HAZ Certification, Disassociation of Qualifier, Stock Ownership for RMO

One of my greatest pleasures is hearing from readers who often respond to a particular column they’ve read. Here’s some feedback from readers like you…


In a recent column your answer to the question on the HAZ CERTIFICATION is not complete.  For instance, a General Building (B) contractor could bring a qualifier for the “C-36” on board whom also holds/obtains the HAZ MAT for the purpose of installing/removing underground tanks.


I appreciate your clarification.  The question I was asked was, “could someone come on board with the Hazardous Certification only”? They did not want to withdraw as RMO, but also, did not want to take the Haz. exam.  Nonetheless, your point is well taken since the above example would certainly be a workable alternative. Thanks for taking time to help us all better understand State law and it’s ongoing interpretation. As my space is limited, I ‘m often only able to provide answers focused on the exact question the contractor asked.



Q.   I understand that our RMO must own 20% of the company.  We are starting a new business and this person will have less than 5% ownership.  I do not know if it matters, but he has been licensed in the past. I came across one of your columns that contradicts what I was told.  What do you suggest?


A.   What you may have heard through the sometimes unreliable “grapevine’ is considered by many to be the law.   In reality, there is no rule or regulation that requires the Responsible Managing Officer (RMO) to own any stock in the company.  The “20%” rule applies if your RMO is presently a qualifier for another company and wants to qualify BOTH licenses.  Your qualifier appears to have been the RMO for his previous employer but this license expired last year.  There should no problem with him being your RMO regardless of his ownership percentage.



Q: My Responsible Managing Employee, or RME. is not working out. I would like to fire him but cannot because he has said he’ll take the license when he leaves. He dangles this over me and I feel like I’m being held hostage. Do have any suggestions on what I can do to resolve this situation?


A: I am sorry your Qualifier is a. . . problem. However, be assured that when a RME is fired, or leaves your company for any reason, he cannot “take the license”. This license belongs to your corporation, NOT the RME.


You should start by completing a Notice of Disassociation informing the CSLB that your Qualifier is no longer employed by the firm. The corporation will then have 90 days to replace him. During this time, the license remains in good standing as if the RME were still listed. Part of the reason this law exists is to insure that a company cannot be “held hostage” and has adequate time to find a new qualifying individual. If it appears it will take longer than 90 days to replace your Qualifier, I suggest petitioning the CSLB for additional time.


For those in this situation, you may want file an application to replace the Qualifier, since the Board is sponsoring legislation to amend this “90 day extension” rule.

While knowledge is power, knowing where to go for the answers is half the battle. Get expert assistance immediately when you call 866-443-0657, email info@cutredtape.com, or write me at Capitol Services, Inc., 1225 8th St. Ste. 580, Sacramento, CA 95814. Research past columns at www.cutredtape.com.