The Nevada State Contractors Board has an Overview of Contractor License Requirements for Nevada that addresses commonly asked questions about the general requirements for applying for a contractors license and the corresponding answers.
The topics addressed in the overview include:
The Arizona Registrar of Contractors (ROC) warns contractors that even if they have received a notice from the Department of Revenue stating: “If you are a contractor whose only business is to enter into contracts with the owner of real property for the maintenance, repair, replacement or alteration of existing property, beginning January 1, 2015, you do not need to have a transaction privilege tax (TPT) license,” Arizona Revised Statutes § 32-1122(B)(1)(h) requires all contractor license applicants and licensees to provide the ROC with a TPT license number to obtain or renew a contractor license. The ROC confirmed that it has asked the legislature to make these laws more consistent by removing this TPT requirement. However, it cautions that, until this change is made, contractors need to maintain their Arizona TPT license.
Recently, the California Contractors State License Board posted a link to the 2015 edition of the California Contractors License Law & Reference Book. This is an incredibly helpful resource if you are currently a contractor, subcontractor or materials supplier in California or if you may become one in the near future.
In a very long opinion (111 pages), making rulings on motions for summary judgment and the controverted exclusion of expert witness testimony, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington held that the manure management practices of a number of large dairy operations in Washington State generated dangerous amounts of what the District Court determined to be solid waste regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”). In doing so, it concluded that the defendants in a RCRA Citizen Suit have violated RCRA’s open dumping and substantial and imminent endangerment prohibitions. The case is Community Association for the Restoration of the Environment, Inc., et al., v. Cow Palace, LLC, et al., and this decision was issued on January 14, 2015. This ruling makes the point that even innocuous, non-hazardous waste management practices can have adverse consequences if the waste is not properly managed and monitored for compliance.
Continue Reading ›
Last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit decided the case of Hobart Corporation, et al., v. Waste Management of Ohio, Inc., et al., 758 F. 3d 757 (2014), holding that the statute of limitation applicable for the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) cost reimbursement actions is 3 years from the effective date of an administrative settlement with EPA. Yesterday, the Supreme Court denied Hobart’s petition for certiorari.
Yesterday, I posted my client alert Reversing Course, EPA Tightens Its RCRA Hazardous Waste Recycling Rules. This Alert discusses the EPA’s harder line on its interpretation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act rules that govern industrial recycling following years of relative easing into these rules. A recently issued regulation makes recycling almost as heavily regulated as other hazardous waste management activities under the RCRA.
Today, the Nevada State Contractors Board (NSCB) issued an Industry Bulletin confirming that, in recent months, it “has been seeing an increase in the number of out-of-state solar manufacturers entering into contracts with licensed Nevada contractors to perform solar installation services for Nevada residents.” It noted that many of these out-of-state manufacturers do not possess a Nevada contractor’s license and the Nevada contractors performing installation services for such businesses are being disciplined by NSCB for aiding and abetting an unlicensed contractor.
Continue Reading ›
APRIL 2016 UPDATE: In Additional Steps to Ease U.S. Sanctions and Export Controls for Cuba prior to Obama Visit, Pillsbury attorneys Chris Wall, Steve Becker, Nancy Fischer, and Aaron Hutman discuss the additional steps taken by the Administration, in advance of President Obama’s highly publicized trip to Cuba, to ease restrictions on trade and travel with Cuba. These changes to the Cuban Assets Control Regulations and Export Administration Regulations have implications for various industries.
Yesterday, Pillsbury attorneys Chris Wall, Steve Becker, Nancy Fischer, Aaron Hutman and Stephanie Rohrer published their advisory titled Treasury and Commerce Departments Issue Regulations to Implement New Cuba Policy. The Advisory discusses the Obama administration’s implementation of its promised changes to U.S. sanctions and export controls for Cuba, changes effective January 16, 2015. Although most trade and transactions still are prohibited, the revisions to the Cuban Assets Control Regulations (CACR) and Export Administration Regulations (EAR) ease licensing requirements in a number of areas, including exports to and imports from Cuba of certain types of goods and services, telecommunications and Internet services, travel and travel services, financial services, remittances, and treatment of Cuban nationals in third countries.
If you have any questions about the content of this blog, please contact the Pillsbury attorney with whom you regularly work or Chris Wall, Steve Becker, Nancy Fischer, Aaron Hutman or Stephanie Rohrer, the authors of this blog.
Additional Source: A New U.S. Course for Cuba Relations: What Does It Mean for Business?
On January 14, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decided an important Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(3)(“CERCLA”), liability case: Vine Street LLC v. Borg Warner Corporation. The Court of Appeals held that as a result of a 2009 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, Burlington Northern & Sante Fe Railway Co., et al., v. United States, 556 U. S. 599 (2009), Borg Warner was not liable to Vine Street for CERCLA cleanup costs under a theory of “arranger liability” or for cleanup costs under the Texas Solid Waste Disposal Act (“TSWDA”).
Continue Reading ›
On November 5, 2014, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit refused to reconsider its June 2014 decision affirming the District Court’s decision that B.P. Exploration & Production, Incorporated and Anadarko Petroleum Corporation can be held liable for violating the Clean Water Act (CWA) in connection with the massive Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. BP and Anadarko owned and operated the well, but they argued that the floating rig, owned and operated by Transocean (which has already settled its liability) and not the well was the source of the oil spilling into the Gulf of Mexico. In the earlier ruling, the panel held that under the plain terms of the CWA, the defendants were liable because “there was no dispute of material fact that controlled confinement of oil was lost in the well”, and that the well “was a point from which oil or a hazardous substance was discharged”. BP and Anadarko argued that it was the Deepwater Horizon rig and its appurtenances constituted the point at which control of the oil was in fact, lost.
On January 9, 2015, Fifth Circuit issued another ruling, rejecting the petitioners’ request for a rehearing en banc. The vote rejecting the petition was surprisingly close, 7 to 6, with two abstentions. In a vigorous dissent, Judge Clements stated that the denial of the petition “ensures that our precedent concerning liability for oil spills under the Clean Water Act remains unclear”. The panel’s “controlled confinement” test does not follow from the text of the Clean Water Act, and, moreover, Fifth Circuit precedent in ambiguous civil penalty cases should be resolved in favor of the defendant, and this precedent was not followed here.
