent solution is proportional to the potential consequences in the case of its
failure. An application for equivalence that proposes replacing essential equipment or systems that, if incorrectly determined,
may endanger life, requires a greater level of analysis and evidence that an equivalence for a lower consequence proposals.
12. Rate the likelihood of there being an error in the proposal
Error very remote
Error unlikely
Possibility of errors
13. Is the standard of evidence adequate for the level of consequence determined above?
Yes
No
It is expected that the standard of evidence provided for an application is aligned to the level of consequence determined above.
14. Are there any factors of safety or other types of redundancies built into the solution
that will reduce the risks?
Yes
No
If yes, provide details
THIS SECTION OF THE FORM IS TO BE COMPLETED BY AN ACCREDITED SURVEYOR
PRIOR TO SUBMISSION TO THE NATIONAL REGULATOR
C. Surveyor’s Recommendation to the National Regulator
Do you consider the standard of evidence provided in this application to be satisfactory?
Yes
No
Why?
Based on my assessment of the above equivalent solution I hereby recommend:
Name of Surveyor
Signature of Surveyor
Date
Surveyor Number
D. Applicant’s declaration and consent
I declare that to the best of my knowledge the information provided by me in this application (and any attachments I
have included with this application) is true and correct:
• I consent to the Australian Maritime Safety Authority, as the National Regulator, making all reasonable enquiries in order to
verify that the information provided by me in this application (and any attachments I have included with this application) is
true and correct.
• I understand and acknowledge that the Australian Maritime Safety Authority, as the National Regulator, may ask that I
provide any information or document that the National Regulator reasonably considers necessary for consideration of this
application.
• I understand and acknowledge that the Australian Maritime Safety Authority, as the National Regulator, may ask another
person to provide any information, document or agreement that the National Regulator reasonably considers necessary for
consideration of this application.
Signature
Name
Date
Privacy Statement
The collection of information requested in this form is required or authorised by Schedule 1 of the Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel)
National Law Act 2012 (the Act). It will be used for purposes related to the Act and may be provided to Commonwealth or State / Territory government
agencies for the purposes of marine safety. Failure to provide the information may result in the transaction not being processed. To contact us, or for
more information on how to access or correct your personal information, how to make a privacy complaint, or how your information may be used or
disclosed for purposes beyond those described in this statement, visit www.amsa.gov.au/privacy/
AMSA649 (1/16) Page 3 of 4
OFFICE USE ONLY
E. Delegate of the National Regulator Approval
I hereby approve the equivalent solution as described and recommended in this application, in accordance with provision 1.6
of NSCV Part B and Marine Order 501 (Administration – national law) 2013, subject to the any conditions and limitations listed
below
Conditions and limitations imposed
Effective from:
Effective to:
Delegate of the National Regulator
Signature
Date
Equivalent solution recorded on the vessels certificate of survey
Check
Conditions and limitations imposed on the vessel’s certificate of survey
Check
AMSA649 (1/16) Page 4 of 4