Statute Details
- Title: Fire Safety (Marine Fire-fighting Fees) Regulations 2013
- Act Code: FSA1993-S543-2013
- Type: Subsidiary Legislation (SL)
- Authorising Act: Fire Safety Act (Cap. 109A), section 61
- Citation: Fire Safety (Marine Fire-fighting Fees) Regulations 2013 (SL 543/2013)
- Commencement: 1 September 2013
- Current version: Current version as at 27 March 2026 (per provided extract)
- Key Provisions:
- Section 1: Citation and commencement
- Section 2: Definitions (including “Basic Task Force” and “vessel at risk”)
- Section 3: Charging and apportionment of marine fire-fighting fees; rates in Second Schedule; scope includes inland waters/sea and cancelled requests
- Section 4: Waiver/remission discretion
- Section 5: Fees paid into the Consolidated Fund
- First Schedule: Persons who may be required to pay fees
- Second Schedule: Fee rates
- Noted Amendments (from timeline in extract):
- S 778/2020 (effective 14/09/2020)
- S 491/2023 (effective 31/12/2021)
What Is This Legislation About?
The Fire Safety (Marine Fire-fighting Fees) Regulations 2013 (“Marine Fire-fighting Fees Regulations”) establish a statutory framework for charging fees for marine fire-fighting and related emergency response services provided by the Singapore Civil Defence Force (“SCDF”). In plain terms, when SCDF attends a fire on inland waters or the sea, or responds to a request for such services, the Commissioner may charge certain parties for the cost of the response.
The Regulations are designed to allocate the financial burden of marine emergency response to those who are connected to the incident or who benefit from the response, subject to discretion and procedural flexibility. They also clarify that the “sea” is not limited to Singapore’s territorial waters, which is significant for incidents occurring in broader maritime contexts.
Although the Regulations focus on fees, they operate within the broader Fire Safety regime under the Fire Safety Act (Cap. 109A). The authorising power in section 61 of the Fire Safety Act enables the Minister to make regulations governing the charging of fees for SCDF services. The Marine Fire-fighting Fees Regulations therefore sit alongside other fee-related instruments and operational rules governing SCDF’s response to fires and protection of life and property.
What Are the Key Provisions?
1. Definitions that shape how fees are triggered and calculated (Section 2). The Regulations define key terms used in the fee framework. Notably, “Basic Task Force” is defined as the basic manpower resources deployed for land-based marine fire-fighting, including specified equipment (such as two fire motorcycles, one pump ladder, light fire attack vehicles, a breathing apparatus tender, a damage control tender, a combined platform ladder, and an inspection vehicle). This definition matters because the fee rates in the Second Schedule are typically structured around task force deployment and response intensity.
Another important definition is “vessel at risk”, meaning a vessel at risk of loss or damage from any fire in respect of which SCDF services have been rendered. This concept is relevant to determining which vessels are considered “at risk” during the incident and therefore may affect the scope of charges (for example, where multiple vessels are involved or where the response is directed at preventing escalation).
2. Discretionary charging of fees for marine fire-fighting and protective services (Section 3). Section 3 is the core charging provision. Under Section 3(1), the Commissioner may, at his discretion, charge any of the persons specified in the First Schedule fees for SCDF services rendered in extinguishing fires or protecting life and property in the event of any fire on inland waters or the sea. The provision also covers responding to a request for such services, including where the request is subsequently cancelled.
This “request subsequently cancelled” element is particularly important for practitioners. It means that the fee liability may arise even if the incident does not proceed as expected, provided SCDF responded to the request and incurred operational costs. From a legal risk perspective, parties who request SCDF assistance (or who are responsible for making such requests) should assume that cancellation does not automatically eliminate fee exposure.
3. Apportionment where multiple payers may be involved (Section 3(2)). Where more than one person may be required to pay fees under Section 3(1), the Commissioner may, at his discretion, apportion the fees amongst all or any of those persons. This is a flexible mechanism that allows SCDF to allocate costs among relevant stakeholders rather than requiring a single payer.
In practice, this raises issues of contractual and liability allocation. For example, if a shipowner, charterer, port operator, insurer, or agent falls within the First Schedule categories, the Commissioner may apportion fees among them. Parties should therefore consider how their commercial arrangements (e.g., charterparty clauses, port service agreements, indemnities, and insurance terms) address SCDF fee liabilities and cost recovery.
4. Fee rates and geographic scope (Section 3(3) and (4)). Section 3(3) provides that fees are charged at the rates specified in the Second Schedule. The Second Schedule is therefore central to quantifying liability. Practitioners should obtain and review the Second Schedule rates applicable at the relevant time (especially given amendments in 2020 and 2023).
Section 3(4) clarifies that the reference to “the sea” is not restricted to Singapore’s territorial waters. This expands the potential reach of the Regulations to incidents occurring beyond territorial waters, which may be relevant for regional maritime incidents, cross-border operations, and situations where SCDF is called upon to respond to fires in a wider maritime area.
5. Waiver or remission discretion (Section 4). Section 4 provides that the Commissioner may, at his discretion, remit or waive the whole or any part of the fees paid or payable under the Regulations. This is a significant safety valve. While the Regulations establish fee charging power, they also recognise that fairness and operational context may justify partial or full remission.
For counsel, this discretion is often where negotiations and administrative remedies occur. If a party faces a fee assessment, it may be appropriate to consider whether circumstances support remission (for example, where the request was made in good faith, where there were mitigating factors, or where the incident was not attributable to the payer’s conduct). However, because the discretion is broad, the evidential basis and timing of any remission request should be carefully managed.
6. Consolidated Fund (Section 5). Section 5 requires that all fees collected under the Regulations be paid into the Consolidated Fund. This confirms that the fees are not retained by SCDF as revenue; rather, they are treated as government receipts. This matters for understanding the administrative and financial handling of fee collections, and it may influence how parties frame disputes (e.g., focusing on statutory compliance rather than any “user fee” retention model).
How Is This Legislation Structured?
The Regulations are structured as a short, targeted instrument with five main sections and two schedules.
Sections 1–5 cover: (i) citation and commencement (Section 1); (ii) definitions (Section 2); (iii) the discretionary charging mechanism, apportionment, rate reference, and geographic scope (Section 3); (iv) waiver/remission discretion (Section 4); and (v) payment of collected fees into the Consolidated Fund (Section 5).
First Schedule identifies the categories of persons who may be required to pay fees. Although the extract does not reproduce the First Schedule text, it is essential for determining who can be pursued for payment.
Second Schedule sets out the fee rates. Because Section 3(3) ties charging to the Second Schedule, the Second Schedule effectively determines the quantum of liability.
Who Does This Legislation Apply To?
The Regulations apply to “any of the persons specified in the First Schedule” when SCDF services are rendered for a fire on inland waters or the sea, or when SCDF responds to a request for such services (including cancelled requests). The precise categories depend on the First Schedule, which typically would include parties connected to the vessel or incident—such as owners, operators, agents, or other stakeholders—though the exact list must be confirmed by consulting the First Schedule text.
In addition, the Regulations apply regardless of whether the incident occurs within territorial waters, because “sea” is expressly not restricted to Singapore’s territorial waters. Therefore, the potential class of payers may be engaged in incidents occurring in a broader maritime area, provided SCDF services are rendered in connection with the fire response.
Why Is This Legislation Important?
For maritime practitioners, the Marine Fire-fighting Fees Regulations are important because they create a statutory pathway for SCDF cost recovery in marine fire incidents. Unlike purely contractual cost allocation, the Regulations provide a legal basis for charging fees even where the underlying incident is complex (e.g., multi-vessel incidents, port operations, or incidents involving multiple stakeholders).
The discretionary nature of charging and apportionment means that fee exposure is not purely mechanical. The Commissioner may charge “at his discretion” and may apportion fees among multiple potential payers. This introduces a degree of administrative judgment, which can be relevant in disputes about who should be charged and how much. Practitioners should therefore focus on incident documentation, SCDF response records, and the factual basis for identifying vessels “at risk” and the deployment of a “Basic Task Force” or other resources.
Finally, the waiver/remission provision (Section 4) provides a practical route for mitigation. In real-world incidents, fee assessments can become contentious, particularly where multiple parties are involved or where the request was cancelled. Counsel should consider early engagement with the relevant authorities to seek remission where appropriate, while also preparing for potential administrative or legal challenges regarding the applicability of the First Schedule categories and the correct application of Second Schedule rates.
Related Legislation
- Fire Safety Act (Cap. 109A) — in particular, section 61 (authorising the making of these Regulations)
- Fire Safety (Marine Fire-fighting Fees) Regulations 2013 — amendments noted in the timeline (S 778/2020; S 491/2023)
- Other SCDF fee regulations under the Fire Safety Act (where applicable, depending on the incident type and response category)
Source Documents
This article provides an overview of the Fire Safety (Marine Fire-fighting Fees) Regulations 2013 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the official text for authoritative provisions.