Fees for Incomplete Inspections

Online comments: 14

• Yosep Blake Bak - NYS PE 107881

  COMMENT ON PROPOSED RULE

  To: New York City Department of Buildings, Office of the General Counsel
  280 Broadway, 7th Floor, New York, NY 10007
  [email protected]
  Re: Proposed 1 RCNY 101-20, Incomplete Inspections
  Reference No. DOB-210 / 26 RG 004
  Public hearing 9/9/26, 11:00 AM; written comments due 9/9/26
  From: Yosep Blake Bak, P.E., New York State Professional Engineer, License No. 107881
  Date: [DATE]

  Submitted in an individual capacity. No client interest is held in any matter addressed in this
  comment. The commenter is a member of the discrete regulated community to which Charter
  Section 1043(e) directs agency outreach, is a registered design professional who requests and
  attends Department inspections, and files design and compliance documentation under the codes
  and rules discussed. No allegation of misconduct by any individual is made or implied.

  1. POSITION

  I support this rule. I support it strongly, and I want it to be more forceful than proposed, not
  less. I am asking for four modifications and one disclosure. Every request below is directed at
  making the rule survive challenge and function as designed.

  The Department has correctly identified a real and expensive problem. Approximately 44,000
  incomplete electrical inspections between 2021 and May 2026 is a serious operational failure by
  the regulated community, and I am part of that community. A permit holder who books a public
  inspector’s time and does not show up prepared has taken a public resource and wasted it. There
  should be a consequence, it should be recorded, and it should follow the licensee.

  I would go further than the Department proposes:

  (a) The record of incomplete inspections should be permanent, queryable, and published as a
  structured public dataset keyed to license number, not held only internally.

  (b) The Department should share that record with the New York State Education Department and
  the applicable licensing boards, which hold the underlying professional licenses, and should
  seek their guidance on the disciplinary thresholds in subdivision (e).

  (c) The fee should escalate for repeat occurrences within a rolling twelve-month period rather
  than remain flat.

  None of that is possible under the rule as drafted, because the rule creates no record obligation
  at all. It creates a charge.

  2. THE PRINCIPLE THIS RULE ESTABLISHES

  The Statement of Basis and Purpose articulates a principle I agree with and want applied
  consistently:

  When a party schedules a proceeding that consumes public resources, and then fails
  to appear prepared, that party bears the cost of the wasted appearance.

  That is a sound principle. It is the same principle that governs court appearances, medical
  appointments, and every commercial calendar in the city. My comment is that the principle is
  sound in both directions, and that a rule which applies it in only one direction will be, and
  should be, criticized on that basis.

  3. THE ARITHMETIC PROBLEM WITH THE $200 FIGURE

  This is my central technical objection, and it is offered so the Department can cure it before
  adoption.

  The Statement of Basis and Purpose states that approximately 44,000 incomplete electrical
  inspections between 2021 and May 2026 cost the City “over $2 million.”

  $2,000,000 / 44,000 incidents = approximately $45.45 per incident.

  The proposed fee is $200 per incident. On the Department’s own published figures, that is
  approximately 4.4 times the stated cost.

  Subdivision (c) states that the fee is imposed “to recoup the cost incurred by the Department to
  attend the inspection appointment.” A fee justified expressly as cost recovery must be reasonably
  related to the cost recovered. Under settled New York law a regulatory fee must bear a reasonable
  relationship to the cost of the regulation it funds; a fee materially exceeding that cost is an
  unauthorized tax, which a city may not levy absent State authorization. This is not a technicality.
  It is the most likely ground on which this rule would be challenged by a party who does not want
  it to exist, and I do not want that party to win.

  There are three possible explanations, and the Department should state which applies:

  (i) The “over $2 million” figure is materially understated and the true per-incident cost
  approaches $200. If so, publish the actual figure and its components.

  (ii) The $200 includes costs beyond attendance — scheduling, administrative overhead, queue
  displacement, vehicle and fuel, supervisory time. If so, subdivision (c) should say so,
  and the components should be itemized.

  (iii) The $200 is set at a deterrent level above cost. If so, the rule is a penalty rather than
  a cost-recovery fee, and it should be structured, authorized, and reviewable as a penalty,
  including a cure period analysis under Charter Section 1043(d)(iii) and Administrative
  Code Section 1042. The certification filed with this rule states that no cure period is
  provided “because it does not establish a violation.” A charge set above cost to deter
  conduct is functionally a penalty regardless of its label.

  REQUEST 1. Publish, before adoption, the itemized cost basis for the $200 figure: fully loaded
  hourly rate for the inspector classification, average hours consumed per incomplete inspection
  including travel, administrative and scheduling cost per appointment, vehicle and fuel cost, and
  the methodology by which the “over $2 million” figure was derived. If the fee is deterrent rather
  than compensatory, say so on the record and reauthorize it accordingly.

  I make this request in exactly the same terms in which I made it to the Department on the proposed
  QPSI, QEWI and QRWI designation fees in my comment on the FY2027 Regulatory Agenda. The standard
  should not vary with whether I like the fee. I like this one. Publish the cost basis anyway.

  4. THE CHARTER SECTION 1043(d) CERTIFICATION CANNOT REST ON THE PRESENT RECORD

  The Mayor’s Office of Operations certified on July 22, 2026 that the proposed rule “minimizes
  compliance costs for the discrete regulated community.” No cost analysis supporting that
  certification appears in the rulemaking record. A certification that a fee minimizes compliance
  costs, filed in support of a rule that creates a new $200 charge with no published derivation, is
  a certification made on an incomplete record.

  REQUEST 2. Place the analysis underlying the Section 1043(d) certification in the public
  rulemaking record and identify where the public may inspect it.

  5. THE CHALLENGE PROCESS IS THE WEAKEST PART OF THE RULE

  Subdivision (f)(3)(i) provides that “the decision to dismiss or uphold the fee is at the sole
  discretion of the Department.”

  As drafted, subdivision (f):

  – requires the challenger to produce time-stamped photographs, video, logs and correspondence;
  – permits denial of challenges “submitted without sufficient supporting evidence”;
  – requires no written reasons from the Department;
  – provides no independent review, including no referral to the Office of Administrative Trials
  and Hearings;
  – creates no published record of determinations; and
  – makes no provision for the inspector’s own contemporaneous record to be disclosed to the
  challenger.

  The evidentiary burden runs entirely in one direction. The licensee must document the site. The
  Department need not document anything, need not explain, and reviews itself.

  I want to be precise about why this matters to me as a supporter of the rule. Subdivision (e)
  permits referral for suspension, revocation, or denial of renewal of a professional license. A
  determination that can end a career should not be unreviewable and unexplained. That is not a
  close question, and it is the provision most likely to be struck if this rule is litigated.

  REQUEST 3. Amend subdivision (f) to require that:

  (a) every determination be issued in writing and state the reasons for it;
  (b) the inspector’s contemporaneous field record for the appointment at issue be disclosed to
  the challenger on request before the challenge is due;
  (c) determinations be appealable to the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings, or in the
  alternative be reviewed by a Departmental unit organizationally separate from the unit that
  scheduled the inspection; and
  (d) determinations be published in aggregate, quarterly, as a structured dataset showing the
  number of fees imposed, challenged, dismissed and upheld, by inspection type and borough.

  Delete the phrase “sole discretion.” It adds no authority the Department does not already have
  and it invites the only serious legal attack available against an otherwise sound rule.

  REQUEST 4. Add a definition or standard for circumstances outside the permit holder’s control.
  As drafted, subdivision (b)(4) makes any cancellation received fewer than three business days
  before the appointment an incomplete inspection, without exception for weather, utility shutdown,
  building emergency, death, or medical incapacity. A rule that charges a licensee $200 for having
  a heart attack is not the rule the Department intends to write.

  6. SYMMETRY: APPLY THE SAME STANDARD TO THE DEPARTMENT

  This section is the reason I am writing at length, and I ask the Department to read it as an
  argument for the rule rather than against it.

  The rule stands on the proposition that a party who schedules a proceeding and fails to appear
  prepared should bear the cost. The Department schedules proceedings too. Chapter 45 of the Charter
  requires it to publish a proposed rule, hold a hearing, accept comment, and place comments in a
  public record. Members of the regulated community take unpaid time to read the proposal, analyze
  it, and appear.

  When a rulemaking proceeds to hearing while the studies, deliverables and mandated reports that
  inform it are not in the public record, that is the same failure the rule addresses: the
  proceeding occurs, public and private time is consumed, and the record necessary to conduct it is
  not present. The commenter arrives prepared. The record does not.

  I am not asking the Department to fine itself. I am asking for four things it can do by rule and
  one it should ask the Council for.

  REQUEST 5. The obligation should attach to the office, not only to the line staff. The rule as
  drafted reaches “registered design professionals, licensees, general contractors, third-party
  contractors, owners and filing representatives.” The corresponding obligations of record
  completeness should attach by rule to the Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioners, and the
  Assistant Commissioner responsible for each rulemaking, by title, as the officers who certify and
  sign. I am proposing duties of disclosure attached to offices. I am not proposing personal
  liability, and I make no allegation against any officeholder.

  REQUEST 6. No rule should proceed to adoption where a publicly funded study, deliverable, or
  mandated report that informs it has not been placed in the rulemaking record and submitted to the
  Government Publications Portal. Where such a document is outstanding, the comment period should
  toll until it is published, and the rule should be re-noticed.

  I have filed a separate petition under Charter Section 1043(g) proposing rule text to that effect,
  using the structure of proposed Section 101-20 as its model.

  7. THE RECORD COMPLETENESS PROBLEM, STATED WITH THE EVIDENCE I HAVE

  The Statement of Basis and Purpose justifies this rule by quantifying a cost to the City of “over
  $2 million” in wasted inspector time. I accept that figure and I want it recovered.

  I note for the record that publicly reported and publicly filed expenditures on the façade and
  sidewalk shed program during the overlapping period substantially exceed that figure, and that
  the deliverables produced under several of those engagements are not presently locatable in the
  rulemaking records they informed:

  – Arup US and Practice for Architecture and Urbanism were selected on February 29, 2024 to
  produce six sidewalk shed and pedestrian protection designs. The engagement has been publicly
  reported at $3.5 million. Designs were unveiled November 18, 2025.

  – Thornton Tomasetti, Inc. was engaged in May 2024 to review the Façade Inspection and Safety
  Program. The FISP Recommendations Report is dated December 10, 2025.

  – Contract CT181020268807803 with 2050 Partners LLC, purpose field “LL97 STUDIES,” carries a
  value of $1,600,000, began performance March 6, 2026, was registered June 8, 2026, and appears
  on the Comptroller’s Late Contracts Dashboard. No deliverable under it appears in the record
  of the concurrent Section 5000-01 rulemaking.

  [INSERT: Checkbook NYC contract IDs, current spend-to-date, and any modification or extension
  amounts you have personally verified, including the Thornton Tomasetti extension. Do not state
  a figure you cannot produce from Checkbook or the City Record. Cite the contract ID at the
  point of use, exactly as you did in Exhibit C.1.]

  I raise these not to suggest that any of that spending was improper. I raise them for one reason:
  the Department is asking, correctly, that a party who wastes public resources pay for it, and the
  Department’s own figure for the waste it seeks to recover is smaller than the sums it has spent on
  studies whose deliverables the public cannot presently locate. If $2 million in lost inspector
  time warrants a rule, then several million dollars in study deliverables warrants publication.

  On March 26, 2025 the Council passed Introduction 394-A, which extended the façade inspection
  cycle and directed the Department to review inspection frequency and report recommendations by
  December 31, 2025. The report informing that change was published December 10, 2025, nine months
  after passage. On November 19, 2025 the change was publicly described as paired with “the
  first-ever, evidence-based engineering study” of the City’s façade safety requirements — three
  weeks before that study was published.

  I am a licensed engineer. I am required to have my basis of design in hand before I stamp a
  drawing, not nine months after. I am asking the Department to hold itself to the standard it
  holds me to, and I am asking it in support of a rule that does exactly that to my own profession.

  REQUEST 7. Publish, or state on the record that none exists, each deliverable produced under the
  engagements above that informed any rule adopted or proposed since January 1, 2024, and confirm
  submission of each to the Government Publications Portal as required by Charter Section 1133.

  8. ONE THING THAT CANNOT BE DONE BY RULE, STATED SO THE RECORD IS CLEAR

  I would support criminal exposure for knowingly reducing a public safety standard on a fabricated
  or absent evidentiary basis. That cannot be created by a rule. Charter Section 1043(a) empowers an
  agency to adopt rules carrying out powers delegated to it by law; it does not permit an agency to
  create criminal liability, and a petition asking it to do so would be properly denied in one
  sentence. That request belongs before the Council as legislation, and I am directing it there
  separately. I state it here only so that no one mistakes the scope of what I am asking this
  Department to do.

  9. SUMMARY OF REQUESTS

  1. Publish the itemized cost basis for the $200 fee, or state that it is a deterrent penalty and
  authorize it as one.
  2. Place the Section 1043(d) cost analysis in the public rulemaking record.
  3. Amend subdivision (f): written reasons, disclosure of the inspector’s field record,
  independent review, published aggregate determinations; delete “sole discretion.”
  4. Add an exception standard for circumstances outside the permit holder’s control.
  5. Attach record-completeness duties to the Commissioner, Deputy Commissioners, and the
  Assistant Commissioner responsible for each rulemaking, by title.
  6. Toll any comment period during which an informing study, deliverable, or mandated report
  remains unpublished, and re-notice the rule.
  7. Publish all deliverables produced under the engagements identified in Section 7, or state
  on the record that none informed the rules at issue, and confirm GPP submission.
  8. Make the incomplete-inspection record permanent, queryable, published as structured data
  keyed to license number, and shared with the New York State Education Department and the
  applicable licensing boards.

  I would rather this rule be adopted with a published cost basis and a real challenge process than
  adopted quickly and vacated later. Every request above is directed at that outcome.

  Respectfully submitted,

  Yosep Blake Bak, P.E.
  New York State Professional Engineer, License No. 107881

  Comment attachment
  01-comment-DOB-210-incomplete-inspections.pdf

  Comment added August 5, 2026 10:57am

• Supplement to comment

  combined DORIS GPP as of today, pdf of city checkbook contract numbers for reference, and partially redacted foil excerption from the comptrollers office

  Comment attachment
  Appendix.pdf

  Comment added August 5, 2026 11:56am

• Anonymous

  Once again, the Department of Buildings is imposing fines or fees in order to raise revenue without fully analyzing a problem or assigning blame upon itself for the agencies long list of shortcomings. For example, what happens when the Department cancels or there is a no-show for an inspector? What happens when the inspector fails to understand directions and shows up at the wrong entrance to a large complex? What happens when an inspector extends their inspection beyond what was reasonably expected to be the scope of the inspection? What happens when occupancy of a site is necessary so you can’t wait days or even weeks to speak to someone to challenge the penalty, so you reluctantly have to pay it? Perhaps the Department needs to understand its own operations better and become accountable when it fails to meet some minimum standards of its own. If you want industry to pay, then it is only fair for the Department to be held to some form of concrete accountability other than the ire of City Hall.

  Furthermore, it is an insult to state in the explanation of the rule that it costs the city “millions” for missed inspection when the city doesn’t recognize the many, many millions it costs everyone else in the serious delays throughout its archaic approval and review processes. Those millions are on top of the hundreds of millions of dollars the Department of Buildings generates in excess of its budget per year. Yet the Department is constantly shortchanged in the city budget limiting the number of examiners, inspectors, and other technical employees it desperately needs. The Department’s arcane and ill-conceived electronic system “DOB-Now” is the bane of everyone: from the Department’s own employees to everyone in the public that must use it, yet there is no budget to completely overhaul it as it should be.

  The city sees the Department of Buildings as a cash cow. Under separate legislation to rewrite the City Charter it is seeking expand the responsibilities of the agency even further. Higher fees and fines are not the solution to anything. The City Council needs to take a different tact – stop asking for more money and start providing better service. The Department is already a tremendous revenue source, and it needs to provide service commensurate with what it receives.

  Comment added August 5, 2026 3:40pm

• eliezer Zucker

  Sometimes inspections are incomplete because the inspector comes late or there isnt enough time

  Comment added August 7, 2026 12:20am

• Brian Cunningham, BCA

  Paragraph (e) is problematic. Sole discretion is vague for referring a filer for a disciplinary action. There should be a number of incomplete inspections per year before the DOB may refer a filer for disciplinary actions. (Similar to number of traffic tickets before a driver license is suspended). It also should define duration of disciplinary actions.

  Comment added August 12, 2026 10:17am

• Michele Russo

  Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Department’s proposed rule adding §101-20 to Title 1 of the Rules of the City of New York regarding incomplete inspections. I support the Department’s underlying goal of recovering the administrative cost of repeat site visits and reducing scheduling inefficiencies caused by unprepared or unresponsive parties. However, I respectfully request that the Department consider two revisions before this rule is finalized, as currently drafted it may impose fees on permit holders and licensees for circumstances genuinely outside their control.

  1. Tenant-caused denial of access

  Subdivisions (b)(5) and (b)(6) define “incomplete access” and “unprepared site” without any accommodation for situations where a tenant, rather than the permit holder, licensee, contractor, or owner, refuses or is unable to provide access to a unit or area required for inspection. In multi-tenant buildings, plumbers, contractors, and owners routinely coordinate access in advance, but a tenant’s refusal to allow entry, a tenant’s absence, or a tenant’s unresponsiveness is a circumstance entirely outside the control of the permit holder or licensee. As drafted, the rule would still impose the $200 fee on the permit holder in these situations, even where the permit holder or licensee made a good-faith effort to secure access and can document that effort.

  I request that the Department either:
  (a) add a defined exception or affirmative defense to subdivision (b) for incomplete inspections caused solely by tenant refusal of access or tenant unavailability, where the permit holder or licensee can demonstrate reasonable advance efforts to obtain access (e.g., written notice to the tenant, building management correspondence, or attempted entry logs); or
  (b) expressly identify tenant-caused access denial as qualifying “extenuating circumstances” under the challenge process in subdivision (f)(2), so that a fee arising from tenant non-cooperation is presumptively subject to dismissal upon adequate documentation, rather than left to case-by-case discretion with no defined standard.

  Without such a provision, permit holders and licensees bear financial responsibility for a third party’s conduct that they cannot legally compel, which is inconsistent with the rule’s stated purpose of recovering costs caused by the permit holder’s or licensee’s own lack of preparation or cooperation.

  2. Conflict with existing 48-hour self-certification notice requirements

  Subdivision (b)(4) defines a “late cancellation” as any cancellation request received fewer than three (3) business days before a scheduled appointment. This timeline conflicts with the Department’s existing scheduling practice for self-certified inspections, which currently requires only 48 hours’ advance notice. Under the proposed rule, a permit holder or licensee following the Department’s own 48-hour self-certification notice framework could still be assessed a $200 late-cancellation fee, because 48 hours will frequently fall short of three business days (for example, a cancellation submitted on a Friday for a Monday appointment).

  I request that the Department clarify or harmonize these timelines so that permit holders and licensees are not penalized for complying with one DOB-established notice requirement while running afoul of another. At minimum, I ask that the final rule either (a) align the cancellation window in subdivision (b)(4) with the 48-hour notice standard applicable to self-certified inspections, or (b) expressly clarify how the two timelines interact so the regulated community is not held to inconsistent standards for the same category of inspection.

  I appreciate the Department’s consideration of these comments and would welcome the opportunity to discuss further, including at the public hearing scheduled for September 9, 2026.

  Respectfully submitted,
  Michele Russo
  HR and Code Compliance Manager
  Sideris Plumbing & Heating Corp.

  Comment attachment
  9-9-26-hearing-Comments-on-Proposed-Rule-1-RCNY-§101-20-–-Incomplete-Inspections-Reference-No.-DOB-210-_-26-RG-004.pdf

  Comment added August 26, 2026 10:32am

• Anonymous

  I do not defend deliberate missed appointments, refusal to cooperate with an inspector, or knowingly scheduling an inspection before the work is ready. Those situations should be addressed. However, DOB has not shown that this particular $200 fee is reasonably calculated, will correct the problem, or will improve inspection service.

  The proposal presents a charge first and an incomplete justification afterward.

  DOB states that approximately 44,000 electrical inspections were incomplete between 2021 and May 2026 and that these incidents cost the City “over $2 million.” Dividing $2 million by 44,000 produces $45.45 per incident. Because DOB says “over” $2 million, the actual average would be higher—but DOB does not disclose how much higher.

  Charging $200 for all 44,000 incidents would produce $8.8 million. If DOB’s actual documented cost approached $8.8 million, it should publish that figure and its components. If it did not, the Department has not demonstrated that $200 represents actual cost recovery.

  The rule provides no calculation showing:

  * The inspector’s fully loaded hourly cost;
  * Average travel, waiting, and inspection time;
  * Administrative scheduling cost;
  * Vehicle and fuel cost per appointment;
  * Payment-processing cost;
  * Challenge-review cost;
  * Technology or implementation cost; or
  * The methodology used to select exactly $200.

  Late cancellations are treated the same way. DOB says they cost “approximately several thousand dollars,” but does not identify the number of late cancellations, the period measured, or an average cost per event. That vague statement cannot support a flat $200 charge for every cancellation received fewer than three business days before an appointment.

  DOB describes the fee as reimbursement. It does not expressly claim that $200 will deter conduct. If the amount was selected partly as an economic disincentive, DOB should say so directly and provide the evidence.

  The proposal contains no deterrence study, pilot program, projected reduction, performance target, annual review, reporting requirement, or sunset date. Nothing requires DOB to determine whether incomplete inspections actually decrease after the fee is imposed.

  A financial charge does not automatically change behavior. It may instead cause applicants to postpone necessary inspections, pay disputed charges simply to keep projects moving, or pass the cost to owners and consumers. DOB has not evaluated those foreseeable responses.

  Even in more heavily studied enforcement settings, research summarized by the National Institute of Justice cautions that the certainty and swiftness of consequences generally matter more than merely increasing their severity. That research is not specific to building inspections, but it demonstrates why DOB cannot simply assume that a larger financial consequence guarantees better compliance. [National Institute of Justice](https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/five-things-about-deterrence)

  DOB’s own data point toward a more targeted solution. One company reportedly accounted for approximately 1,800 of the 44,000 electrical incidents—about four percent of the total. This shows that DOB can identify repeat actors. Before imposing a new fee system on every permit holder, DOB should explain why it is not first targeting documented chronic offenders.

  The evidentiary record is also incomplete. The 44,000 incidents relate only to electrical inspections. Yet the proposed rule applies to electrical, plumbing, and construction inspections. DOB supplies no corresponding data for plumbing or construction inspections and no explanation for extending a fee justified by electrical data to two additional inspection categories.

  The rule also fails to separate causes. It does not state how many incidents involved:

  * A true failure to appear;
  * An incomplete installation;
  * Refusal to proceed;
  * Missing documentation;
  * Tenant refusal or tenant unavailability;
  * A building emergency;
  * A disagreement over inspection scope;
  * An inspector arriving late or without enough remaining time;
  * An inability to locate the correct entrance or responsible person; or
  * Another condition outside the permit holder’s reasonable control.

  Instead, the rule uses broad terms such as “sufficiently complete,” “sufficiently familiar,” and “other specific condition identified by the inspector.” “Repeated incomplete inspections” is also undefined, even though that phrase may lead to disciplinary referral.

  These terms leave too much to individual judgment when money, project delays, and professional credentials are at stake.

  The administrative cost of the new system is also missing. Under the proposed rule, every assessed fee must be connected to a permit holder and inspection appointment. Payment must be verified before rescheduling is allowed. Every challenge must be received electronically, reviewed with its supporting evidence, and followed by a notice of determination. Unpaid fees must be tracked for one calendar year, while repeated incidents must be tracked for possible disciplinary referral.

  That is an additional administrative operation created by the fee itself. DOB has not estimated its cost or deducted that expense from the claimed recovery.

  The Government Accountability Office has found that poorly designed fee-collection methods can increase administrative costs for agencies and payers and may reduce compliance. Fee systems work best when administrative costs are minimized and the amounts collected are aligned with the services being funded. [Government Accountability Office](https://www.gao.gov/assets/a272561.html)

  The challenge process is particularly unfair.

  A challenge must be filed within 30 days. The challenger must submit a written statement and supporting evidence, potentially including time-stamped photographs, videos, access logs, scheduling records, and communications with DOB. The rule states that insufficient evidence may result in denial.

  DOB, however, is not required to disclose the inspector’s contemporaneous record, state detailed reasons for its decision, or provide independent review. The rule places the decision within DOB’s “sole discretion” and provides no deadline for DOB to issue its determination.

  Meanwhile, the permit holder cannot reschedule until the fee is paid. The rule does not suspend that payment requirement while a timely challenge is pending.

  That makes the challenge practically meaningless for many projects. A permit holder facing daily delay costs may pay the $200 even when the charge is disputed because waiting for DOB’s decision could cost thousands more. Payment under that pressure does not establish that the fee was properly imposed.

  There is also a serious inconsistency in the rulemaking record. The Mayor’s Office of Operations certification states that the rule provides no cure period because it “does not establish a violation” or modify a penalty. Yet the rule allows repeated incomplete inspections or nonpayment within one calendar year to lead to enforcement that may include suspension, revocation, or denial of renewal.

  DOB should explain how a charge that can block an inspection and contribute to professional disciplinary action is merely an administrative fee requiring no cure protection.

  Finally, the rule offers no reciprocal accountability. It values DOB’s time at $200 per occurrence but assigns no consequence when DOB cancels, arrives late, cannot complete an inspection, or otherwise wastes the time and money of an owner, contractor, worker, professional, or tenant.

  The Department should withdraw this proposal and reissue it only after:

  1. Publishing the complete, itemized cost basis for $200;
  2. Identifying whether the charge is cost recovery, deterrence, or both;
  3. Publishing electrical, plumbing, and construction data by cause;
  4. Establishing defined thresholds for repeat offenders;
  5. Creating exceptions for documented circumstances outside the permit holder’s control;
  6. Allowing rescheduling while a timely challenge is pending or the fee is paid under protest;
  7. Requiring disclosure of the inspector’s record and a reasoned written determination;
  8. Establishing an independent appeal and a fixed decision deadline;
  9. Publishing the administrative cost of imposing and collecting the fees;
  10. Establishing measurable service improvements, annual reporting, and a sunset review; and
  11. Providing reciprocal accountability when DOB causes a scheduled inspection to fail.

  Until those facts and protections are supplied, this is not demonstrated cost recovery or service reform. It is an unsupported financial charge enforced through project delay and potential licensing consequences.

  Government should not charge first, block service second, and explain the numbers later.

  Comment added August 26, 2026 4:47pm

• Jay

  Fines should be waived if incomplete inspection is the result of tenants not providing access or the inspector running out of time. Owners are not able compel tenants to provide access.

  Comment added September 3, 2026 11:31pm

• The Master Plumbers Council

  Good Afternoon,

  Please find attached comments submitted on behalf of the Master Plumbers Council of the City of New York, regarding the Proposed Rule related to Fees for Incomplete Inspections.

  Thank you for your time and consideration.

  Regards,
  The Master Plumbers Council

  Comment attachment
  MPC-Comments-on-Proposed-Rule-related-to-Incomplete-Inspections.pdf

  Comment added September 4, 2026 1:00pm

• Maddie DeCerbo

  attached.

  Comment attachment
  20260909-REBNY-Comments-Incomplete-Inspections.pdf

  Comment added September 8, 2026 11:02am

• Linda Baran

  Good morning. My name is Linda Baran, President and CEO of the Staten Island Chamber of Commerce. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule regarding incomplete inspections.

  Our concern is fairly straightforward. New York City is already an extremely expensive place to operate a business, and we continue to hear from our small businesses about the cumulative impact of fees, fines, insurance, permitting costs, and other expenses. Adding another $200 fee only adds to that burden.

  We certainly understand that DOB needs businesses and contractors to be prepared when an inspector arrives. But there should be a reasonable opportunity to correct an issue before a fee is imposed, particularly for a first occurrence. There may also be circumstances that prevent an inspection from being completed that are outside of the business owner’s or contractor’s control. The rules should distinguish repeat offenders from a small business or contractor experiencing a one-time access issue.
  We also believe businesses and contractors should be given clear information ahead of time about exactly what is required for an inspection to be completed. If that information is not already being provided when an inspection is scheduled, it should be. A simple checklist or clear set of requirements could help avoid incomplete inspections in the first place. The goal should be to help businesses comply before imposing a fee.
  We are also concerned that under the proposed rule, an incomplete inspection cannot be rescheduled until the $200 fee has been paid. That means the impact on a business may go beyond the fee and potentially delay a project or necessary work. The proposed rule states that payment of the fine is required before an incomplete inspection can be rescheduled.
  We are also concerned that this proposal seems to run counter to the direction Mayor Mamdani has taken with his recent small business initiatives, including efforts to reduce fees, fines, and unnecessary regulatory burdens. We strongly support those efforts and believe City
  agencies should be looking for ways to make compliance easier, not adding new costs for businesses that are trying to do the right thing.

  We would ask DOB to reconsider the proposed fee and explore alternatives, including providing a warning and an opportunity to reschedule without a fee for a first incomplete inspection and making inspection requirements clear in advance. We appreciate that the proposed rule includes a 30-day process to challenge a fee. However, we believe DOB should provide clearer standards for when a fee will be dismissed based on circumstances outside the permit holder’s control instead of leaving that determination to DOB’s sole discretion.

  We all want businesses to comply with City regulations. We just want to make sure the process is fair, reasonable, and doesn’t make it even more expensive to do business in New York City.
  Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

  Comment attachment
  DOB-Comments-Incomplete-Inspection-Rule.pdf

  Comment added September 8, 2026 1:38pm

• Linda Baran

  Please see the attached

  Comment attachment
  DOB-Comments-Incomplete-Inspection-Rule-1.pdf

  Comment added September 8, 2026 1:39pm

• Subcontractors Trade Association

  See comments attached.

  Comment attachment
  Comments-on-DOB-Proposed-Regs.pdf

  Comment added September 9, 2026 10:22am

• George Bassolino

  Mona Sehgal, Esq.
  Associate Commissioner and General Counsel
  NYC Department of Buildings
  280 Broadway
  New York, NY 10007

  Re: Proposed New Rule §101-20

  Dear Associate Commissioner/General Counsel Seghal:

  Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposed rule.

  Incomplete inspections create an unnecessary burden for all stakeholders (owners, contractors and the Department) by increasing Service levels and thereby delaying projects. People who fail to show up for an inspection or are truly not prepared should be required to pay an additional fee and in some cases, referred for possible disciplinary actions.

  This proposed rule mirrors the process in place for addressing missed or unprepared elevator inspections and tests in New York City that result in escalating civil penalties and violations depending on the type of inspection missed. The Departments stated reason for this proposed rule was the fact that electrician representatives failed to show up, were unprepared or unable to provide access to Department inspectors at thousands of worksites with one licensee accounting for over 4% of the missed inspections. Has that person been disciplined?

  The published disciplinary actions taken against lmp’s are not reflective of incomplete inspections being an issue. The plumbing industry and the Department hold quarterly meetings and to the best of my knowledge the topic of licensed master plumbers (lmp’s) not showing up or being unprepared for inspections has not been an agenda item in the past few years. In the past when similar issues occurred, they were usually resolved at these meetings. The Department presented an issue, the industry proposed a solution, an agreement was made and the stakeholders were notified of the result. Perhaps communication and education would do more to reduce incomplete inspections than the imposition of a $200 fine. The fines will not reduce the problem and improve service unless there is a clear and transparent process in place for everyone to follow. This can only occur if the Department and industry develop a process and publish it for all stakeholders to utilize. A one size that fits all approach to this perceived problem besides being unjust and will not achieve the desired result.

  Looking at the DOB’s financial structure from a revenue-versus-expenditure standpoint, the agency is generally a revenue generator for New York City’s general fund by collecting more in building fees, permits, and penalties than it spends on its operational budget. Lmp’s help to fund that surplus by performing Advance Notice (self-certification) inspections which do not utilize Department resources to inspect. These inspections are mandated to be spot checked by the Department. To avoid losing time, if a regular scheduled inspection appointment is cancelled late why couldn’t that inspector be rerouted to an Advance Notice inspection in the area? I am not sure of the revenue this generates because the exact total number of advance notice plumbing and fire suppression inspections received by the Department is not published as a static statistical total in city data reports. Why is this information not publicly available?

  Prior to implementation of this Rule, I implore you to meet with industry organizations and other stakeholders to address the following issues:

  Definitions:

  Full access:
  In existing occupied buildings, the lmp can only request full access from the owner. They have no direct control over the building occupants and should not be held responsible if access is denied.

  Incomplete inspection:
  In the normal course of conducting this business stuff happens that creates the condition where a late cancellation is unavoidable. Consideration should be given for this.

  The proposed 72-hour cancellation notice conflicts with the current ability to cancel a plumbing inspection with 48 hours’ notice and a gas safety inspection with 24 hours’ notice. Generally, inspections dates are issued to lmps with less than 48 hours’ notice so they would be impossible to cancel under this proposal.

  The definition of unprepared site is too broad. There needs to be a checklist available to all stakeholders to avoid specific conditions from being arbitrary.

  There are numerous examples of instances where an inspection could be completed, comments can be issued and resolved at a future inspection. This would avoid inspections being deemed incomplete.

  Disciplinary referral:
  Recently a lmp failed 6 gas inspections for the same permit because of a discrepancy regarding an interpretation of the Code. The issue was finally resolved (with the help of DOB supervisors), and the job is now closed out. This lmp would have been subjected to $1,200 in penalties just to keep the job moving forward. His customer thought he was incompetent. How would it look if he was referred to BSIU with so many failures? The line for when a disciplinary referral should be made needs to be clearly drawn.

  Imposition of a $200 penalty alone will not resolve this issue. It actually may deter people from filing for permits unless it is absolutely necessary. That threatens public safety.

  How can I be expected to be held accountable to meet DOB expectations when I do not always know what they are? The best solution to this problem is to develop a clear and workable inspection requirement process that puts all stakeholders on the same page, publish it on the website, hold training sessions, and then violate offenders.

  Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

  GB

  Comment added September 9, 2026 5:50pm