Review of the Small Business Forward Initiative and Its Impact on Violations Enforcement
Introduction
Background
On January 4, 2022, Mayor Eric Adams signed Executive Order 2 of 2022 (EO2), titled “Small Business Forward: Review and Reform of Compliance Costs on Businesses” (SBF). The order expanded Local Law 80 of 2021 and directed six City agencies to review and reform existing business regulations to reduce unnecessary fines and penalties for small businesses.[1] The stated purpose of SBF was to benefit small businesses by easing compliance costs and promoting economic recovery by reducing fine schedules and allowing for warnings or cure periods for certain first-time violations. EO2 stipulated that reforms should not compromise public health or safety. EO2 was aimed at six agencies: the Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP), the Department of Buildings (DOB), the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH), the Department of Sanitation (DSNY), and the Fire Department (FDNY).
According to an SBF report issued by the Mayor’s Office on May 15, 2022, the six agencies submitted their first round of recommendations by March 31, 2022. The agencies evaluated a total of 232 regulations underpinning the issuance of violations in 2019 and recommended changes to 116 of them. Changes included the repeal of 30 regulations, the reduction of civil penalties associated with 50 regulations, and the amendment of 36 regulations to include first-time warnings with cure periods or extending existing cure periods.[2]
The changes were to be implemented in one of four ways: (1) Internal Policy Change; (2) Amendment to the New York City Administrative Code; (3) Amendment to the Rules of The City of New York; or (4) Amendment to New York State Law. Once implemented, the report estimated that associated savings to New York City small businesses would be approximately $8.9 million per year.
The SBF report indicated that feedback was solicited from nearly 1,000 small business owners through an online survey, and that other stakeholders provided feedback through virtual listening sessions, including meetings hosted by the Chambers of Commerce, the NYC Business Improvement District (BID) Association, and other business associations.[3]
An Inter-Agency Working Group was established to assess the recommendations submitted by six City agencies, chaired by the Deputy Mayor for Economic and Workforce Development, the Chief Efficiency Officer, and the Commissioner of the Department of Small Business Services (SBS) at the time. The main drafter of the SBF report was a Senior Advisor in the office of the Deputy Mayor for Housing, Economic Development, and Workforce.
On November 17, 2023, Mayor Eric Adams signed Local Law 151 of 2023 (LL151), which codified many of the regulatory reforms identified by the SBF initiative that were reportedly intended to reduce regulatory burdens on small businesses. While some SBF reforms were implemented earlier through internal agency rule changes, the legislative provisions of LL151 officially went into effect on May 15, 2024, with specific rules implementation and penalty schedules finalized by June 23, 2024.
In May 2025, the initiative was rebooted and expanded by Mayor Adams and SBS through “Small Business Forward 2.0,” which announced additional initiatives aimed at enhancing the relationships between the City and small businesses by reducing red tape and improving support.
On January 14, 2026, Mayor Mamdani signed Executive Order 11 of 2026 (EO11), titled “Reducing Fees and Civil Penalties for Small Business,” extending the initiative into a third round.
Objectives
The objectives of this review were to identify the current statuses of the recommended reforms suggested by the six agencies impacted by EO2, and where possible, to determine the extent to which the projected savings for small businesses have been realized.
Discussion of Audit Results with Agencies
The matters covered in this report were discussed with officials from DCWP, DOB, DEP, DOHMH, DSNY, FDNY, SBS, and the Mayor’s Office during and at the conclusion of this review. On February 24, 2026, we submitted a Draft Report to each of the agencies with a request for written comments. We received written responses from DEP on March 9, 2026; from DCWP on March 10; from DOHMH on March 11; from FDNY, SBS, and the Mayor’s Office on March 12; and from DOB and DSNY on March 13.
Of the review’s nine recommendations, the Mayor’s Office agreed with six recommendations (#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, and #7), agreed in principle but did not commit to implementing two (#6 and #8), and did not address the remaining one (#9). In its response, SBS deferred to the Mayor’s Office for response, noting that it was not a lead or participating regulatory agency in the 2022 Small Business Forward initiative.
Two of the review’s nine recommendations (#4 and #6) were addressed specifically to the regulatory agencies. DEP declined to provide specific comments to the report and DCWP, DSNY, DOB, and DOHMH indicated that they will seek further guidance from the Mayor’s Office in relation to these recommendations. In its response, FDNY disagreed with recommendation #4 and argued that the responsibility for implementing recommendation #6 should be centralized and not fall on any specific regulatory agency.
The written comments from the eight agencies have been fully considered, and where relevant, changes and comments have been added to the report. The full text of the agencies’ responses are included as an addendum to this report.
Key Takeaways
The review found that the Adams administration not only did not define “small businesses” in E02, or in any other documents shared with the auditors, but the agencies charged with implementing Small Business Forward generally did not consider the potential impact on small businesses when identifying regulations for potential reform. Moreover, they lacked the data necessary to do so. The City does not maintain a list of small businesses and reports that the prior administration surveyed or consulted with small businesses are unconfirmed; none of the entities contacted during this review could substantiate that the survey or consultation with small businesses occurred.
The changes made to seven of the 116 regulations incorporated language geared specifically toward small businesses, but the two agencies that implemented them (DOB and DEP) did not develop ways to ensure small businesses benefited from the changes or to assess their impact on small businesses.
Most of the regulations targeted for change were little used or completely unused by the agencies involved. Only 36 of the 116 regulations recommended for change by participating agencies were regularly used as the basis for issuing violations in CY2021, the year before they were designated for reform; only 30 of these were implemented during the scope period, and 14 of the 30 potentially impacted health and safety.
The City did not designate a single agency to monitor its progress, did not establish key performance indicators to assess the success of Small Business Forward, and has developed no data to assess its effectiveness. In fact, no impact assessment has been conducted. Despite this, the program was rebooted in May 2025 through “Small Business Forward 2.0,” and was recently extended further in January 2026 by the new administration.
The initiative seems to have proceeded on the assumption that a benefit to any business would also have a positive impact on small businesses. This may be true; on the other hand, it is possible the initiative has simply reduced revenue to the benefit of larger concerns.
Auditors were unable to assess the full financial impact of the adopted reforms because the six participating agencies could not provide the data needed to accomplish this. Auditors did assess the financial impact of reforms that called for fines to be eliminated or reduced to a fixed amount on all businesses—regardless of their size—for the period of January 2024 through March 2025. Prior to reforms, the auditors estimate that $14.5 million in fines would have been collected, and after the reforms, found they generated $12.1 million, representing a 17% reduction overall. The agency with the biggest reductions was DOHMH.
Despite the issues found on review, auditors recognize that the underlying goal of the SBF initiative—to provide regulatory relief to the City’s small business community—remains a laudable objective. In extending the SBF program, the City’s new administration has an opportunity to ensure that reforms are tailored specifically to small businesses without impeding public health and safety protections, and to ensure steps are taken to assess the effectiveness of the initiative moving forward, based on key performance indicators.
Small Business Forward is Targeted to All Businesses, Regardless of Size
Despite its name and public claims, the actions taken following the issuance of Executive Order 2 and Local Law 151 did not directly target “small businesses” in their design or execution. LL151 applies broadly to all “commercial establishments.” The official text does not include any references to or define “small businesses,” nor does it include any criteria that would require agencies to target violations that apply to or impact smaller commercial entities.[4]
None of the six participating agencies track violations data by business size and were therefore generally unable to select violations specific to small businesses. While the agencies stated that all businesses would benefit from the recommended reforms, this conclusion relies on the assumption—and the unsupported theory—that benefits to any businesses would automatically help small businesses as well.
During the review, agencies disclosed to auditors that the Adams administration made no effort to determine which regulations would most benefit small businesses. For example, no analyses of past summonses issued to smaller businesses were conducted. The agencies stated that they simply worked on the assumption that a benefit to any business would benefit small businesses. There appears to have been no analysis undertaken at any point to validate this assumption or to assess regulations for their impact on small businesses.
Consultation with the Small Business Community Unconfirmed
Although the SBF report claims that 1,000 small businesses were surveyed and other forms of verbal consultation with the community were reportedly undertaken in the lead up to identifying which regulations should be targeted for reform under SBF, none of the participating agencies, SBS, or the Mayor’s Office could substantiate that these occurred. No survey or survey data was produced to the auditors, despite requesting this information, and no documentation concerning the conclusions from surveys or other outreach appears to exist. Auditors were provided with no evidence that any analysis of regulations or their impact on small businesses was undertaken before recommendations were compiled.
A key responsibility of the Department of Small Business Services (SBS) is to assist New York City’s small businesses in dealing with City agencies, including adjudication of summonses/violations. An SBS official told auditors that the City generally defines a “small business” as a business with 100 employees or less. However, SBS does not maintain a list of small businesses operating in New York City, nor do any of the other agencies that are part of the SBF initiative, and as noted above, none of the agencies collect data concerning violations issued to small businesses.
Table 1. List of Seven Recommended Reforms Targeted to Small Businesses
| Agency | Violation Code ID | Description | Fine Amount | Recommended Reform | Adopted? | |
| 1 | DEP | AW52 | Failed to file annual test report for backflow device | $500 | Expand compliance period for small businesses to 60 days and conduct targeted outreach to small businesses about their backflow device requirements. | Yes |
| 2 | DEP | AW54 | Water meter repair/removal without permit | $1,000 | Create a Small Business Palm Card that inspectors can hand out when visiting a small business for any inspectorial reason. If the customer presents an invoice showing who performed the illegal work, pursue enforcement against the plumber of record. | Yes |
| 3 | DEP | AW51 | Failed to install backflow device | $1,000 | Expand compliance period for small businesses to 60 days and conduct targeted outreach to small businesses about their backflow device requirements. | Yes |
| 4 | DEP | AW63 | Inadequate protection of water meter/remote receptacle/AMR | $250 | Conduct outreach to all customers reminding them of the importance of protecting a meter from cold weather or freezing conditions. DEP will grant limited extensions if the small business owns the property and circumstances are reasonable. | Yes |
| 5 | DOB | 101 | Work without a permit. (Class 1) | $6,000 | If issued to a small business, waive the additional $6,000 civil penalty that must be paid directly to DOB. | Yes |
| 6 | DOB | 201 | Work without a permit. (Class 2) | $6,000 | If issued to a small business, waive the additional $6,000 civil penalty that must be paid directly to DOB. | Yes |
| 7 | DOB | N/A | Failure to File an Annual Boiler Report | $1,000 | Implement First-Time Waiver (for small businesses, as confirmed by DOB officials) | Yes |
Despite this apparent effort to target small businesses, however, DEP identified no mechanism for determining if the changes benefited only small businesses.
Similarly, DOB stated that small business owners can identify themselves as a small business by submitting a waiver request through DOB’s self-service online tool, DOB NOW. While DOB noted that eligible criteria are defined in the Rules of the City of New York regarding specific violation waivers, it relies on self-declaration of small business status.[5] Furthermore, DOB identified no mechanism for tracking entities granted a waiver or the number of violations issued.
Neither DOB nor DEP can confirm that the beneficiaries of reduced or delayed penalties were small businesses.
Reforms Did Not Target Regulations or Rules that Were Frequently Enforced
The SBF report made recommendations to change 116 regulations. As of December 2025, 99 (85%) of the 116 recommendations have been adopted. Of the remaining 17 recommendations, five are still pending and require action by City or State legislation, eight were rejected by the City Council, and agencies opted not to implement four reforms.[6] (A comprehensive list of the 116 recommended reforms is included in the Appendix.)
However, most of the regulations identified for reform were little enforced or completely unenforced by participating agencies in the year prior to implementation.
Majority of Regulations Recommended for Reform Did Not Result in Issued Violations Prior to EO2
According to EO2, each of the six regulatory agencies were tasked with identifying provisions of law or rules that were most frequently enforced through the issuance of violations, and to the extent practicable, identifying those violations that were most frequently issued to small businesses. According to the SBF report, the agencies identified 232 regulations that accounted for more than 280,000 violations issued in CY2019, and from these, 116 were targeted for change under the initiative. Changes included (1) introducing or extending the period for correcting the violating condition; (2) reducing fine amounts; and/or (3) eliminating regulations altogether.
Agencies informed the auditors upfront that whether small business benefited was generally not a consideration in identifying regulations for reform, and although requested, auditors were not provided with the associated CY2019 violations data that underpinned the selection of the 116 regulations targeted for reform under SBF.[7] Auditors therefore could not determine if the regulations which were most used were selected for reform.
Auditors conducted a review of the 116 regulations targeted under SBF and found that only 36 (31%) had related violations that were issued frequently during CY 2021 (the year preceding EO2). This means that the regulations selected by agencies did not represent a significant financial or regulatory burden to businesses.
As detailed in Table 2, below, there were no violations issued in CY2021 for 59 (51%) of the regulations, and 21 (18%) regulations each led to fewer than 20 enforcement actions during the year.
For DSNY, there were no violations issued in CY2021 based on any of the 26 regulations it recommended for reform; DSNY officials informed the auditors that this was due to the agency pausing violation issuances during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, a review of the violations issued by the agency in CY2022, after the pause was lifted, revealed that most of the regulations recommended for reform were infrequently enforced post-COVID. Only nine (35%) of the 26 regulations recommended for reform had evidence of regular enforcement (i.e., 20 or more violations issued) during the year; of the remaining 17, 10 had no associated violations, and seven each resulted in between one and 20 associated violations being issued.
Overall, evidence of regular enforcement activity existed for less than a third of the 116 regulations recommended for change by the six agencies. The total number of violations issued in connection with the 36 regulations in CY2021 was 21,721; these represented 99.7% of the violations associated with the 116 regulations which were recommended for reform under the initiative. In other words, 80 of the 116 recommended reforms introduced by the Adams administration accounted for just 0.3% of all violations issued in the year prior to creation of the program.
The Adams administration appears to have inflated the importance of the slate of reforms it introduced under the initiative by including many regulations that had no significant impact on businesses. Ultimately, only 31% (36 out of 116) of all regulations that were recommended to be changed under the initiative had an impact on local businesses prior to SBF.
Table 2. Breakdown of Regulations Recommended for Reform by Use
|
Agency |
Total # of Regulations Recommended for Reform | Total Summonses Issued in CY 2021 for the Recommended Regulations | # of Regulations with 20 or more Summonses Issued in CY 2021 | # of Regulations with 1 to 20 Summonses Issued in CY 2021 | # of Regulations with No Summonses Issued in CY 2021 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DCWP | 24 | 953 | 8 | 4 | 12 |
| DEP | 22 | 6,327 | 9 | 4 | 9 |
| DOB | 26 | 6,499 | 12 | 10 | 4 |
| DOHMH | 14 | 4,201 | 5 | 1 | 8 |
| DSNY | 26 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 26 |
| FDNY | 4 | 3,805 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Grand Total | 116 | 21,785 | 36 | 21 | 59 |
No Assessment of SBF’s Financial Impact Conducted
Auditors endeavored to assess the full financial impact of the adopted reforms but were unable to because the participating agencies did not collect the data necessary to make such an assessment. Agencies do not track the amounts that were assessed and eventually paid for violations issued. Agencies are unable to determine which violations resulted in fewer fines collected or the total amount of reductions that resulted from changes implemented under the initiative.
The six agencies did not adopt the suggested reforms at the same time. FDNY was the first to adopt reforms in July 2022, while DOHMH did not adopt some of its reforms until December 2024. In some cases, agencies are not even able to identify the implementation date for certain reforms and are therefore also unable to identify all summonses issued before and after the reforms were adopted. Again, this makes it impossible to assess the total financial impact of the reforms.
Auditors Estimate that Reforms Reduced Fines by at Least 17%
Auditors attempted to determine the financial impact of reforms by restricting their analysis to those reforms that called for either the reduction or elimination of the violations’ associated fines. Of the amended regulations that met this criteria, 35 regulations led to violation issuances after the reforms were adopted. For all 35, auditors calculated the amounts of the associated fines that would have been levied before and after the reforms were adopted.
Auditors then calculated the pre- and post-reform figures for the period from January 2024 through March 2025. As shown in Table 3 below, auditors found that the fines relating to these regulations for all NYC businesses went from $14.5 million (pre-adoption) to $12.1 million (post-adoption), a 17% reduction.
Table 3. Fine Reductions by Agency Following Adoption of Certain Reforms (January 2024 through March 2025)
| Agency | # of Reformed Regulations Analyzed | # of Violation Summonses Issued for Analyzed Regulations During Period | Fine Amount Pre-adoption | Fine Amount Post-adoption | Reduction Amount | Reduction Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DCWP | 4 | 380 | $54,950 | $23,188 | $31,763 | 58% |
| DEP | 0 | 0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | N/A |
| DOB | 5 | 849 | $426,675 | $211,350 | $215,325 | 50% |
| DOHMH | 8 | 18,710 | $11,170,000 | $9,193,800 | $1,976,200 | 18% |
| DSNY | 14 | 744 | $136,350 | $55,350 | $81,000 | 59% |
| FDNY | 4 | 4,581 | $2,748,450 | $2,631,200 | $117,250 | 4% |
| Total | 35 | 25,264 | $14,536,425 | $12,114,888 | $2,421,538 | 17% |
A breakdown of the data reveals that the $2.4 million in the total reduction in fines was distributed across the 35 regulations for five agencies (DCWP, DOB, DOHMH, DSNY, and FDNY). DSNY and DCWP recorded the most significant percentage decreases in fine amounts at 59% and 58%, respectively. While DOHMH saw a lower percentage reduction of 18%, it accounted for most of the volume of summons (18,710) and the largest absolute fiscal impact, totaling nearly $1.98 million in fine reductions. Conversely, FDNY saw the smallest impact with a 4% reduction, and DEP reported no summonses issued for the amended regulations during this reporting period.
As previously mentioned, the auditors cannot directly correlate the estimated reductions entirely to small businesses because of data limitations; these figures reflect savings across all businesses, regardless of size. While the estimated savings resulting from fine reductions for the selected reforms was $2.4 million across all businesses, it is highly likely that the portion benefiting small businesses alone falls short of that amount. The inability to specifically correlate these realized savings to the intended beneficiaries—small businesses—due to a lack of available data represents a significant limitation in assessing the impact of the initiative’s purpose.
Eliminated Violations Had Little Fiscal Impact
Auditors identified 24 recommendations that were adopted that called for the elimination of the associated regulations. Of these, only three were regularly enforced. Further, none of these regulations were generally geared to small businesses and their elimination did not have a material fiscal impact.
According to the agencies, these regulations were eliminated to address regulatory redundancy and to eliminate overlapping regulations and potentially duplicate violations. For the three regulations that were regularly enforced, the issuing agencies were DOB, DOHMH, and FDNY; according to the agencies, these reforms pertained to electrical covers (DOB), choking posters (DOHMH), and combustible waste containers (FDNY).
However, although enforced regularly, the associated fines had little potential for fiscal impact. These fines accounted for less than one-half of one percent (0.45%) of all fines associated with the 116 regulations recommended for change, highlighting again the absence of a clear strategy, plan or rationale for selecting certain regulations for change.[8]
Analysis of Impact of Changes Made to 14 Health and Safety Regulations is Needed
Auditors attempted to examine the non-fiscal impact of the adopted reforms and identified several regulations that appear to pertain to health and safety. Of the 36 regulations that were regularly enforced in CY2021, auditors identified adopted changes for 30 regulations. Of the 30, 14 (47%) related to health and safety issues. (Appendix II details the 14 regulations and an examination of the reforms that were adopted.)
The regulations in question pertain to topics such as hazardous material exposure, structural integrity and safety of building equipment, and emergency exit paths. The reforms called for either (1) financial penalties to be reduced (or eliminated for first time offenders), or (2) the addition or expansion of the cure period for correcting the underlying condition, without incurring financial penalties.
By shifting from immediate financial deterrents to warnings and extended compliance windows, the financial burden was eased on business owners, but an unintended consequence may be that respondents took longer to cure violating conditions. Auditors were unable to compare the remediation times before and after the reforms were adopted because the datasets provided do not contain the necessary information.
No KPIs, Insufficient Data, and No Assessment of Actual Impact of SBF
No Entity Responsible for Oversight of the SBF Initiative
There appears to be no single entity responsible for overseeing the SBF initiative, and no consistent effort to track the impact of reforms on small businesses or to quantify realized savings for small businesses. As previously mentioned, the City does not maintain a list of small businesses operating in New York City, and the six regulatory agencies subject to EO2 and LL151 do not maintain data on violations that are issued to small businesses, which significantly hinders any such assessment. The current legal framework and the executive order do not mandate specific monitoring or reporting requirements on how well the reforms are achieving the SBF initiative’s intent and stated goals, whether by the Mayor’s Office or SBS.
A senior advisor in the Mayor’s Office stated that the SBF initiative falls under her oversight and that she works closely with SBS on issues related to small businesses.[9] However, neither she, SBS, nor any of the six regulatory agencies have conducted any analyses to quantify realized savings or reductions in fines, nor have they determined the impact of the implemented reforms on small businesses. The true impact of the implemented reforms has not been determined, and the City has made no effort to verify whether agencies are making all reasonable efforts to assist and reduce financial burdens on small businesses. Without this, it is impossible to determine whether the initiative is doing more than reducing overall revenue from fines.
No Methodology and Substantiation for Projected Annual Savings Calculation
The SBF report does not describe the methodology used to project savings for any of the six participating agencies. During a meeting with SBS and the Mayor’s Office on April 25, 2025, auditors requested information on the calculation of the projected savings. On May 19, 2025, we received an email from SBS stating that they found a file in their records showing how the projected savings were calculated. Upon review, however, the provided table does not establish a methodology for assessing the financial impact of the reforms.
Ultimately, due to the lack of clear, documented methodology, the inconsistent application of calculation methods across agencies, and the inability of SBS or the Mayor’s Office to provide substantiating historical data upon request, the auditors conclude that the SBF report’s estimated annual savings of approximately $8.9 million cannot be verified or relied upon as accurate. Due to a lack of tracking by agencies, auditors were unable to determine the full impact of the implemented reforms regarding a reduction in the fines paid out by businesses. However, based on a limited review of certain violations, actual reductions were achieved for related violations in CY 2024 through the first quarter of CY 2025.
Opportunities to Improve
The new administration has recently issued EO11 to extend and carry forward a new iteration of the Small Business Forward program. This offers an opportunity to establish a method for identifying violations for reform based on their potential impact on small businesses, specifically by defining small businesses for the SBF program; establishing selection criteria for change; establishing Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and a methodology for assessing the effectiveness of the program after implementation; improving data capture and tracking mechanisms that are consistent with any adopted methodology; and regularly reporting outcomes to the public. These measures are needed to ensure the important objectives of the program are met. They are also crucial for maintaining accountability and transparency.
Recommendations
Based on this review, the auditors have identified several areas for improvement to address the above-mentioned findings:
Enhance Program Management, Oversight, and Transparency
- The Mayor’s Office should formally designate a lead agency (e.g., the Mayor’s Office or SBS) responsible for overseeing and coordinating the SBF initiative’s progress, tracking savings, and ensuring ongoing effectiveness.
The Mayor’s Office agreed with the recommendation. - The City should provide regular public reporting on the SBF initiative’s progress, realized savings for small businesses, and overall compliance rates. To maintain integrity, these reports should clearly define performance indicators, data sources and scope, explain calculation methodologies, and acknowledge any data limitations.
SBS deferred to the Mayor’s Office for a response.
The Mayor’s Office agreed with the recommendation.
Improve Program Design and Strategic Targeting
- The City should adopt a uniform “small business” definition used by all participating agencies.
SBS deferred to the Mayor’s Office for a response.
The Mayor’s Office agreed with the recommendation. - Agencies should prioritize violations and reforms based on their potential impact on businesses that fit within the adopted definition. The selection process should move beyond general business benefits to address the unique regulatory and financial challenges faced by smaller entities.
SBS, DCWP, DOB, and DSNY deferred to the Mayor’s Office for a response. DOHMH indicated it would seek guidance from the Mayor’s Office. DEP did not respond to the recommendation.
The Mayor’s Office agreed with the recommendation.FDNY disagreed with the recommendation on several grounds, stating that the assumptions that “FDNY enforcement action imposes a regulatory and financial burden on businesses generally, and that this action is further burdensome on small businesses, in particular,” are inaccurate.
Auditor Comment: The “assumptions” FDNY objects to sit at the heart of EO2 and EO11. FDNY is specifically named in both. Given this, and given the Mayor’s Office’s agreement to implement this recommendation, the auditors suggest that FDNY seek further guidance concerning the stated purpose of the program and how it should approach the mandates the orders contain. - The City should develop a framework for monitoring and assessing both financial savings and non-financial impacts, such as reductions in administrative burden and time savings for business owners.
SBS deferred to the Mayor’s Office for a response.The Mayor’s Office agreed with the recommendation.
Strengthen Data Management and Targeted Tracking
- The regulatory agencies (DCWP, DEP, DOB, DOHMH, DSNY, and FDNY) should consider integrating a specific “small business” identifier in their systems to track violation issuances, fine reductions, waivers, and cure periods specifically for small entities.
DCWP, DOB, DOHMH, and DSNY essentially deferred to the Mayor’s Office for a response, and, in some cases, noted potential issues with feasibility and resource allocation. FDNY agreed in principle with the need for a small business identifier in its system but stressed the need for a centralized and uniform definition of “small business,” as well as appropriate parameters for implementation. DEP did not respond to this recommendation.
The Mayor’s Office agreed in principle with the recommendation, stating it “appreciates the spirit of this recommendation and is open to discussing potential alternatives to achieve its stated intent, in light of the resource requirements. Most agency systems today record violations tied to locations or individuals, such as property owners, tenants, or residents, rather than the operating business itself, so operationalizing this recommendation across agency processes and data systems would be a significant lift and process change and require significant resources.”
Auditor Comment: Continuing to rely on data tied to locations rather than specific business entities hinders the City’s ability to assess whether the intended beneficiaries of SBF are receiving relief as intended. Agencies should work with the Mayor’s Office to develop an identifier or some other mechanism for tracking the extent to which small businesses are benefiting from this initiative, and the City should work toward implementation in agency systems of record. - The City should create a formal, documented methodology for assessing the impact of SBF reforms, establishing a transparent framework for calculating projected and realized savings. This would equip City officials with the data necessary to inform future policy decisions, prioritize effective reforms, and ensure fiscal accountability.
SBS deferred to the Mayor’s Office for a response.
The Mayor’s Office agreed with the recommendation.
Ensure Public Safety and Stakeholder Accountability
- The City should implement a formal protocol to monitor the impact of regulatory relief on public health and safety. This framework should track whether reduced penalties or extended cure periods affect the timeliness of violations remediation.
SBS deferred to the Mayor’s Office response.
The Mayor’s Office agreed in principle with the recommendation. - The designated lead agency should conduct a comprehensive review of the previously implemented reforms to determine if the financial savings benefited small businesses. This evaluation would help the City determine if the program is helping the intended recipients.
SBS deferred to the Mayor’s Office response.
The Mayor’s Office did not address the recommendation, instead stating that “[t]he Administration is planning to focus on new reforms that are proposed out of Executive Order 11.”
Recommendations Follow-up
Follow-up will be conducted periodically to determine the implementation status of each recommendation contained in this report. Agency-reported status updates are included in the Audit Recommendations Tracker available at:
https://comptroller.nyc.gov/services/for-the-public/audit/audit-recommendations-tracker/
Appendix I
Comprehensive List and Adoption Status of the 116 SBF Reform Recommendations (as of December 2025)
| Agency | Rec # | Violation Code ID | Section of Law/Rule | Violation Description | Recommended Reform | Violations with Frequent Use (20 or more violation issuances) during CY 2021 (prior to EO2) | Adoption Status | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adopted | Adoption Date | Pending – Further Action Required by City or State Legislation | Not Adopted – Rejected by City Council | Not Adopted – Agency Opted Not to Implement After Further Consideration | |||||||
| DCWP | 1 | N/A | 1 NYCRR § 221.4 | Declaration of responsibility on product packaging | Recommend reduce first time penalty from $300 to $0 | X | X | ||||
| DCWP | 2 | N/A | 1 NYCRR § 221.5(c) | Labels do not clearly state the net quantity of items in containers | Recommend reduce first time penalty from $300 to $0 | X | X | ||||
| DCWP | 3 | N/A | 6 RCNY § 2-134(a)(1) was replaced by 6 RCNY § 4-131(a)(1) | Business fails to prominently and conspicuously display price list sign, or price list sign is not displayed at point at which orders are placed or payment is made, or lettering on sign is less than 1 inch | Recommend making eligible for cure. New citation is 6 RCNY º 4-131(a) (1). | X | X | 2/5/2023 | |||
| DCWP | 4 | N/A | NYC Admin Code § 20-822(a) | Sale of expired meds: business offered for sale over-the counter medication later than expiration date on the label. | Recommend reduce first time penalty from $250 to $0 | X | X | ||||
| DCWP | 5 | N/A | 6 RCNY § 4-112(b) | No last day of sale or last date of recommended usage on packaging |
Recommend reduce first time penalty from $100 to $0 | X | X | 6/23/2024 | |||
| DCWP | 6 | N/A | 1 NYCRR § 221.13(b)(18) | Deli items do not have prices displayed | Recommend making eligible for cure | X | X | ||||
| DCWP | 7 | N/A | NY Agri & Mkts § 190(5) | Store does not have a scale for customers | Recommend making eligible for cure | X | |||||
| DCWP | 8 | N/A | 1 NYCRR § 221.13(b)(19) | Fails to post sign stating identity of commodity sold in bulk and price per pound or unit price | Recommend making eligible for cure | X | X | ||||
| DCWP | 9 | N/A | NYC Admin Code § 20-910(f) | Fails to post open door or window complaint sign | Recommend making eligible for cure | X | 6/23/2024 | ||||
| DCWP | 10 | N/A | 6 RCNY § 2-70.2(F) | Use the stoop line stand to wash, trim bunch or prepare | Recommend reduce first time penalty from $175 to $0 | X | 6/23/2024 | ||||
| DCWP | 11 | N/A | NYC Admin Code § 20-910(b) | Exterior door or window open while an air conditioner/ central cooling system was operating | Recommend reduce first time penalty from $250 to $0 | X | 6/23/2024 | ||||
| DCWP | 12 | N/A | 6 RCNY § 2-70.2(E) | Licensee accepts payment outside for merchandise sold or displayed at such stoop line stand | Recommend reduce first time penalty from $175 to $0 | X | 6/23/2024 | ||||
| DCWP | 13 | N/A | 6 RCNY § 3-24(c) | Scale is not located between the buyer and seller | Recommend making eligible for cure | X | 2/5/2023 | ||||
| DCWP | 14 | N/A | NYC Admin Code § 20-740(b) | Receipt does not include the year-round phone number and/or address of tax preparer. | Recommend reduce first time penalty from $375 to $0 | X | |||||
| DCWP | 15 | N/A | NYC Admin Code § 20-544 | Car Wash failed to maintain accident records | Recommend making eligible for cure | X | X | 6/23/2024 | |||
| DCWP | 16 | N/A | NYC Admin Code § 20-727 | Business failed to post raincheck policy. | Recommend repeal | X | 6/23/2024 | ||||
| DCWP | 17 | N/A | NYC Admin Code § 20-744 | 3rd party sold travel tickets with excessive fees | Recommend repeal | X | 6/23/2024 | ||||
| DCWP | 18 | N/A | NYC Admin Code § 20-756 | Invoice for delayed payment transaction failed to include required disclosures | Recommend repeal | X | 6/23/2024 | ||||
| DCWP | 19 | N/A | NYC Admin Code § 20-757 | Invoice for delayed payment transaction included unsolicited offer. | Recommend repeal | X | 6/23/2024 | ||||
| DCWP | 20 | N/A | NYC Admin Code § 20-760 | Failure to check ID when offering a tobacco product promotion | Recommend repeal | X | |||||
| DCWP | 21 | N/A | NYC Admin Code § 20-801 | Child care provider failed to post required disclosure | Recommend repeal | X | 6/23/2024 | ||||
| DCWP | 22 | N/A | NYC Admin Code § 20-802 | Child care provider failed to provide inspection report with information materials | Recommend repeal | X | 6/23/2024 | ||||
| DCWP | 23 | N/A | 6 RCNY § 2-260 | Picture tubes sold or offered for sale without proper label (these are older televisions with a cathode ray tube or CRT) |
Recommend repeal | X | 2/5/2023 | ||||
| DCWP | 24 | N/A | 6 RCNY § 5-69 | Vendor offering blood pressure reading services failed to post disclosure sign | Recommend repeal | X | 2/5/2023 | ||||
| DEP | 1 | AW52 | 20-04e | Failed to file annual test report for backflow device | Proposed Change: Expand compliance period for small businesses to 60 days and conduct targeted outreach to small businesses about their backflow device requirements. | X | X | 6/1/2024* | |||
| DEP | 2 | BAH7 | 24-109a3 | Unregistered boiler or water heater | Proposed Change: DEP will amend policy so that three emails are sent to owners within 6 months of expiration date before they are eligible to receive a violation. For unregistered equipment which is cancelled after 1 year of failure to renew, DEP policy will be to give two weeks to get equipment registered. | X | X | 6/1/2024* | |||
| DEP | 3 | AW55 | 20-05b2 | Failed to return water meter permit | Proposed change: grant extensions on a case-by-case basis. | X | X | 6/1/2024* | |||
| DEP | 4 | AW51 | 20-04d | Failed to install backflow device | Proposed Change: Expand compliance period for small businesses to 60 days and conduct targeted outreach to small businesses about their backflow device requirements. | X | X | 6/1/2024* | |||
| DEP | 5 | AW54 | 20-05b1 | Water meter repair/removal without permit | Proposed Change: Create a Small Business Palm Card that inspectors can hand out when visiting a small business for any inspectorial reason. If the customer presents an invoice showing who performed the illegal work, we will pursue enforcement towards the plumber of record. | X | 6/1/2024* | ||||
| DEP | 6 | BX2F | 1-42a | Utilized improperly located air samplers (Asbestos) | Proposed Change: Inspectors will give verbal warnings. This requirement is essential in determining where asbestos is being released into the ambient spaces. Improperly placed samplers will not provide a true indication of asbestos release into those spaces. On average, at least 5 sampling pumps will be running at the same time. | X | X | 6/1/2024* | |||
| DEP | 7 | BX51 | 1-102d | Failed to bag detached asbestos directly | Proposed Change: Inspectors will give warnings for small amounts present in the work area if it can be cleaned up immediately and doesn’t pose a current health and safety issue. This is a health and Safety issue as the presence of too much asbestos in the work area will cause an increase in the potential of workers to be exposed and possible release into the environment. | X | 6/1/2024* | ||||
| DEP | 8 | BN17 | 24-220c | Failed to have Noise Mitigation Plan available | Proposed Change: DEP inspectors will use their discretion to have the violating issue remedied on site before issuing a violation. In addition, DEP can issue a 5-Day Cure Period to resolve a potential noise violation related to construction projects. | X | X | 6/1/2024* | |||
| DEP | 9 | AW63 | 20-05p | Inadequate protection of water meter/remote receptacle/AMR | Proposed Change: Conduct outreach to all customers reminding them of the importance of protecting a meter from cold weather or freezing conditions. DEP will grant limited extensions if the small business owns the property and circumstances are reasonable. | X | X | 6/1/2024* | |||
| DEP | 10 | AQ01/
AQ04 |
24-706 | Failed to file Facility Inventory Form (RTK) | Proposed Change: Conduct enhanced outreach to facilities before issuing violations. DEP will grant the facility a 30-day compliance period and advise the facility that we can provide assistance with the filing process. | X | X | 6/1/2024* | |||
| DEP | 11 | AP84 | 24-524 | Failed to comply with Commissioner’s Order (Sewer)- failed to maintain grease interceptor(s) | Proposed Change: DEP to issue a warning and require establishments to clean grease interceptor asap and submit proof within 7 days. | X | X | ||||
| DEP | 12 | AP84 | 24-524 | Failed to comply with Commissioner’s Order (Sewer)-undersized grease interceptor(s) | Proposed Change: increase the time to cure the violation from 30 days to 60 days (business must install the proper sized grease interceptor) | X | 6/1/2024* | ||||
| DEP | 13 | AP84 | 24-524 | Failed to comply with Commissioner’s Order (Sewer) – grease interceptor installed backwards or not functioning properly | Proposed Change: increase the time to cure the violation from 15 days to 30 days (business must rectify the problem with their grease interceptor) | X | 6/1/2024* | ||||
| DEP | 14 | AP84 | 24-524 | Failed to comply with Commissioner’s Order (Sewer) – no access to grease interceptor |
Proposed Change: increase the number of days to provide access to the grease interceptor from 3 to 7 days | X | 6/1/2024* | ||||
| DEP | 15 | AP84 | 24-524 | Failed to comply with Commissioner’s Order (Sewer) – post a permanent sign above the sink | Proposed Change: increase the number of days a business has to post a permanent sign above the sink and to submit a notarized statement indicating its purpose from 7 to 30 days. | X | 6/1/2024* | ||||
| DEP | 16 | BN13/
AN07 |
24-218.1 | Use of a mobile telephone in a place of public performance | Eliminate (difficult to enforce) | X | |||||
| DEP | 17 | BN40/
AN31 |
24-233(a) | Unreasonable noise – personal audio device | Eliminate (difficult to enforce) | X | |||||
| DEP | 18 | BN51 | 24-237(c) | Operation of a steam whistle attached to a stationary boiler | Eliminate (violation rarely/ never observed) | X | 6/1/2024* | ||||
| DEP | 19 | 24-706 | Failed to file a facility inventory update | Reduce penalty | X | 6/1/2024* | |||||
| DEP | 20 | AQ07 | 24-706(b) | Failed to submit a Material Safety Data Sheet | Reduce penalty | X | 6/1/2024* | ||||
| DEP | 21 | AQ10 | 24-706(c) | Failed to make copy of FIF or MSDS available at facility | Reduce penalty | X | 6/1/2024* | ||||
| DEP | 22 | AQ18 | 24-718 | Failed to properly file risk management plan |
Reduce penalty | X | 6/1/2024* | ||||
| DOB | 1 | 101 | 28-105.1 | Work without a permit. (Class 1) | If issued to a small business, waive the additional $6k civil penalty that must be paid directly to DOB. | X | X | 11/20/2022 | |||
| DOB | 2 | 201 | 28-105.1 | Work without a permit. (Class 2) | If issued to a small business, waive the additional $6k civil penalty that must be paid directly to DOB. | X | X | 11/20/2022 | |||
| DOB | 3 | 203 | 28-118.3.2 | Occupancy contrary to that allowed by the Certificate of Occupancy or Buildings Department records. (Class 2) |
Extend existing cure period from 40 to 60 days | X | X | 11/20/2022 | |||
| DOB | 4 | 301 | 28-105.1 | Work without a permit. (Class 3) | Reduce standard penalty from $500 to $250 | X | X | 11/20/2022 | |||
| DOB | 5 | 232 | 28-301.1 | Failure to maintain building in code- compliant manner: illumination for exits, exit discharges and public corridors per BC 1006.1; 27-381. | Extend existing cure period from 40 to 60 days | X | X | 11/20/2022 | |||
| DOB | 6 | 226 | 28-301.1 | Failure to maintain building in code- compliant manner: Use of prohibited door and/or hardware per BC 1008.1.8; 27-371(j). | Extend existing cure period from 40 to 60 days | X | X | 11/20/2022 | |||
| DOB | 7 | 265 | 28-303.7 | Failure to file a complete boiler inspection report. | Extend existing cure period from 40 to 60 days | X | X | 11/20/2022 | |||
| DOB | 8 | 303 | 28-118.3.2 | Occupancy contrary to that allowed by the Certificate of Occupancy or Buildings Department records (Class 3) |
Extend existing cure period from 40 to 60 days | X | X | 11/20/2022 | |||
| DOB | 9 | 220 | 28-105.11 | Failure to post or properly post permit for work at premises. |
Reduce standard penalty from $625 to $300 | X | X | 11/20/2022 | |||
| DOB | 10 | 222 | 28-117.1 | Operation of a Place of Assembly without a current Certificate of Operation. | Extend existing cure period from 40 to 60 days | X | 11/20/2022 | ||||
| DOB | 11 | 274 | 28-105.1 | Outdoor sign on display structure without a permit. | Introduce 60-day cure period | X | |||||
| DOB | 12 | 281 | ZR-Misc. | Misc. sign violation under the Zoning Resolution. | Extend existing cure period from 40 to 60 days | X | X | 11/20/2022 | |||
| DOB | 13 | 219 | 27-528, BC 1024.1.3 (2008 code) & BC 1028.1.3 (2014 code) |
Approved Place of Assembly plans not available for inspection. | Elimination of Violation Type | X | 11/20/2022 | ||||
| DOB | 14 | 225 | 28-105.12.2 | Place of Assembly contrary to approved construction documents. | Elimination of Violation Type | X | 11/20/2022 | ||||
| DOB | 15 | 278 | 28-301.1 | Failure to maintain sign in accordance w Tit.27; Tit.28; ZR; RCNY. | Extend existing cure period from 40 to 60 days | X | 11/20/2022 | ||||
| DOB | 16 | 310 | 27-3018(b) | Failure to conspicuously post electrical work permit while work is in progress. | Elimination of Violation Type | X | 11/20/2022 | ||||
| DOB | 17 | 2A1 | 28-105.12.1 | Outdoor sign permit application contrary to Code and ZR requirements. | Introduce 60-day cure period | X | |||||
| DOB | 18 | 276 | ZR 32-64 | Sign(s) in specified C District exceed(s) surface area restrictions. | Extend existing cure period from 40 to 60 days | X | 11/20/2022 | ||||
| DOB | 19 | 277 | ZR 32-652 | Sign in specified C District extends beyond street line limitation. | Extend existing cure period from 40 to 60 days | X | 11/20/2022 | ||||
| DOB | 20 | 275 | ZR 32-653 | Prohibited sign on awning, canopy, or marquee in C District. | Extend existing cure period from 40 to 60 days | X | 11/20/2022 | ||||
| DOB | 21 | 2E5 | EC 314.25 | Failure to provide cover/faceplate/ lampholder/ luminaire canopy for electrical outlet. | Elimination of Violation Type | X | X | 11/20/2022 | |||
| DOB | 22 | 2D2 | EC 110.25 | Electrical closet not dedicated to electrical distribution equipment only. | Elimination of Violation Type | X | 11/20/2022 | ||||
| DOB | 23 | 309 | 27-3018(B) | Electrical work without a permit | Reduce standard penalty from $400 to $200 | X | X | 11/20/2022 | |||
| DOB | 24 | 224 | 28-118.3 | Change in occupancy/use of C of O as per §28-118.3.1 – §28-118.3.2 by operating a Place of Assembly as per when current C of O does not allow such occupancy. |
Reduce standard penalty from $500 to $250. | X | 11/20/2022 | ||||
| DOB | 25 | 2E8 | EC 410.30 | Luminaries & Lamp holders not installed in an approved manner | Reduce standard penalty from $500 to $250 | X | 11/20/2022 | ||||
| DOB | 26 | Failure to File an Annual Boiler Report | Failure to File an Annual Boiler Report | Implement First-Time Waiver | X | 11/20/2022 | |||||
| DOHMH | 1 | 02G | NYCHC 81.09(a) | Cold food that requires time/ temperature control for safety not held at 41°F or below. | Recommend reducing maximum penalty: $600 to $500. | X | X | 3/6/2023 | |||
| DOHMH | 2 | 02B | NYCHC 81.09(a) | Hot food that requires time/ temperature control for safety not held at or above 140 °F. | Recommend reducing maximum penalty: $600 to $500 | X | X | 3/6/2023 | |||
| DOHMH | 3 | 02H | NYCHC 81.09(e) | Food that requires time/temperature control for safety not cooled by approved method. | Recommend reducing maximum penalty: $600 to $500 | X | X | 3/6/2023 | |||
| DOHMH | 4 | 04H | NYCHC 81.07(a) | Food: adulterated/ contaminated. | Recommend reducing maximum penalty: $600 to $500 | X | X | 3/6/2023 | |||
| DOHMH | 5 | 16-11 | Admin Code 17- 199.11(b) | Prohibited drink listed on children’s meal menu (beverage other than water, milk, fruit/vegetable juice) | Reduce fine: $100 to $50 | X | 11/17/2023 | ||||
| DOHMH | 6 | 20-08 | Ad Code 17- 1507(a) | Failure to conspicuously post healthy eating information sign | Reduce fine: $500 to $200 | X | 3/6/2023 | ||||
| DOHMH | 7 | 17-01 | 24 RCNY 32-03 | “Dining with Dogs” sign not posted at or near entrance | Reduce fine: $250 to $200 |
X | 3/6/2023 | ||||
| DOHMH | 8 | N/A | Admin Code 17-1903 | Offering force-fed product on the menu | Reduce fine: $500 to $400 |
X | |||||
| DOHMH | 9 | AH5A | 24 RCNY 7 | No certificate of completion of small animal care and handling course | Reduce fine: $500 to $400 |
X | 3/6/2023 | ||||
| DOHMH | 10 | 20-04/20D | Admin Code 17-172(a); 24 RCNY 23 | Failure to post the “choking” poster | Eliminate (DOHMH will provide poster at no charge to businesses) | X | X | 3/6/2023 | |||
| DOHMH | 11 | 17-02 | 24 RCNY 32-03 | “Dining with Dogs” sign incomplete | Eliminate (limit signage violations) | X | 3/6/2023 | ||||
| DOHMH | 12 | AH5A | Admin Code 17-1702(a)(2)(c) | Dogs and/or cats from prohibited sources, three or more distinct finally determined non- compliant items citations, other than no access violations, as indicated on the most recent USDA inspection report |
Eliminate (new method in effect) | X | 12/15/2024 | ||||
| DOHMH | 13 | AH5A | Admin Code 17- 1702(a)(2)(e) | Dogs and/or cats from prohibited sources, USDA Breeder with finally determined USDA Order to Cease and Desist issued by an Administrative Law Judge in the last five years | Eliminate (new method in effect) | X | 12/15/2024 | ||||
| DOHMH | 14 | AH5A | Admin Code 17-1702(a)(2)(f) | Dogs and/or cats from prohibited sources, USDA Class A breeder with finally determined USDA Order to pay civil penalty issued by an Administrative Law Judge in the last five years |
Eliminate (new method in effect) | X | 12/15/2024 | ||||
| DSNY | 1 | ASW4 | 16RCNY1-11(D)(2) | Failure to post signage in organics collection areas 1st offense | Reduce first violation from $250 to $0 | X | 5/15/2024 | ||||
| DSNY | 2 | ARI4 | 16RCNY1-10(E)(2)(II) | Failure to post signage (single stream) 1st offense | Reduce first violation from $100 to $0 | X | 5/15/2024 | ||||
| DSNY | 3 | ASV4 | 16RCNY1-11(D)(1) | Failure to post private carter sticker (organics) 1st offense | Reduce first violation from $250 to $0 | X | 5/15/2024 | ||||
| DSNY | 4 | ARG4 | 16RCNY1-10(E)(4) | Unlabeled recycling container (owner lessee) (single stream) 1st offense | Reduce first violation from $100 to $0 | X | 5/15/2024 | ||||
| DSNY | 5 | ARI1 | 16RCNY1-10(E)(2)(II) | Failure to post signage (source separation) 1st offense | Reduce first violation from $100 to $0 | X | 5/15/2024 | ||||
| DSNY | 6 | ARG1 | 16RCNY1-10(E)(4) | Unlabeled recycling container (owner lessee) (source separation) 1st offense | Reduce first violation from $100 to $0 | X | 5/15/2024 | ||||
| DSNY | 7 | ASX4 | 16RCNY1-11(B)(1) | Fail to recycle organics (food service establishment chain 100 or more) 1st offense |
Reduce first violation from $250 to $0 |
X | 5/15/2024 | ||||
| DSNY | 8 | ASV7 | 16RCNY1-11(D)(1) | Failure to post sticker indicating self-transporter organics 1st offence | Eliminate/ Repeal | X | 5/15/2024 | ||||
| DSNY | 9 | ASW1 | 16RCNY1-11(D)(1) | Failure to post sticker indicating on site processor organics 1st offence | Eliminate/ Repeal | X | 5/15/2024 | ||||
| DSNY | 10 | ASGM | 16-401 (c)(2) | Charge for/ask why single-use non-compostable plastic straw is required | Eliminate/Repeal (enforcement very difficult) | X | |||||
| DSNY | 11 | ASGS | 16-401(d) | Provide compostable straws to be used outside of the food establishment | Eliminate/Repeal (enforcement very difficult) | X | |||||
| DSNY | 12 | ASGY | 16-401(d) | Fail to maintain required bins for disposal of compostable straws | Eliminate/Repeal (enforcement very difficult) | X | |||||
| DSNY | 13 | ASR4 | 16RCNY1-11(B)(1) -Admin Code | Failure to recycle organics (stadium) | Reduce first violation from $250 to $0 | X | 5/15/2024 | ||||
| DSNY | 14 | ASR7 | 16RCNY1-11(B)(1) -Admin Code | Failure to recycle organics (hotel) | Reduce first violation from $250 to $0 | X | 5/15/2024 | ||||
| DSNY | 15 | ASS1 | 16RCNY1-11(B)(1) -Admin Code | Failure to recycle organics (food manufacture 25,000 square feet) | Reduce first violation from $250 to $0 | X | 5/15/2024 | ||||
| DSNY | 16 | ASS4 | 16RCNY1-11(B)(1) -Admin Code | Failure to recycle organics (food wholesaler 20,000 square feet) | Reduce first violation from $250 to $0 | X | 5/15/2024 | ||||
| DSNY | 17 | ASS7 | 16RCNY1-11(B)(2) -Admin Code | Failure to supply written agreement to DSNY within 5 business days | Reduce first violation from $250 to $0 | X | 5/15/2024 | ||||
| DSNY | 18 | AST1 | 16RCNY1-11(B)(3)(I) -Admin Code | Fail supply weight measurement records to DSNY w in5 business days | Reduce first violation from $250 to $0 | X | 5/15/2024 | ||||
| DSNY | 19 | AST4 | 16RCNY1-11(B)(3)(II) -Admin Code | Existence of public nuisance conditions | Reduce first violation from $250 to $0 | X | 5/15/2024 | ||||
| DSNY | 20 | AST7 | 16RCNY1-11(B)(3)(IV)- Admin Code | Fail notify DSNY regarding onsite organic waste processing equipment | Reduce first violation from $250 to $0 | X | 5/15/2024 | ||||
| DSNY | 21 | ASU1 | 16RCNY1-11(C)(1) -Admin Code | Organics containers not labelled | Reduce first violation from $250 to $0 | X | 5/15/2024 | ||||
| DSNY | 22 | ASU4 | 16RCNY1-11(C)(2) -Admin Code | Organics mixed with non-organic materials | Reduce first violation from $250 to $0 | X | 5/15/2024 | ||||
| DSNY | 23 | ASU7 | 16RCNY1-11(C)(3)(IV)- Admin Code | Organics placed out for collection in container without latching device | Reduce first violation from $250 to $0 | X | 5/15/2024 | ||||
| DSNY | 24 | ASV1 | 16RCNY1-11(C)(3)(I) -Admin Code | Organics in storage area placed in a container w o latching device | Reduce first violation from $250 to $0 | X | 5/15/2024 | ||||
| DSNY | 25 | ASX1 | 16RCNY1-11(B)(1) -Admin Code | Fail to recycle organics (fse at least 15,000 sq ft) 1st offense | Reduce first violation from $250 to $0 | X | 5/15/2024 | ||||
| DSNY | 26 | ASX7 | 16RCNY1-11(B)(1) -Admin Code | Fail to recycle organics retail food store at least 25000 sq ft | Reduce first violation from $250 to $0 | X | 5/15/2024 | ||||
| FDNY | 1 | BF02 | 3 RCNY 109-02 | VC2 Combustible Waste Containers (failure to provide a required container for combustible waste and/or store combustible waste in a required container) | Eliminate | X | X | 7/14/2022 | |||
| FDNY | 2 | BF18 | 3 RCNY 109-02 | VC18 Certificates of Approval, Certificates of License and Company Certificates (failure to obtain and/or produce a certificate of approval, certificate of license or company certificate) | Eliminate | X | 7/14/2022 | ||||
| FDNY | 3 | BF29 | 3 RCNY 109-02 | VC29 Designated handling and use rooms or areas (failure to provide a required room or area for handling and/ or use of materials, operations or other activity regulated by the Fire Code) | Eliminate | X | 7/14/2022 | ||||
| FDNY | 4 | BF19 | 3 RCNY 109-02 | VC19 Affidavits, design and installation documents and other documentation (failure to prepare, produce, file with the Department and/or submit for Department approval affidavits, applications, certifications, design and installation documents and/ or other required documentation) | Reduce first violation penalty from $600 to $575 | X | X | 10/30/2023 | |||
| Total | 116 | 36 | 99 | 5 | 8 | 4 | |||||
*Auditors used June 2024 as the adoption date for DEP’s reforms in their calculations because DEP could not provide the exact adoption dates of its reforms; specific rule implementations and penalty schedules were subject to a June 23, 2024 deadline.
Appendix II
List of 14 Regularly Enforced Health and Safety Regulations and Associated Reforms
| Agency | Violation Code ID | NYC Administrative Code or Law | Violation Description | Original Penalty | Reform |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DCWP | N/A | 6 RCNY § 4-112(b) | No last day of sale or last date of recommended usage on packaging | First Time Penalty: $100 | $0 first-time penalty / 1st Warning |
| DCWP | N/A | NYC Admin Code § 20-544 | Car Wash failed to maintain accident/damage records | $375 | Eligible for Cure |
| DEP | AW52 | 15 RCNY § 20-04e | Failed to file annual test report for backflow device | $500 | Extended compliance period for small businesses to 60 days |
| DEP | BAH7 | NYC Admin Code § 24-109(a)3 | Unregistered boiler or water heater | $400 to $1,600 | Three email warning notifications to owners within 6 months of expiration date before they are eligible to receive a violation. For unregistered equipment, DEP will give two weeks to get equipment registered. |
| DEP | AW55 | 15 RCNY § 20-05b2 | Failed to return water meter permit | $350 to $1,000 | Case-by-case extensions |
| DEP | AW51 | 15 RCNY § 20-04d | Failed to install backflow device | $700 to $1,000 | Expand compliance period for small businesses to 60 days |
| DEP | BX2F | 15 RCNY § 1-42a | Utilized improperly located air samplers (Asbestos) | $1,200 | Verbal warnings for specific sample pump count and pump locations |
| DEP | BN17 | NYC Admin Code § 24-220c | Failed to have Noise Mitigation Plan available | $440 | On-site discretion remedy before issuing a violation; ability to grant 5-day cure period |
| DEP | AW63 | 15 RCNY § 20-05p | Inadequate protection of water meter/remote receptacle/automated meter reading (AMR) | $250 | Outreach and limited extensions if the small business owns the property and circumstances are reasonable. |
| DEP | AQ01/
AQ04 |
NYC Admin Code § 24-706 | Failed to file Facility Inventory Form (RTK) | $500 | 30-day compliance period with offered assistance with the filing process |
| DOB | 203 | NYC Admin Code § 28-118.3.2 | Occupancy contrary to Certificate of Occupancy or Buildings Department records. (Class 2) | $1,250 | Extend cure period from 40 to 60 days |
| DOB | 232 | NYC Admin Code § 28-301.1 | Failure to maintain building exit or corridor illumination | $625 | Extend cure period from 40 to 60 days |
| DOB | 226 | NYC Admin Code § 28-301.1 | Failure to maintain building in code-compliant manner: Use of prohibited door and/or hardware | $625 | Extend cure period from 40 to 60 days |
| DOB | 265 | NYC Admin Code § 28-303.7 | Failure to file a complete boiler inspection report. | $625 | Extend cure period from 40 to 60 days |
Endnotes
[1] Local Law 80 of 2021, enacted July 18, 2021, reformed business violations and penalties to reduce regulatory burdens and compliance costs. The law repealed certain requirements and reduced the amounts of civil penalties for violations of certain provisions of law, eliminating civil penalties for certain first-time offenders, and providing an opportunity to cure certain first-time violations of various provisions enforced by DEP, DCWP, DOB, DOHMH, Department of Transportation (DOT), and DSNY.
[2] In addition to the six agencies mentioned, the Department of Transportation (DOT) also provided recommendations to reform. However, the SBF report did not report on those reforms.
[3] Auditors were unable to find any evidence of this survey. As discussed later in this report, none of the officials involved in producing the report were employed by the City during the time of the auditors’ review. Additionally, auditors were not provided with a list of small businesses reportedly contacted, and the City has no registry of small businesses operating in the City.
[4] https://intro.nyc/local-laws/2023-151
[5] 1 RCNY §§ 102-04, 103-01, and 103-05
[6] DOB decided not to adopt two reforms because they said they would not benefit small businesses, DOHMH did not pursue a reform because of a court order, and DEP rolled back one reform after the COVID pandemic.
[7] While three agencies (DCWP, DOB and DOHMH) did provide some statistics, the data did not reconcile with the reported figures.
[8] Of the $20,455,305 collected in fines for the 116 regulations recommended for reform in CY 2021, $92,400 (0.45%) was associated with these three regulations. The $92,400 consists of $75,500 for the FDNY combustible waste container violations (151 issuances at $500 each), $11,500 for the DOB electrical cover violations (23 issuances at $500 each), and $5,400 for the DOHMH choking poster violations (27 issuances at $200 each).
[9] The Senior Advisor was not directly involved in the creation of Small Business Forward initiative; she had a different portfolio within City Hall at the time but inherited that portfolio after her predecessor left during the summer 2023.