CFR Challenge

Here is the challenge:

Find a CFR that specifically states US Flag vessel and licencing for requirements that would pertain to a 3rd A/E would NEED the OICEW except in the case of passenger vessels. I will tell you that there are none at all. The closest it comes is when “it is required on the minimum manning certificate” which of all the ships in this company is only on foreign flagged vessels.

It’s like a farse everyone says that you NEED to have OICEW as a 3rd but there are no regulations in general that say that, at all. for example everyone under the sun quotes:

46 CFR 15.1103

Again except the hell on earth that is passenger vessels only C/E, 1st A/E, RFPEW and Able Seafarer-Engine are listed. Not even a hint to any other engineering officers like in the case of passenger vessels where it says

… engineer officer, or any person holding a license, MMD, or MMC …

I am telling you it is weird, we are all being lied to seriously, there are many CFR’s that explain the requirements for OICEW and yet the only requirement that says you have to hold the enforcement that corresponds to the domestic lic of 3rd assistant or any assistant engineer is passenger vessels. 2nd Engineer Officer (1st Assistant Engineer) requires OICEW in order to get the STCW Endorsement of 2nd Engineer Officer.

At the minimum they could just say these types of vessels require a OICEW period but again that is not the case (for all the haters again except passenger vessels which for me don’t even count).

Seriously I have found out how much people love to argue on here and even more prove someone else wrong so look it up find anything that says this type of vessel or this license requires OICEW in any respects (again except for passenger vessels). I tell you its not there.

"Find a CFR that specifically states US Flag vessel and licencing for requirements that would pertain to a 3rd A/E would NEED the OICEW except in the case of passenger vessels. "

Challenge accepted

46 CFR 15.825

(a) An individual in charge of an engineering watch on a mechanically propelled, seagoing, documented vessel of 200 GRT or more, other than an individual described in §15.820 of this subpart, must hold an appropriately endorsed license or MMC authorizing service as an assistant engineer.

(b) On vessels subject to STCW[seagoing, 500GT/ITC/1000HP], the individual meeting the requirement of this section must also hold an STCW endorsement as officer in charge of an engineering watch with the appropriate propulsion power for the vessel upon which he or she is operating, except as noted in §15.105(g) of this part for vessels on domestic near-coastal voyages.


The previous poster refuted your claim. What say you?!? What is this the ice bucket challenge?

CFRs are hard to learn, confusing, and frustrating, even for us pros.

Just remember the First Law of Holes (much more important than the first law of thermodynamics) “when you find yourself in hole, stop digging.”

Also remember the Second Law of Holes “don’t be one.”


Either your reading comprehension sucks or you’re flat out lying.

46 CFR 15.1103

(a) Onboard a seagoing vessel of 500 GT or more, driven by main propulsion machinery of 1,000 HP/750 kW propulsion power or more or on an international voyage beyond the boundary line as described in part 7 of this chapter, no person may employ or engage any person to serve, and no person may serve, in a position requiring a person to hold an STCW endorsement, including master, chief mate, chief engineer officer, second engineer officer, officer of the navigational or engineering watch, or GMDSS radio operator, unless the person serving holds an appropriate, valid STCW endorsement issued in accordance with part 11 of this subchapter.

BTW, this means all vessels of 200 GRT / 500 GT that sail outside the COLREGS demarcation line and all vessels of any tonnage on an international voyage. Vessels less than 200 GRT / 500 GT are only exempted on US domestic voyages.

Correct. That’s why the STCW has Section A-II/3 for vessels less than 500 GT (200 GRT), and we have regulations for STCW endorsements for less than 500 GT (46 CFR 11.315 to 11.321)

It’s not technically the ‘COLREGs’ demarcation line involved.

The ‘Boundary Lines’ determine whether it is a ‘seagoing’ voyage.

Example (not the only one): there are no COLREGS lines in Alaska, but there are Boundary Lines, like Prince William Sound, or the Southeast.

1 Like

@Brandon_Sharpe do you have enough integrity to come back and admit you were wrong?


Yes, my mistake. I incorrectly started using the term “COLREGS demarcation line” because so many mariners mistakenly think that the “boundary line” is the 3 mile or 12 mile line and the demarcation line is marked on a chart.

Also, I never precisely plotted out the boundary line to realize it wasn’t the same, I saw that they were at least very similar on the few charts I looked at and made an incorrect assumption.