Consultation outcome

Consultation Report: The Merchant Shipping (EPIRB and PLB Registration and Radiocommunications) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Updated 3 March 2026

Section 1: Introduction

This consultation sought views on a new Statutory Instrument (SI), The Merchant Shipping (EPIRB and PLB Registration and Radiocommunications) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 (“the new regulations”) which will amend EPIRB registration requirements to reflect changes in technology and introduce new PLB registration requirements for UK flagged ships and hovercraft, and watercraft, to enable His Majesty’s Coastguard (HMCG) to take Search and Rescue (SAR) action more efficiently.

These requirements derive from the UK’s obligations in international law and form an important part of the SAR framework to ensure that details held on the United Kingdom’s online registration platform are as accurate as possible for SAR purposes, meeting their underlying critical aim, the prevention of loss of life at sea. 

This supports the Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s strategic aims to protect lives at sea and rescue persons in distress by ensuring comprehensive EPIRB and PLB registration enabling a more effective SAR response.

The new regulations will revoke and replace the Merchant Shipping (EPIRB Registration) Regulations 2000 and also make various amendments to four other SIs.  

Section 2: Consultation

This is the second consultation for the introduction of these Regulations.  An initial consultation was held from 5 December 2024 to 21 February 2025, and a total of 7 (seven) responses were received.  Given the low response rate, the Department considered that the intended audience may not have had a reasonable opportunity to respond. 

To summarise the initial consultation responses, most respondents felt that the proposed offences and penalties lacked proportionality and believed that non-registration of a PLB would result in either an immediate vessel detention or prison sentence.  This is not the case, but it was therefore evident that guidance needed to provide greater detail and clarity.

There was also concern relating to the practicalities of registering PLBs when these are utilised on multiple ships, and stakeholders were keen that PLBs should be registered to an individual rather than a ship as changing registration details every time a person changed ships was impractical.

The Department therefore agreed to review the statutory package, taking into account stakeholder feedback before launching another, shorter public consultation.

Therefore, a second consultation was published on www.gov.uk and notifications of the consultation were sent directly to 218 stakeholders and organisations (approximately 50 stakeholders were directly notified in the initial consultation), including shipping and marine industry companies, fishing and leisure craft organisations, equipment manufacturers, government departments and agencies, and other interested parties. A press notice was also issued, and the consultation was publicised on numerous social media platforms.

The second consultation consisted of the proposed draft SI, a De Minimis Options Assessment (DMOA), a draft Marine Guidance Note (MGN) and a draft Merchant Shipping Notice (MSN).  The second consultation was carried out for 4 weeks from 13 October 2025 until 7 November 2025.

Consultees were invited to comment on any aspect of the consultation; but more specifically to respond to the consultation questions as outlined in Section 4 of this report.

A total of nineteen (19) responses were received.  Of these, eleven (11) respondents completed the consultation form, and answered all the questions with one exception.  Direct emails were also received from a further eight (8) individuals who did not answer the questions posed on the consultation form, so these have not been included in the figures provided for each question.  However, this additional feedback has been fully considered and is referred to throughout this report.  A list of respondents can be found in section 5 below. 

The MCA would like to thank individuals and organisations who submitted responses to this consultation.

Section 3: Key findings

The responses were largely supportive of the introduction of mandatory registration of PLBs and there was more feedback on the positive nature of the new regulations being a safety focused action. The key points raised are detailed below:

Registration of beacons:

All respondents who completed the consultation questionnaire agreed that the responsibility for the registration of PLBs should lie with the PLB owner and that the revised guidance provided sufficient information and guidance to meet stakeholder needs.  The policy has been revised to reflect this.

There was still concern from some respondents that the requirements are not clear and there may be challenges in ensuring compliance due to lack of access to the internet, so provision is made for offline customers.

Offences and penalties:

Some concern (but less than in response to the initial consultation) remains that the penalties are disproportionate. This stems from a continued belief that non-registration of a PLB would result in either an immediate ship detention or prosecution resulting in a prison sentence. This is still not the case. Guidance has been revised to provide further explanation that the MCA, like any UK regulator in relation to each area of activity it oversees, must ensure that the maritime regulatory framework is capable of being enforced effectively.  This derives from the UK’s obligations under international law, as well as domestic legal responsibilities.

Enforcement comprises a range of responses, which includes prosecution or detention of a ship for breach of a prescribed requirement. However, the MCA must act reasonably, fairly and proportionately in exercising its enforcement functions.  Therefore, prosecution would only be pursued in the more serious cases of breaches, and the maximum prescribed penalties would only be available for imposition by the courts in the most exceptional and/or egregious cases, e.g. where a failure or repeated failure to register a beacon is proven to have caused loss of life.

Section 4: Consultation questions and answers

The MCA would like to thank the respondents for taking the time to read and respond to the consultation.

The consultation has provided useful feedback from a variety of sectors.  The government has utilised this feedback to review and revise the new regulations and the associated guidance documents.

The Response form was Section 5 of the Consultation Document.  This section contains a full list of consultation questions, a summary of responses to those questions and the MCA’s response.

Q1       We are proposing that the responsibility for registering a PLB lies with the PLB owner.  Do you agree that the PLB owner should have primary responsibility to register the PLB?

Summary of consultee views:

There were 11 responses to this question and all 11 agreed that the PLB owner should have primary responsibility to register the PLB.  One respondent requested clarification of the definition of a PLB owner, and this has been added to the guidance.

MCA response:

This consultation question was posed in the second consultation in direct response to feedback received in the first consultation. 

The MCA welcomes the feedback and has taken this into account in the revision of the policy.  It is hoped that this revision will make PLB registration less onerous to users. 

Q2       Do you consider the division of responsibility for PLB registration between the PLB owner, ship owner/master, and PLB holder to be clear and practical in operational contexts? 

Summary of consultee views:

11 responses were received to this question, 7 agreed that the division of responsibility was clear, 3 said no, and one respondent replied yes and no.  

MCA response:

Further to the response to question 1, where all respondents were in agreement that the responsibility for registration of PLBs should sit with the PLB owner and not with the ship owner/master, registration has now been simplified and now sits with the PLB owner only. 

One of the responses queried how long it would take for a change of registration details to be made.  It has been confirmed that the beacon registry would be updated straight away – assuming the registration had been completed on-line.

Q.3      Do you think that the proposed new regulations and accompanying Merchant Shipping Notice will implement the requirements of both EPIRB and PLB registration clearly and in a way which is effective?

Summary of consultee views:

5 respondents said yes, 5 said no and 1 respondent said yes and no.  One respondent felt the new regulations would be very effective for merchant shipping, but the leisure sector would take much more education to comply.  

Concern was raised by one respondent that the new regulations may dissuade owners in providing PLBs on vessels due to excessive penalties. 

There was also support for issuing digital registration certificates.

MCA response:

The MCA is implementing multiple strategies to provide education regarding these new requirements across diverse platforms, in order to raise awareness within both the professional and leisure sectors.

The MCA notes that concerns relating to penalties remain and these have been further explained in the MGN – this is explained in more detail in question 4.

The process of registration is not required to be detailed in the new regulations, as these may change periodically, as new processes and/or technology is introduced.  Confirmation of registration is sent by email with the registration certificate being sent in the post.  Numerous concerns have been raised that not all customers have access to the internet/email, so provision is made for offline customers.

Q4       Do you foresee any challenges in ensuring compliance with the requirement to notify the Secretary of State of changes to registered particulars? E.g. access to internet; technological restrictions; lack of information; lack of beacon owner details.

Summary of consultee views:

6 respondents said no, 5 said yes. 

Opposing views were received, with one respondent seeing the lack of responsible behaviour by individuals as a challenge, supporting mandatory registration stating that they hoped these regulations will help improve the situation. 

Conversely, another respondent felt that mandatory registration of PLBs would have a detrimental effect on the use of PLBs in industry.

One respondent raised concern that a vessel’s master will not have access to email addresses for registration purposes and supported the digital issue of registration certificates.  Another concern was that some users would have issues in accessing the internet and technological restrictions that would impact the registration process. 

MCA response:

The process of registering a beacon is very simple and quick and supports decision making when a beacon is activated and supports rescue efforts.  The process of registration also enables HMCG to quickly identify false alerts which prevents volunteer lifeboat crews and helicopters being sent out in hazardous conditions, risking their lives when someone is not in danger. 

The MCA is aware that many people do not have access to the internet, so the Beacon Registry is accessible by other means such as telephone and letter, which is detailed in the guidance.

Q5       Does the updated MGN 665 (M+F) (Amendment 1) meet your needs and provide enough information?

Summary of consultee views:

9 respondents stated yes, 1 stated no and one did not give an answer.

The respondent who stated no did not give a reason.

MCA response:

None required as no supporting comments provided with the negative answer.

Q6 a)   Do you feel that the proposed penalties will act as an effective deterrent for non-compliance with the requirements of the proposed new regulations?

Summary of consultee views:

7 respondents said yes and 4 said no. Two respondents remained concerned that the penalties seemed excessive while another felt that penalties alone would not be sufficient to ensure compliance and a PR campaign to inform PLB holders of the requirements was necessary.

Positive feedback received was that this is a personal safety focused action and so registration and compliance were in the interest of the user.

MCA response:

Further clarity and detail have been added to the guidance to explain that the MCA, like any UK regulatory in relation to each area of activity it oversees, must ensure that the maritime regulatory framework is capable of being enforced effectively.  This derives from the UK’s obligations under international law, as well as domestic legal responsibilities.

Enforcement comprises a range of responses, which includes prosecution or detention of a ship for breach of a prescribed requirement. However, the MCA must act reasonably, fairly and proportionately in exercising its enforcement functions.  Therefore, guidance has been revised to explain that prosecution would only be pursued in the more egregious cases of breaches, and the maximum prescribed penalties would only be available to be imposed by the courts in the most exceptional/or egregious cases, for example, where a failure to register a beacon is proven to have caused loss of life.

However, we understand these concerns and as stated above, the MCA will be implementing multiple strategies to provide education regarding these new requirements across diverse platforms, in order to raise awareness and allay any remaining concerns.

Q6 b) Do you consider that you have received sufficient notification of the requirements with which you will have to comply?

Summary of consultee views:

8 respondents said yes, 3 said no.

One respondent stated no, as they wanted a service standard for registration certificates.  Another respondent said that they knew the regulations but did not think that owners/operators would be fully aware, and another said they had only received notification via the RYA. 

MCA response:

Service standards are not part of the new regulations.  However, when registration is completed on-line, then confirmation of registration is sent immediately to the email address associated with the registry account.

The MCA carried out stakeholder engagement with a number of key stakeholders, including the RYA, so if members heard about the new regulations through these avenues, then this would be notification.

Q7       Do you have any additional comments to add to the response?

Summary of consultee views:

Additional feedback included support for the introduction of the regulations, and the following additional points were made:

• PLB/EPIRB/VHF should be mandated on any watercraft
• Watercraft should be more explicitly defined
• Route to ensuring compliance should be through education, not penalties
• Query relating to the ability to capture multi-craft usage as part of registration

There was also positive feedback received that the MCA had taken into consideration responses from the first consultation exercise, and revised regulations to address previous concerns.

MCA response:

When developing regulations, the MCA must act within the scope of the legal powers contained in the Merchant Shipping Act 1995.  Therefore, the carriage of EPIRBs, PLBs or VHF radios are not the subject of this SI.  There are separate regulations in place that prescribe carriage requirements for commercial vessels.

The MCA agrees that education is a key part of the introduction of these regulations and will be implementing multiple strategies to provide education across diverse platforms, in order to raise awareness, resolve queries and allay any remaining concerns.

Section 5: Who Responded

Responses were received from the following:

• British Sub Aqua Club (BSAC)
• Cruising Association
• Det Norske Veritas
• Harwich Haven Authority
• National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations (NFFO)
• Royal Yachting Association
• Scottish Fishermen’s Federation (SFF)
• Twelve individual respondents

Section 6: Next Steps

The MCA will proceed to make and lay the Merchant Shipping (EPIRB and PLB Registration and Radiocommunications) Regulations 2026, which will revoke and replace the Merchant Shipping (EPIRB Registration) Regulations 2000.