Who's Changing per AB 645?

[PLS7393]

I'm attemting to get a poll attached, but who will not be including their expiration date now that AB 645 has gone into effect, as of 1-1-2010?
This is now an option.

I will be continuing to include my expiration date, as I will not purchase two new stamps to remove the permanent "12/30/___" within the stamp.

What do you plan to do?

[Jim Frame]

I'm still using the stamp I bought in when I got licensed in 1984, and it doesn't have any date information. For me AB645 means no longer having to write in the date.

.

[E_Page]

My stamp has "Exp:__________" right below my name and right above my LS#. So I will continue to show the expiration until I buy a new stamp.

I also use an electronic stamp on many of my drawings. I will discontinnue the use of the expiration date there so that I don't need to worry about whether I updated the block after my renewal. That happened to me last year - turned in a couple of RSs and had forgotten to update the stamp block to reflect the 2010 expiration date.

[CalifCarl]

Caltrans "puffing it's chest out" has mandated it's employees to continue showing their expiration dates.

[Ian Wilson]

I'm no longer showing mine.

Perfect case in point:

I turned in a document last August. My expiration date is September 30 of odd years.

The map is just going to recording now.

Fortunately, a kind soul offered to erase the expiration date on the mylars and record it.

.

[Scott]

the Recorder wants to do. That is part of the reason for the change. I won't be putting expiration anymore, my rubber stamp has nothing, and my ACAD stamp is one xref so I had just changed it there and all my drawings now don't show any expiration.

[Ian Wilson]

Greg:

Roger that. I agree.

Now, try getting a clerk at the Recorder's Office to buy off on that.

Been there. Done that. Got that T-shirt.

.

[Anthony Maffia]

Didn't AB645 also require "all surveyors shall remove their expiration date using an X-Acto knife?"

[btaylor]

Like Evan my stamp already has a "Exp:__________" so nothing changes for me. I guess on the electronic version I can change it. I really dont get the point of this law at all really. Is it because of some confusion by the public?

[mpallamary]

This is posted on the Board site. Good luck.

[Rob_LS]

Carl - I'm biting my tounge, but if you go to the CLSA Conference, we can discuss the issue over a glass ov single malt...

[goodgps]

I really shuddered to write anything about MY expiring on any document.

cudos to AB 645

[land butcher]

This new rule is just plain stupid.
They require you to state that you are a licensed surveyor in the state of Ca on proposals, but not whether your license is expired or not.

DUMB DUMB DUMB.

And Ian's issue is another example of ignorant government employees. Why can't these people be fired.

[Jim Frame]

"They require you to state that you are a licensed surveyor in the state of Ca on proposals, but not whether your license is expired or not."

If your license has expired, you're not licensed.

.

[PLS7393]

After one week, I sure hope more than 27 licensed land surveyors have visited and read the threads. Yes, only 27 have participated in this poll over the first week.

Where are all of the Chapter Presidents, Officers, and Representatives?
If that group would participate, the entire profession would benefit.

[E_Page]

I didn't click an answer on the poll above because my answer is "Yes, I will if I am using my physical stamp (until I replace my existing one)". My answer is also "No, I won't when I am using my electronic stamp (and after I replace my physical stamp, which may be a few years)".

I see no conflict in the logic that land butcher sees. As Jim stated, if your license is expired, you are not licensed, so stating that you are licensed explicitly states that your license is not expired. Not so dumb.

[PLS7393]

For all of you who are in agreement with AB 645, you may want to review Section 411 of the California Code of Regulations, Board Rules, because removing your expiration date will put you in violation of Board Rule 411 of the C.C.R.

Rutt Roooooo Shaggy, someone forgot to revise associated codes, heheheee!!!

[mpallamary]

Keith and I met over this weekend to review his findings and he is absolutely correct. Although our practice is governed and licenses are issued under the Business and Professions Code, it is an entirely different regulatory provision rule under the California Code of Regulations. This is where the board rules are found. They are almost law but not exactly there. I believe it is the State Board's obligation to amend the CCR to comport with the B&P Code. In addition, and as Keith and I observed, the form of the surveyor's stamp is also inconsistent with current law, past law, and the CCR.

The California Code of Regulations (CCR), is the official compilation and publication of the regulations adopted, amended or repealed by state agencies pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Properly adopted regulations that have been filed with the Secretary of State have the force of law. Most state agencies are more strictly governed by the CCR. It is broken down into titles and organized into divisions containing the regulations of state agencies.

The CCR is available from a variety of sources:

Online. OAL contracts with Barclays, a division of Thomson-Reuters to provide a free online version of the Official CCR. If you have difficulties accessing the CCR website, please e-mail OAL at staff@oal.ca.gov or contact Barclays at 1-800-888-3600.

Most County Clerks and County Law Libraries have printed copies of the CCR.
State depository libraries also have a copy of the CCR.

Government Code section 11344 requires OAL to provide for the official compilation, printing and publication of state regulations in the California Code of Regulations. The online CCR contains the full text of the California Code of Regulations. Office of Administrative Law updates the official hard-copy and online versions of the code once weekly to reflect newly adopted, amended or repealed regulations. The OAL cannot verify the authenticity of regulations downloaded from websites other than http://ccr.oal.ca.gov/, or confirm whether those versions reflect the existing content of the code.

If you really want to go down the rabbit's hole and in the event you want a better appreciation as to the relationship between the OAL and the State Board, check out the attached.

[dmi]

Does the enabling legislation provide the Board the authority to interperet and enforce the Board Rules and the provisions of the Business and Professions code? It would seem to me that it is not entirely unreasonable for the Board to read the Board rules and enforce them in view of ALL revelvant and applicable state law. Certainly, this would not be the first time that housing keeping issues have arisen and there must be precedant as to which laws and rule would be operative. I cannot believe that there is an enforcement issue because of complying with one part of the law that is contradictory with another part. Clearly the legislature has spoken on the issue. Had them intended for the rule to stand and require expirations be shown, all they had to do was remain silent. The legislate intent is to repeal the rule.

[steffan]

So, the legislature passed legislation that the Board of Registration helped direct the language for the final version.
Certainly the Board Rules will be amended in the not too distant future.
I'm not too concerned about the perceived "discrepancy". I am in full agreement that the expiration date is of no value on a seal, and has in fact been cause for confusion and a false sense of acceptance.

Two recent experiences I've had are:

1. A certain agency wouldn't let a public works project go to bid because the log of test borings in the plans were sealed at the beginning of design of the project, 5 years prior to the bid date. The engineer who signed that log of borings was no longer present to update his seal. Unwarranted costs were incurred as a result of a substitute engineer to verify the borings data, not to mention time wasted trying to convince the agency management that the borings log was still a valid plan sheet.

2. In review of legal descriptions for a lot line adjustment, I noticed that the surveyor who signed the descriptions had shown that his license was current via the expiration date shown on his seal. However as standard practice I also checked the Board's website and noticed that the surveyor's license had been "surrendered" and was not valid at the time of when the work was performed. Had someone else reviewed this and only looked at the expiration date on the seal, no one would have been the wiser.

Maybe there was some value for the expiration date being shown, but I haven't heard a convincing arguement for it yet. The above experiences have proving to me that its inclusion had a negative effect.

I for one was glad to see the change come about. I believe it was a benefit to the public.

[Ric7308]

The Board Rule will be revised to reflect the changes in the law. Generally speaking, the law represents what must be done. The Board rule represents the procedures used to comply with the law.

In regards to Steffan's post above...

1. If at the time of the test borings report, the engineer held a license in good standing, there was no legal need to "update the seal". That kind of request is an example of someone not understanding a simple concept.

2. Real good example of why checking with the Board is a good idea and should be standard practice. May even alleviate irresponsible requests such as 1. above.

[mpallamary]

I think one of the other question involves whether or not it is permissible to show the expiration date. As I read the law, you are not obligated to show the expiration date. On the other hand, it does not say you can't show it. Here is the operative language:

(d) All final maps, plats, reports, descriptions, or other land surveying documents issued by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer authorized to practice land surveying shall bear the signature and seal or stamp of the licensee, and the date of signing and sealing or stamping. If the land surveying document has multiple pages or sheets, the signature, seal or stamp, and date of signing and sealing or stamping shall appear, at a minimum, on the title sheet, cover sheet or page, or signature sheet, unless otherwise required by law.

With regards to the stamp, the CCR says:
411. Seal and Signature.
(a) The seal required by Section 6764 of the Code shall be not less than one and one-half (1½) inches in diameter and shall contain the following information . . .

(C) Expiration date or space within which the expiration date shall be written.

On a similar vein, is there anything prohibiting one from using a seven-inch seal? It does not appear to be prohibited. It just can't be less than 1.5 inches. It doesn't say anything else.

As an FYI, the board derives its administrative powers from the CCR as do most, if not all state agencies, to wit:

CCR 400.

These regulations are adopted by the Board in order to implement and make specific the Professional Engineers’ Act and the Land Surveyors’ Act, Business and Professions Code Sections 6700, et seq., and 8700, et seq., respectively.

I suspect the Board will review this discrepancy and clear it up. Alternate relief is provided for under the Government Code by requesting what is known as a "declaratory decision." If anyone is overly concerned, you might want to consider this avenue.

11465.20. (a) A person may apply to an agency for a declaratory
decision as to the applicability to specified circumstances of a
statute, regulation, or decision within the primary jurisdiction of
the agency.
(b) The agency in its discretion may issue a declaratory decision
in response to the application. The agency shall not issue a
declaratory decision if any of the following applies:
(1) Issuance of the decision would be contrary to a regulation
adopted under this article.
(2) The decision would substantially prejudice the rights of a
person who would be a necessary party and who does not consent in
writing to the determination of the matter by a declaratory decision
proceeding.
(3) The decision involves a matter that is the subject of pending
administrative or judicial proceedings.
(c) An application for a declaratory decision is not required for
exhaustion of the applicant's administrative remedies for purposes of
judicial review.

11465.50. (a) Within 60 days after receipt of an application for a
declaratory decision, an agency shall do one of the following, in
writing:
(1) Issue a decision declaring the applicability of the statute,
regulation, or decision in question to the specified circumstances.
(2) Set the matter for specified proceedings.
(3) Agree to issue a declaratory decision by a specified time.
(4) Decline to issue a declaratory decision, stating in writing
the reasons for its action. Agency action under this paragraph is not
subject to judicial review.
(b) A copy of the agency's action under subdivision (a) shall be
served promptly on the applicant and any other party.
(c) If an agency has not taken action under subdivision (a) within
60 days after receipt of an application for a declaratory decision,
the agency is considered to have declined to issue a declaratory
decision on the matter.

I hope this helps.

[PLS7393]

A 7 inch diameter seal is acceptable, if it fits within the border, and does not interfere with any other linework or annotation.

[PLS7393]

Hey Rob, you must of bit your tounge real hard, cause I haven't heard from you, lol???

[subman]

No exp. date in the stamp, although it is in the signature block since the CAD person already plotted the certificate that way last year.