Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog

The Truck and Bus Regulation was adopted in 2008 to significantly reduce toxic particulate matter and oxides of nitrogen emissions from existing diesel vehicles operating in California. It targeted approximately 1 million diesel trucks. The existing regulation requires nearly all heavier trucks to have filters to reduce PM emissions beginning January 1, 2012, and replacement of older trucks starting January 1, 2015. The regulation requires most heavy trucks in California to install soot filters or upgrade to newer models with filters by January 1, 2014, and that nearly all trucks have them installed by January 1, 2016. By January 1, 2023, all trucks and buses operating in most urban areas and in regions not meeting federal clean air standards will need 2010 or newer model year engines.

On Friday, April 25, 2014, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) issued a press release announcing that “today it adopted amendments to its Truck and Bus Regulation that will provide new flexible compliance options to owners of aging diesel fleets and recognize fleet owners that have made investments to comply, while also protecting air quality.” ARB confirmed that this will “provide additional regulatory flexibility to small fleets, lower use vehicles, and fleets in rural areas that have made substantial progress towards cleaner air.” It also confirmed that “[f]leets that have invested in cleaner, compliant equipment and trucks will be able to use credits longer and any vehicles retrofit by 2014 do not have to be replaced until 2023.”

The adopted amendments to the Truck and Bus Regulation include:

• A longer phase-in period for diesel PM requirements for trucks that operate exclusively in certain rural areas with cleaner air
• Additional time and incentive funding opportunities for small fleets
• A new compliance option for owners who cannot currently afford compliance
• Expansion of the low-use exemption and the construction truck extension
• Recognition of fleet owners who have already complied by providing additional “useable life” for retrofit trucks and reducing near-term compliance requirements

Additional Resource: Los Angeles Times, Air quality regulators give truckers more time to meet smog standards (Apr. 25, 2014)

The Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board’s (OSHA) recently amended Operating Rules for Compaction Equipment and amended hand protection regulations are effective July 1, 2014. Contractors who use compaction equipment should consider reviewing their written operating procedures to confirm compliance with the amended regulations in anticipation of July 1.

Title 8, Div. 1, Ch. 4, § 4355 is amended to read (newly added text is underlined):

§ 4355. Operating Rules for Compaction Equipment
(a) General.
(1) The employer shall develop a written set of operating procedures. These operating procedures shall include at least the applicable operating rules contained in this section.
…
(c) Mobile Collection/Compaction Equipment.
(1) The operator shall be instructed to ascertain that all individuals are clear of the point of operation or any pinch points before actuating the controls, and shall be ready to stop the packing cycle or loading operation.
(2) No employee shall be positioned in the path of the moving vehicle, standing on front or rear steps or on side steps, or in any other location where the employee cannot be seen by the vehicle operator and is subject to being struck by the vehicle or being thrown off the vehicle.
(3) No employee shall be permitted to ride on a loading sills, collection bins, containers, or attachments to the equipment located in front of the vehicle operator…”

OSHA’s amended hand protection regulations are also effective July 1, 2014. OSHA repealed Title 8, Div. 1, Ch. 4, § 1520, but it amended Title 8, Div. 1, Ch. 4, § 3384. Section 3384 is amended to read (stricken text is not reflected but newly added text is underlined):

§3384. Hand Protection.
(a) Employers shall select, provide and require employees to use appropriate hand protection when employee’s hands are exposed to hazards such as those from skin absorption of harmful substances, cuts or lacerations, abrasions, punctures, chemical burns, thermal burns, radioactive materials, and harmful temperature extremes.

EXCEPTION: Hand protection for cuts, lacerations, and abrasions shall not be required when the employer’s personal protective equipment hazard assessment, required by Section 3380(f) of this Article, determines that the risk of such injury to the employee’s hands is infrequent and superficial.

(b) Hand protection, such as gloves, shall not be worn where there is a danger of the hand protection becoming entangled in moving machinery or materials.
EXCEPTION: Machinery or equipment provided with a momentary contact device as defined in Section 3941.

NOTE: 1. As used in subsection (b) the term entangled refers to hand protection (gloves) being caught and pulled into the danger zone of machinery/equipment. Use of hand protection around smooth surfaced rotating equipment does not constitute an entanglement hazard if it is unlikely that the hand protection will be drawn into the danger zone.

NOTE: 2. Wrist watches, rings, or other jewelry should not be worn while working with or around machinery with moving parts in which such objects may be caught, or around electrically energized equipment.”

Additional Resource: California Department of Industrial Relations

On April 24, at the Contractors State License Board’s (CSLB) quarterly board meeting, Registrar of Contractors Steve Sands announced his plan to retire at the end of the year. Mr. Sands has been “at the helm” of the CSLB since January 1, 2001. The Registrar of Contractors oversees a $60 million budget and more than 400 employees at the CSLB headquarters in Sacramento and 10 other offices around California.

“Under Mr. Sands’ leadership, CSLB has been recognized as a leader in proactive enforcement programs and partnerships with state and local agencies that help curb the underground economy. CSLB’s Licensing, Examination, Enforcement, and Public Affairs programs have been used as models for the National Association of State Contractors Licensing Agencies (NASCLA) and other agencies within the Department of Consumer Affairs,” reports the CSLB in its April 25, 2014 Industry Bulletin 14-05. Thank you for your service and best wishes!

The CSLB confirmed that the process of selecting the next Registrar of Contractors will begin immediately.

Additional Resources: Contractors State License Board

Photo: anda (: taken May 3, 2005 – Creative Commons

The minimum wage has been in the news recently, with new developments at both the state and federal levels.

On the federal side, President Obama signed an executive order in February 2014 raising the minimum wage for federal contractors to $10.10 per hour effective January 1, 2015. President Obama has also called for passage of the Harkin-Miller bill, which would raise the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 per hour over three years in 95-cent increments and then tie the rate to inflation. And in March 2014, President Obama directed the Department of Labor to revise the federal regulations governing overtime pay for hours worked in excess of 40 per week. It is not yet clear what the specific changes to the overtime regulations will be, but likely areas of focus are: (1) raising the minimum salary an employee must earn in order to be classified as exempt from overtime pay requirements; (2) incorporating a quantitative component that would require a manager to spend a specified percentage of time performing “executive” level work in order to qualify for an exemption; and (3) clarifying who qualifies for the “computer professional” exemption.

On the state side, California has already enacted an increase in the state-wide minimum wage. Effective July 1, 2014, California’s minimum wage will increase to $9.00 per hour. On January 1, 2016, California’s minimum wage will rise again, to $10.00 per hour. Employers should keep in mind that these increases in the minimum wage affect exempt employees, as well: under California’s Labor Code, exempt employees must receive at least two times the minimum wage. This means that as the minimum wage goes up, so too does the minimum salary that must be paid to all exempt employees. Currently, that annual minimum salary is $33,280, but with the increase in the minimum wage, the annual minimum salary for an exempt employee will rise to $37,440. Of course, the so-called “salary test” is only one component of determining whether a given employee is exempt from overtime requirements; the job description must also satisfy the “duties” test that speaks to the employee’s responsibilities.

If you have any questions about the content of this blog, please contact the Pillsbury attorney with whom you regularly work or Ellen Cohen, the author of this blog.

Additional Source: President Takes Action Meant to Increase Pay Equity for Employees of Federal Contractors; New York Employers Face Far-Reaching Employment Law Changes; 2013 State Legislation on Minimum Wage; Sacramento Business Journal, Seattle outstrips California with a $15 minimum wage proposal (May 1, 2014)

ENR’s “Top Lists” provide a broad spectrum ranking of those in the construction industry, including general contracting, specialty contracting, engineering, architecture and environmental services, among other specialties. What makes the Top Lists even more interesting is that ENR ranks the firms for the given year and it shows how the firms have moved up or down in the rankings. It also provides data on revenues generated and the percentage increase from the previous year(s). As many of you will likely agree, the Top Lists are always an interesting read. And, ENR isn’t the only one ranking contractors. Numerous publications’ rankings highlight trade specific contractors and others acknowledge local top performers’ efforts. Cheers to all of you!

Top Contractors
2013 ENR Top 400 Contractors, Engineering News-Record 1. Bechtel, San Francisco, Calif.
2. Fluor Corp., Irving, Texas 3. Kiewit Corp., Omaha, Neb.
4. The Turner Corp., New York, N.Y.
5. PCL Construction Enterprises Inc., Denver, Colo.
…..

Top Contractors [2013 Giants 300 Report], Building Design + Construction 1. The Turner Corp., New York, N.Y.
2. Fluor Corp., Irving, Texas
3. Skanska USA, New York 4. PCL Construction Enterprises, Denver, Colo.
5. The Whiting-Turner Contracting Co., Baltimore, Md.
…..

2013 MFE Top 25 General Contractors List, Multifamily Executive 1. Rampart Construction, Grapevine, Texas
2. Summit Contracting Group, Jacksonville, Fl.
3. Clark Builders Group, Arlington, Virg.
4. Weis Builders, Minneapolis, Mn.
5. Carocon Corp., Charlotte, N.C.
…..

2013 ENR Top 100 Design-Build Firms, Engineering News-Record 1. Fluor Corp., Irving, Texas 2. Bechtel, San Francisco, Calif.
3. Jacobs, Pasadena, Calif.
4. Kiewit Corp., Omaha, Neb.
5. CB&I, The Woodlands, Tex.
…..
2013 ENR Top 100 Green Contractors, Engineering News-Record 1. The Turner Corp., New York, N.Y.
2. Clark Group, Bethesda, Md.
3. Hensel Phelps, Greeley, Colo.
4. The Whiting-Turner Contracting Co., Baltimore, Md.
5. DPR Construction, Redwood City, Calif.
…..

Top 500 Remodelers 2013, Qualified Remodeler Magazine 1. Belfor Holdings Inc., Birmingham, Mich.
2. DKI Holdings LLC, Wood Dale, Ill.
3. Window World Inc., North Wilkesboro, N.C.
4. Champion Windows Mfg. & Supply Co. LLC, Cincinnati, Oh.
5. Power Home Remodeling Group, Chester, Pa.
…..

2013 ENR Top International Contractors, Engineering News-Record 1. Grupo ACS, Madrid, Spain 2. HOCHTIEF AG, Essen, Germany 3. Bechtel, San Francisco, Calif.
4. VINCI, Rueil-Malmaison, France 5. Fluor Corp., Irving, Texas …..

2013 ENR Top Global Contractors, Engineering News-Record 1. China Railway Construction Corp. Ltd., Beijing, China 2. China Railway Group Ltd., Beijing, China 3. China State Construction Eng’g Corp., Beijing, China 4. Groups ACS, Madrid, Spain 5. VINCI, Rueil-Malmaison, France …..

2013 ENR Top Chinese Contractors, Engineering News-Record 1. China State Construction Eng’g Corp. Ltd., Beijing, China 2. China Railway Group Ltd., Beijing, China 3. China Communication Construction Group (Ltd.), Beijing, China 4. Shanghai Construction Group Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China 5. GuangSha Construction Group Co., Ltd., Zhejiang, Hangzhou …..

Top Local Contractors:

California:
2013 ENR California Top Contractors, Engineering News-Record 1. McCarthy Building Cos. Inc., Newport Beach
2. Kiewit Corp., Fairfield 3. Clark Construction Group – California LP, Costs Mesa 4. DPR Construction, Redwood City 5. Swinerton Builders, San Francisco …..

Top North Bay Contractors 2013, North Bay Business Journal 1. Guilotti Construction Co., Santa Rosa, Calif.
2. Guilotti Bros., San Rafael, Calif.
3. Rudolph and Sletten, Roseville, Calif.
4. Midstate Construction, Petaluma, Calif.
5. O.C. Jones & Sons, Windsor, Calif.
…..

Top Contractors Honored at 2013 Excellence in Construction Awards, Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc., San Diego Chapter
Top Honors 1. Gould Electric, Poway, Calif.
2. A&D GC, Inc., Santee, Calif.
3. Nova Group, Inc., Napa, Calif.
4. Underground Construction Company, Inc., Benecia, Calif.
…..

Top of the List: General building contractors, Sacramento Business Journal (May 9, 2014)
1. Turner Construction Co., Sacramento, Calif.
2. McCarthy Building Cos. Inc., Roseville, Calif.
3. Swinerton Builders Sacramento, Sacramento, Calif.
4. Roebbelen Contracting Inc., El Dorado Hills, Calif.
5. S.D. Deacon Corp. of California, Citrus Heights, Calif.

Florida:
Top 50 Contractors (Pasco to Collier counties), Florida Business Observer 1. Prince Contracting, LLC, Tampa, Fl.
2. Power Design Inc., St. Petersburg, Fl.
3. J. Kokolakis Contracting Inc., Tarpon Springs, Fl.
4. DeAngelis Diamond Construction, Inc., Naples, Fl.
5. KHS&S Contractors, Tampa, Fl.
…..

Midwest:
2013 ENR Midwest Top Contractors, Engineering News-Record 1. Turner Construction Co., New York
2. Walsh Construction Co., Chicago, Ill.
3. Clayco Inc., Chicago, Ill.
4. Pepper Construction Group*, Chicago, Ill.
5. Walbridge, Detroit, Mi.
…..

New York:
2013 ENR New York Tristate’s Top Contractors, Engineering News-Record 1. Turner Construction Co., New York 2. Skanska USA, New York 3. Structure Tone, New York 4. Lend Lease, New York 5. Tishman Construction, an AECOM Company, New York …..

Southwest:
2013 ENR Southwest Top Contractors, Engineering News-Record 1. Sundt Construction Inc.*, Tempe, Ariz.
2. McCarthy Building Cos. Inc., Phoenix, Ariz.
3. Kitchell Corp., Phoenix, Ariz.
4. Kiewit Corp., Phoenix, Ariz.
5. Chanen Construction Co. Inc., Phoenix, Ariz.
…..

Texas & Louisiana:
2013 ENR Texas & Louisiana Top Contractors, Engineering News-Record 1. Turner Industries Group LLC, Baton Rouge, La.
2. Kiewit Corp, Fort Worth, Texas 3. Austin Industries, Dallas, Texas 4. S&B Engineers and Constructors Ltd. & Affiliates, Houston, Texas 5. Balfour Beatty US, Dallas, Texas …..

Top Specialty Contractors:

2013 ENR Top 600 Specialty Contractors, Engineering News-Record 1. EMCOR Group Inc., Norwalk, Calif.
2. Quanta Services Inc., Houston, Texas 3. MasTec Inc., Coral Gables, Fl.
4. Brand Energy & Infrastructure Services Inc., Kennesaw, Ga.
5. APi Group Inc., New Brighton, Minn.
…..

2013 ENR Midwest Top Specialty Contractors, Engineering News-Record 1. EMCOR Group Inc., Norwalk, Calif.
2. BMWC Constructors Inc., Indianapolis, Ind.
3. The Hill Group, Franklin Park, Ill.
4. Sachs Electric. Co., Fenton, Mo.
5. MasTec Inc., Coral Gables, Fla.
…..

2013 ENR Southeast Top Specialty Contractors, Engineering News-Record 1. MasTec Inc., Coral Gables, Fla.
2. EMCOR Group Inc., Norwalk, Calif.
3. SteelFab Inc., Charlotte, N.C.
4. Quinco Electrical Inc., Winter Park, Fla.
5. Comfort Systems USA Inc., Houston, Texas …..

2013 Top 100 Residential Solar Contractors, Solar Power World 1. OneRoof Energy, San Diego, Calif.
2. Verengo Solar, Torrance, Calif.
3. Vivint Solar, Provo, Ut.
4. American Renewable Energy, Piscataway, N.J.
5. Astrum Solar, Annapolis Junction, Md.
…..

2013 Top 250 Solar Contractors, Solar Power World 1. First Solar, Tempe, Ar.
2. SolarCity, San Mateo, Calif.
3. E Light Wind and Solar, Englewood, Colo.
4. Swinerton Renewable Energy, San Diego, Calif.
5. Quanta Power Generation, Greenwood Village, Colo.
…..

Top of the List: Photovoltaic contractors, Sacramento Business Journal (Apr. 21, 2014)
1. Swinerton Builders Sacramento, Sacramento, Calif.
2. Barnum & Celilo Electric Inc. — Solar Division, Sacramento, Calif.
3. Pacific Power Renewables Inc., Auburn, Calif.
4. Cal Valley Solar, Galt, Calif.
5. Spectrum Energy Development Inc., Elk Grove, Calif.
…..
Top 50 Electrical Contractors 2013, Electrical Construction & Maintenance * Website Registration Required
2013 Top 150 Roofing Contractors, Roofing Contractor Magazine 1. CentiMark Corp., Canonsburg, Pa.
2. Tecta America Corp., Rosemont, Ill.
3. Baker Roofing Company, Raleigh, N.C.
4. Mr. Roof, Ann Arbor, Mich.
5. BEST Contracting Services Inc., Gardena, Calif.
…..

W&C Top 50 Contractors for 2013, Walls & Ceilings Magazine * Website Registration Required
Top 50 Builders, Pool & Spa News 1. Cody Pools, Georgetown, Texas 2. Shasta Industries, Phoenix, Ar.
3. Presidential Pools & Spas, Gilbert (Phoenix), Az.
4. Keith Zars Pools, San Antonio, Texas 5. Claffey Pools, Southlake (Dallas), Texas …..

2013 Best & Worst Contractors, Angie’s List
Photo: Tony Hisgett, Roof tops from the Empire State Building taken Jun. 2, 2010 – Creative Commons

Change is inevitable but does it have to come right in the middle of summer? The Arizona Registrar of Contractors’ (AROC) rule changes become effective in two months. AROC warns that these changes will effect “nearly all applicants and licensees.” The new rules are expected to, among other things, change the classification of nearly 25% of the existing AROC licensees and to increase the bond amounts for all license classifications.

AROC has broken down the changes as follows:

License Classifications

• Changes to the letter designation for specialty contractor classifications: (A) “C” to “R” (see R4-9-103), (B) “L” to “C” (see R4-9-102), (C) “K” to “CR” (see R4-9-104); “C” indicates commercial, “R” indicates residential, and “CR” indicates commercial and residential
• Six digit license numbers will be changed, e.g., license C-123456 will be changed to license number R-123456
• License with dollar maximums have higher dollar limitations: (A) B-2 General Small Commercial Contractor increases from $250,000 to $750,000, (B) C-61 (now CR-61) Limited Remodeling and Repair Contractor increases from $25,000 to $50,000, (C) C-62 Minor Home Improvements increases from $2,500 to $5,000
• Roughly 25% of existing licensees will be impacted. Arizona has 238 license classifications. Arizona is reducing this number by consolidating many commercial and residential licenses into the comparable dual license. For example, the residential sign license (C-38) and the commercial sign license (L-38) will be consolidated with the dual sign license (formerly K-38, now CR-38). License classifications that will be affected by reclassification will be those chosen based on substantial similarities between the work performed on commercial and residential properties, and low counts of licenses in the classifications. Most of these licensees already have taken the same exam for the commercial, residential and dual license classifications. If, however, the reclassification would cause a change in exam, the licensee is “grandfathered in” and will not be required to take a new exam
• License reclassifications will occur automatically. Where the reclassifications cause a change in license fee, the different fee amount is not required until the next license renewal
• License reclassifications will result in some licensees having two of the same license. For example, if a licensee has both an L-1 and a C-1 license, each will be reclassified to a CR-1. In these situations, the licensee would save money in the future by cancelling one of the licenses

Fees For New Licenses

• All new licenses fees will be reduced (see R4-9-130)
• Fee amounts will show the application and license fees separately

Fees For Renewal Licenses

• Renewal fees are located in R4-9-130
• For the nearly 75% of licensees not impacted by the reclassifications, the changes will : (A) decrease fees for specialty commercial ($10), general dual ($410) and specialty dual ($380) classifications; and (B) result in no change of fees for general commercial, general residential and specialty residential classifications

Bond Amounts

• Increases nearly all bond amounts (see R4-9-112)
• Bond amount changes do not become enforceable until the next license renewal after June 30, 2014. For example, a June 2014 license renewal will not need to include an updated bond amount until the next renewal period in June 2016; however, a July 2014 license renewal will need to include an updated bond with the renewal

Applications For New Licenses Submitted On Or After July 1, 2014

• New license applications are to use the new license classifications, fees and bonds
• License applicant must have taken the correct trade exam

Other Key Clarifications

• Rewords license scopes to address common confusion in scopes of work (see R4-9-102, R4-9-103, R4-9-104)
• Confirms Registrar may waive a trade exam where the qualifying party has been the qualifying party within the preceding 5 years for a license in good standing in the same classification in Arizona, or a classification the Registrar deems comparable in another state (see R4-9-106)
• Updates the rule on “workmanship standards” to use gender-neutral language and clarify the meaning of “professional industry standards” (see R4-9-108)
• Adds a rule describing communication with the AROC that is unauthorized to avoid the possibility of prejudice in proceedings before the AROC (see R4-9-121)

Additional Source: Arizona Registrar of Contractors; Oregon’s Revised Structural Code, Mechanical Code and Energy Code is Effective July 1, 2014

Additional Source: NASCLA Sate Member News, Significant Changes to License Classifications and Examination Requirements in Arizona
Photo: Kevin Dooley, Arizona beauty taken Jul. 19, 2008 – Creative Commons

Last week, a San Jose jury awarded the residents of California Hawaiian Mobile Estates $111 million for an alleged litany of troubles at the mobile home park. This is the largest award of its kind, with previous awards in other California cases up to around $12 million. If the verdicts stand, 61 tenants out of 1,500 people who live in the park could receive an average of $100,000 each in compensatory damages plus punitive damages of $1.57 million each. Of course, the plaintiffs’ attorneys would also walk away with 40% of the award. In an April 16, 2014 press release, Marguerite Nader, Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc.’s (ELS) Chief Executive Officer, confirmed that: “We could not disagree more strongly with the jury’s verdicts. We will vigorously seek to overturn them in the trial court or on appeal, including but not limited to asking the trial judge to grant a new trial and to reduce the grossly excessive damages.”

The tenants’ complained of, among other things, a once-scenic artificial lakes became slick with slime, sewers backed up into people’s homes, brownouts and blackouts being common, and inadequate street lighting posing dangers to the residents. They also complained that the water for the entire park of 420 households would frequently be turned off without notice for up to 20 hours at a time. Residents formed a homeowners association in 2007 and filed suit in 2009. According to the residents’ attorneys, ELS was spending between $101,000 and $273,000 on upkeep annually at the mobile home park and taking in more than $4.5 million.

It its April 16, 2014 press release, responding to the jury verdicts, ELS contended that “[w]ith respect to compensatory damages, no evidence was presented that any plaintiff suffered any physical injury requiring medical attention, and the documentary evidence of repairs to plaintiffs’ homes or property totaled less than $3,000 collectively for all plaintiffs. In addition, approximately 75% of the compensatory damages verdict was awarded as compensation for emotional distress even though there was no evidence that any plaintiff had sought or received attention from any healthcare provider of any kind for emotional distress.” It further reported that the mobile home park was “developed in the 1960s, and is 100% occupied,” and the plaintiffs’ complaints included various utility outages, which it contends are not uncommon in properties of similar age and that such issues were remedied.

Additional Sources: Inside Bay Area, Jury awards record $111 million to San Jose trailer park residents (Apr. 21, 2014); San Jose Mercury News, Jury awards record $111 million to trailer park residents (Apr. 20, 2014)

Change is in the air. The Oregon Building Codes Division’s (BCD) webpage confirms that the effective date of the Oregon Structural Specialty Code, Oregon Mechanical Specialty Code and Oregon Energy Efficiency Specialty Code is now July 1, 2014. Additionally, the BCD will allow a 3 month transition period for implementation of these codes from July 1 to September 30. The publication process for the new code is expected to be completed in the next couple of months, and code books to be available for purchase shortly afterwards and online access to the code to be available before September.

The Structural Code committee and board recommendations on code change proposals, chapter-related review, and other documents, are available online. For additional information, the BCD encourages you to contact Richard Rogers, Chief Building Official, at Richard.Rogers@state.or.us or 503-378-4472 or Steve Judson, P.E., Facilities Engineer, at steven.w.judson@state.or.us or 503-378-4635.

The Mechanical Code committee and board recommendations on code change proposals, chapter-related review, and other documents, are available online. For additional information, the BCD encourages you to contact Mark Heizer, Mechanical Code Specialist, at Mark.R.Heizer@state.or.us or 503-373-0205.

The Energy Code committee and board recommendations on code change proposals, chapter-related review, and other documents, are available online. For additional information, the BCD encourages you to contact Mark Heizer, Mechanical Code Specialist, at Mark.R.Heizer@state.or.us or 503-373-0205.

In California, a C-57 specialty contractor is a well drilling contractor that “installs and repairs water wells and pumps by boring, drilling, excavating, casing, cementing and cleaning to provide a supply of uncontaminated water.” Cal. Code of Regs., Tit. 16, Div. 8, Art. 3. In its Industry Bulletin 14-04, the California Contractors State License Board (CSLB) reminds C-57 licensees that certain portable engines to power well drilling equipment require registration.

C-57 licensees must register their fuel-powered portable internal combustion engines of 50 horsepower or greater used to power drilling equipment either with:

(1) the State using the Statewide Portable Equipment Registration Program (PERP) to operate their equipment using the engines throughout the state without stationary source construction and operating permits from local air districts, or

(2) (A) those C-57 licensees who drill within the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (District), which includes San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno, Kings, Tulare and part of Kern, may register equipment under Rule 2280 (Portable Equipment Registration), and (B) those C-57 licensees whose work takes them beyond the District, may register their equipment with the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

The Industry Bulletin also reminds licensees that the District also regulates the use of internal combustion engines used on a temporary basis to power agricultural wells while they are being connected to electric power. Use of this type of engine requires a permit from the District depending on the size of the farm. Farms subject to District permits must obtain an Authority to Construct (ATC) permit from the District in order to install and operate a new IC engine greater than 50 horsepower (continuous rating). Farms that are exempt from District permits require a District Permit-Exempt Equipment Registration (PEER) for each engine greater than 50 horsepower (continuous rating). For more information, read San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, Compliance Assistance Bulletin 2014, Electrification of New Irrigation Wells.