REPEAL of 6731.1 etc

[Propst]

I just received my 2012 PLSA/SMA update package from CLSA. (Order yours today, while supplies last!)
I was very surprised to see that B&P secs. 6731.1; 6731.2; 8726.1 and 8761.1 are now repealed. How did I miss that discussion?
Those sections of the PE Act seem to go back to the original deal when they gave up boundary surveying circa 1982.
I have a question for those of you who are also PEs, or who are in close association with PEs: was this a matter of discussion amongst Engineers? The changes seem to have a positively negative affect on RCE authority to do “Survey” work of just about any kind.
Or am I missing something?
This was “maintenance” legislation, AB 1023.
Here they are (or were) as noted in the AB:

SEC. 10. Section 6731.1 of the Business and Professions Code, as
added by Chapter 625 of the Statutes of 1983, is repealed.
6731.1. Civil engineering also includes the practice or offer to
practice, either in a public or private capacity, of all of the
following:
(a) Locates, relocates, establishes, reestablishes, or retraces
the alignment or elevation for any of the fixed works embraced within
the practice of civil engineering, as described in Section 6731.
(b) Determines the configuration or contour of the earth's surface
or the position of fixed objects thereon or related thereto, by
measuring lines and angles, and applying the principles of
trigonometry or photogrammetry.
SEC. 11. Section 6731.2 of the Business and Professions Code, as
added by Chapter 625 of the Statutes of 1983, is repealed.
6731.2. Any registered civil engineer may offer to practice,
procure, or offer to procure, land surveying work incidental to his
or her civil engineering practice, even though he or she is not
authorized to perform that work, provided all the land surveying work
is performed by, or under the direction of, a licensed land surveyor
or registered civil engineer authorized to practice land surveying.
Further, any registered civil engineer may manage or conduct as
manager, proprietor, or agent, a civil engineering practice which
offers to practice, procure, or offers to procure, such incidental
land surveying work.
. . . .
SEC. 18. Section 8726.1 of the Business and Professions Code, as
added by Chapter 625 of the Statutes of 1983, is repealed.
8726.1. Any licensed land surveyor may offer to practice,
procure, or offer to procure civil engineering work incidental to his
or her land surveying practice, even though he or she is not
authorized to perform that work, provided all the civil engineering
work is performed by or under the direction of a registered civil
engineer. Further, any licensed land surveyor may manage or conduct
as manager, proprietor, or agent, a land surveying practice which
offers to practice, procure, or offers to procure, such incidental
civil engineering work.
SEC. 19. Section 8761.1 of the Business and Professions Code, as
added by Chapter 625 of the Statutes of 1983, is repealed.
8761.1. The authority of a licensed land surveyor or registered
civil engineer to prepare, sign, issue, stamp, or seal any map, plat,
report, description, or other document shall be consistent with that
person's authority to practice land surveying.

Happy New Year!
Tom Propst

[Propst]

My copy of the 2011 PE act (from CLSA) has only ONE reference to those particular sections.
The PE Act posted on the Boards website:
http://www.pels.ca.gov/licensees/pe_act.pdf (page 8) has only one reference as well.
The Legislature’s “leginfoâ€￾ site:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displ ... =6730-6749
likewise has only one reference.

Whereas my 2012 PE Act (from CLSA) has removed that section and noted â€￾[Repealed, Chapter 296, Statutes of 2011]â€￾.
The “Leagle.comâ€￾ website shows this section as “Repealedâ€￾: http://www.leagle.com/statutes.aspx?xml ... e=Statutes
LexisNexis notes: “6731.1. [Section repealed 2012.]â€￾
I think the above authorities noting that the sections have been repealed provide adequate grounds for confusion.
While the Bill clearly states “This bill would make nonsubstantive changes in various provisions of lawâ€￾, and it seems to me that these are indeed “substantiveâ€￾ changes, nevertheless the bill unequivocally repeals those sections.

Perhaps a representative of the Board could clarify the true impact of AB 1023 on our practice.

[Ric7308]

Tom, Woodcutter is correct that this legislative action was maintenance based intended to only eliminate the duplicate sections. Leginfo stills reports those sections has being in the law.

Ric

[Propst]

I was looking forward to a little more work being sent our way by those changes, but c'est la vie.

Who wants to tell LexisNexis they made a boo-boo?

CLSA should also be informed so they can correct future versions of 2012 law updates.

[Steve Martin]

I beleive the Leg committee had a hand in this clean up language, although I do not have the report in front of me.

Mike Butcher or Ian Wilson would be the ones to ask