filing Subscribe to RSS - filing

Proposed Rules: Closed to Comments

Agency:
Comment By: 
Wednesday, July 25, 2018
Proposed Rules Content: 

 

Statement of Basis and Purpose of Proposed Rule

 

Sections 12-309(a)(7) and 12-309(b)(6) of the New York City Administrative Code authorize the Office of Collective Bargaining’s (“OCB”) two constituent boards, the Board of Collective Bargaining and the Board of Certification, respectively, “to adopt rules and regulations for the conduct of its business and the carrying out of its powers and duties”.  The proposed changes modify the OCB’s procedural rules, which are found in Title 61 of the Rules of the City of New York, to incorporate new procedures for using modern technology, eliminate unnecessary requirements or references to outmoded technology, make clarifications to reflect how the Rules have been interpreted or to include existing practices, and make understanding the Rules and practice before the OCB more user-friendly. 

 

 

 

Listed below are the most substantive proposed changes.  Particularly significant among the proposed changes is the addition of rules providing for the filing and service of pleadings and other documents electronically through the OCB’s e-filing system.  This new system will simplify filing and service for petitioners by, among other things, eliminating the requirement that petitioners serve all parties named in the e-filed action by shifting the burden of service to the OCB. 

 

 The proposed rule:

 

 1. Adds new procedures incorporating modern technology:

 

·    Modernizes all notice posting requirements to allow for posting of notices and other communication with employees through methods such as e-bulletin boards and email;

 

·       Provides for the filing and service of pleadings and other documents electronically through the OCB’s e-filing system;

 

·        Permits filing with the Board and service on parties by email, for matters not initiated via the e-filing system.

 

2. Eliminates unnecessary requirements or references to outmoded technology:

 

·        Eliminates the requirement that parties file three copies of every document, in addition to the original, with the OCB;

 

·        Eliminates facsimile as an acceptable method of filing and service;

 

·        Eliminates references to only in-person representation elections as representation elections are now conducted by mail, telephone and via a web-based platform.

 

3. Clarifies the Rules to reflect how they have been interpreted and to include existing practices:

 

·   Codifies the practice of accepting submission of proof of interest electronically in representation cases;

 

·     Clarifies the description of when a petition can be timely filed after the expiration of a collective bargaining agreement;

 

·       Clarifies the provisions governing Amendments to Certification Petitions to reflect the Board’s history of case processing and interpretation of its meaning;

 

·     Clarifies that the Director’s recommendation for the creation of an impasse panel will be conveyed to the parties in writing only;

 

·    Conforms the description of the waiver required with a Request for Arbitration to the language of the 2012 statutory amendment;

 

·        Clarifies the parties’ obligation to designate an agent for service;

 

·        Clarifies that any objections to the OCB Executive Secretary’s deficiency letter must be filed within 10 business days after service of the deficiency letter;

 

·       Clarifies that supporting briefs must be submitted with a parties’ responsive pleading, unless prior permission to submit it later is granted;

 

·      Provides that if an injunctive relief petition is served in person, it must also be served by email;

 

·        Permits the filing of a Motion to Dismiss in lieu of an answer with permission of the Director;

 

·        Permits filing of an Amicus Curiae brief with permission of the Director.

 

·    Incorporates additional protected classes to the certification requirements for employee organizations, to conform to changes in the Administrative Code.

 

4. Makes understanding the Rules and practice before the OCB more user-friendly:

 

·        Conforms most response times in representation case processing to 20 business days;

 

·       Harmonizes filing and service deadlines so that they are calculated, with minor exceptions, using business days and not calendar days;

 

·       Eliminates the requirement to submit an affidavit in support of only one type of representation petition;

 

·        Includes cross-references to other relevant sections of the rules;

 

·        Clarifies the definitions of Filing, Service, Proof of Service and when service is complete;

 

·      Clearly differentiates between filing and service through the e-filing system versus more traditional methods of effecting filing and service;

 

·    Eliminates the requirement that parties add five calendar days prior to computing time periods prescribed by the Rules where service was completed by mail.

 

·        Includes minor plain language changes throughout.

 

 

Subject: 

Amendment of Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Office of Collective Bargaining

Location: 
OCB Board Room
100 Gold Street Suite 4800
New York, NY 10038
Contact: 

Abigail R. Levy, Deputy General Counsel

Adopted Rules: Closed to Comments

Adopted Rules Content: 

HPD’s rule amendments eliminate the current restrictive filing periods for submitting J-51 applications to HPD, and allow applicants to file applications at any time of year.

Effective Date: 
Thu, 11/23/2017

Adopted Rules: Closed to Comments

Adopted Rules Content: 

Statement of Basis and Purpose of Final Rule

 

The Environmental Control Board (ECB) held a public hearing on June 15, 2015, regarding amendments to its rules of procedure to allow for service of hearing officer decisions and orders by hand delivery or by mail. The changes will also allow for regular mailing of Cease and Desist Orders and Notices of Special Hearing. One member from the public attended the June 15, 2015, public hearing and did not wish to present oral testimony. ECB received and considered one written comment on the proposed rule regarding amendments to its rules of procedure. 

 

 

Hand Delivery of Hearing Officer Decisions and Orders

The Environmental Control Board (ECB) has amended sections 48 RCNY 3-57, 3-71 and 3-73 of its rules of procedure.  The changes will allow for service by ECB of hearing officer decisions and orders by hand delivery or by mail.

 

ECB’s current rule, 48 RCNY 3-57,requires ECB to serve decisions and orders on all parties but is silent as to how decisions are served. However, sections 3-71 and 3-73 refer to “mailing” of decisions and orders. Currently, ECB serves all decisions and orders by mail. To reduce costs, provide an additional service option, and to further clarify when the time to appeal begins to run, ECB has amended the rule to allow for both mailing and hand delivery of decisions and orders.

 

The amendment to 48 RCNY 3-57 also requires amending sections 3-71 and 3-73 of ECB’s rules because, as stated above, those rules currently only refer to “mailing” of decisions and orders.

 

Delivery of Cease and Desist Orders and Notices of Special Hearing by Regular Mail

ECB has amended 48 RCNY 3-91 to allow ECB to serve Cease and Desist Orders and Notices of Special Hearing by regular mail instead of by certified mail, return receipt requested. The Board issues a Cease and Desist order after the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has issued a respondent a notice of violation or several notices of violation, ECB has found the respondent in violation and the respondent has failed to correct the condition for which the violation was issued. The Cease and Desist Order requires the respondent to appear at a special hearing or have the equipment that is the subject of the violation sealed.

 

ECB has determined based on experience that service of these orders by certified mail is not needed since the DEP also serves these orders by delivering them to respondents at the address where the equipment at issue to be sealed is located. Furthermore, ECB records show that the United States Postal Service returns many of these mailings to ECB because respondents fail to go to the post office to pick them up. Finally, ECB rules provide for prompt hearing (post-sealing special hearing) should equipment be sealed based on a failure to appear at a pre-sealing hearing.

 

 

 

Effective Date: 
Sun, 08/09/2015

Proposed Rules: Closed to Comments

Agency:
Comment By: 
Monday, June 15, 2015
Proposed Rules Content: 

Statement of Basis and Purpose of Proposed Rule

 

 

Hand Delivery of Hearing Officer Decisions and Orders

The Environmental Control Board (ECB) is proposing to amend sections 48 RCNY 3-57, 3-71 and 3-73 of its rules of procedure.  The proposed changes will allow for service by ECB of hearing officer decisions and orders by hand delivery or by mail.

 

ECB’s current rule, 48 RCNY 3-57,requires ECB to serve decisions and orders on all parties but is silent as to how decisions are served. However, sections 3-71 and 3-73 refer to “mailing” of decisions and orders. Currently, ECB serves all decisions and orders by mail. To reduce costs, provide an additional service option, and to further clarify when the time to appeal begins to run, ECB is amending the rule to allow for both mailing and hand delivery of decisions and orders.

 

The amendment to 48 RCNY 3-57 also requires amending sections 3-71 and 3-73 of ECB’s rules because, as stated above, those rules currently only refer to “mailing” of decisions and orders.

 

Delivery of Cease and Desist Orders and Notices of Special Hearing by Regular Mail

ECB is also amending 48 RCNY 3-91 to allow ECB to serve Cease and Desist Orders and Notices of Special Hearing by regular mail instead of by certified mail, return receipt requested. The Board issues a Cease and Desist order after the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has issued a respondent a notice of violation or several notices of violation, ECB has found the respondent in violation and the respondent has failed to correct the condition for which the violation was issued. The Cease and Desist Order requires the respondent to appear at a special hearing or have the equipment that is the subject of the violation sealed.

 

ECB has determined based on experience that service of these orders by certified mail   is not needed since the DEP also serves these orders by delivering them to respondents at the address where the equipment at issue to be sealed is located. Furthermore, ECB records show that the United States Postal Service returns many of these mailings to ECB because respondents fail to go to the post office to pick them up. Finally, ECB rules provide for prompt hearing (post-sealing special hearing) should equipment be sealed based on a failure to appear at a pre-sealing hearing.

 

Subject: 

Proposed Rule to amend ECB's rules of procedure to allow for service of hearing officer decisions and orders by hand delivery or by mail. The changes will also allow for regular mailing of Cease and Desist Orders and Notices of Specail Hearing.

Location: 
Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings Environmental Control Board
66 John Street 10th Floor Conference Room
New York, NY 10038
Contact: 

Elizabeth Nolan at (212) 436-0708 or Jim Macron at (212) 436-0602.

Adopted Rules: Closed to Comments

Adopted Rules Content: 

 

Statement of Basis and Purpose

 

Pursuant to § 282 of Article 7-C of the MDL (“Loft Law”), the Loft Board may promulgate rules to ensure compliance with the Loft Law.

 

In the 2010 amendments to the Loft Law, the New York State Legislature specified that the deadline for seeking coverage by owners and tenants under the Loft Law would be six months from the date the Loft Board adopted the rules necessary to implement the 2010 amendments to its rules. This rule constitutes the final rule necessary to implement the 2010 amendments. Therefore, the deadline for coverage will be six months from the effective date of this rule.

 

Accordingly, the changes to Loft Board § 1-06.1 are as follows:

 

·         A tenant coverage application or the initial registration application form for coverage by a building owner must be filed on or before March 11, 2014, the date 6 months following the effective date of this rule.

 

In 2013, the Legislature further amended the Loft Law to expand the definition of an interim multiple dwelling (“IMD”) provided in MDL § 281(5) (effective June 1, 2012). The Legislature set new deadlines for this newest group of IMDs, including a new code compliance timetable. Many of these deadlines, which are covered in other Loft Board rules, are triggered by the effective date of this rule.

 

 

Effective Date: 
Wed, 09/11/2013

Adopted Rules: Closed to Comments

Adopted Rules Content: 



 Click here (.pdf) for the complete text of the adopted rule.



Effective Date: 
Thu, 07/28/2011