2  CITY COUNCIL



             CITY OF NEW YORK






                       of the







         10                 November 17, 2003

                            Start:  12:10 p.m.

         11                 Recess: 3:55 p.m.


         12                 City Hall

                            Council Chambers

         13                 New York, New York



                  B E F O R E:


                         MADELINE PROVENZANO

         16                                Chairperson,



                         COUNCIL MEMBERS:   Tony Avella

         18                                 Gale Brewer

                                            Lewis Fidler

         19                                 Melinda Katz

                                            Kendall Stewart

         20                                 James Oddo

                                            Christine Quinn

         21                                 Bill Perkins

                                            Domenic Recchia

         22                                 Speaker Miller





                         17 Battery Place -  Suite 1308

         25              New York, New York 10004

                              (800) 756-3410











          2  A P P E A R A N C E S



             Jerilyn Perine

          4  Commissioner

             NYC Department of Housing Preservation

          5  And Development


          6  Harold Schultz

             Special Counsel

          7  NYC Department of Housing Preservation

             And Development


             Thomas R. Frieden, M.D., M.P.H.

          9  Commissioner

             Health and Mental Hygiene


             Stan Michels


             Preston Niblack

         12  Deputy Director

             Independent Budget Office


             Molly Wasso Parker

         14  Senior Director,

             Analyst for Housing and Buildings

         15  Independent Budget Office


         16  Rachael Salibreze

             Health Analyst

         17  Independent Budget Office


         18  Maya Bachinsky


         19  Innocensia Alvarez


         20  Edward Korman

             Executive Vice President

         21  The Small Property Owners of New York, Inc.


         22  Michael D. Lappin


         23  The Community Preservation Corporation


         24  Matthew Dean

             Executive Director

         25  Physicians for Social Responsibility/NYC












          2  A P P E A R A N C E S (CONTINUED)



             Elaine Toribio

          4  Policy Analyst

             Citizens Housing and Planning Council of New York


             Frank Ricci

          6  Director of Government Affairs

             Rent Stabilization Association


             Jordi Reyes-Montblanc

          8  President and Chairman

             Board of Directors of The HDFC Council


             Evangelista Romon

         10  Washington Heights

             Grandmother of poisoned child


             Juan Idaquez

         12  President

             Asbestos Lead and Waste Laborers, Local 78


             Michael McGuire

         14  Director of Governmental and Legislative Affairs

             Mason Tenders' District Council of

         15  Greater New York and Long Island


         16  David Lee McAllister, M.A.

             Principal Lead- based Paint Instructor

         17  Active Training Associates


         18  Stephanie Nolasco

             Twelve year old

         19  diagnosed with Lead Poisoning




         21  Michelle Alvarez


         22  Natural Resources Defense Council


















          2                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Good morning.


          3  Good afternoon, whatever it is. It's only ten


          4  minutes, good afternoon.


          5                 My name is Madeline Provenzano and I


          6  chair the Committee on Housing and Buildings.


          7                 Today we are conducting a hearing on


          8  a revised version of proposed Intro. No. 101-A, in


          9  relation to childhood lead poisoning prevention. I'd


         10  like to thank those of you who are here for this


         11  hearing, and for your continued interest in this


         12  matter.


         13                 The Committee has conducted a


         14  previous hearing on an earlier version of this bill.


         15  That hearing was begun on June 23rd, recessed and


         16  then continued on September 12th. It is important to


         17  state that during the month of July the Court of


         18  Appeals struck down Local Law 38 for the Year 1999,


         19  thereby making it more urgent that this Council


         20  craft appropriate legislation to address the issue


         21  of lead-based paint and to prevent childhood lead


         22  poisoning.


         23                 We are once again expecting a goodly


         24  amount of potential witnesses and observers. So, I


         25  would just like you to be mindful of any time












          2  constraints that I impose, and please be considerate


          3  of your fellow colleagues and of one another.


          4                 In order to move things along


          5  smoothly, I'm requesting that all witnesses be


          6  concise and that your testimony focus on the bill or


          7  any amendments to the bill only.


          8                 I also wish to reiterate that only


          9  one spokesperson may testify from each group or


         10  organization.


         11                 Again, I repeat that this could be a


         12  very emotional hearing, but it will be conducted in


         13  a dignified manner.


         14                 You may not agree with all of the


         15  comments made, but please allow everyone to testify


         16  without boos, heckling, cheers or applause. That


         17  will help move the hearing along for all of us, and


         18  if you wish to testify, remember you must sign in


         19  with the Sergeant-At-Arms.


         20                 I'd like to introduce my colleagues


         21  that are here. To my right we have Council Member


         22  James Oddo, Council Member Recchia, Council Member


         23  Bill Perkins.


         24                 To my left Council Member Tony


         25  Avella, Councilwoman Christine Quinn, Councilwoman












          2  Melinda Katz, and our Speaker, Council Member


          3  Gifford Miller. And I think the Speaker would like


          4  to say a few words.


          5                 SPEAKER MILLER: Well, thank you,


          6  Madam Chair. Thank you for chairing these hearings


          7  and for your leadership in making sure that we


          8  address this issue.


          9                 Secondly, I thank all of my


         10  colleagues that are here, particularly the prime


         11  sponsor of this legislation, Council Member Perkins


         12  and the other sponsors of this legislation. I'm just


         13  pleased to be here to say that this version of


         14  101-A, which has been poured over exhaustively for


         15  quite some time, is a version that I think is the


         16  most -- has the potential to be, once it is enacted,


         17  the most powerful legislation in the country to


         18  protect children from lead poisoning. And that its


         19  primary focus is appropriately on protecting


         20  children, preventing lead poisoning in the first


         21  place, and making sure that the incentives are such


         22  that it never occurs, that we focus on the terrible


         23  problem, which continues to affect thousands of


         24  children in our City every year, and we believe that


         25  this approach, and I believe, and the other sponsors












          2  of this legislation I think believe that this


          3  approach is the right approach.


          4                 It is also a reasonable approach,


          5  which sets compliance in reasonable terms, and


          6  reduces cost where appropriate in order to make sure


          7  we're focusing the expenses and the resources of


          8  this City on preventing lead poisoning in the first


          9  place, and acting swiftly when it has occurred to


         10  protect children. And we will, of course, welcome


         11  the support of the Administration for this


         12  legislation, so that we can make sure that it is not


         13  only enacted, that it is implemented, and


         14  implemented in a way that will reduce childhood lead


         15  poisoning to a point at which no child ever has to


         16  get poisoned again.


         17                 So, I am very pleased that this


         18  legislation is getting this hearing today and I look


         19  forward to working with all the other members of the


         20  Council, with the members of the public, and with


         21  the administration to enacting legislation that will


         22  in the end be the most effective piece of


         23  legislation in the country to protect children from


         24  the scourge of lead poisoning. And I thank everyone


         25  for their leadership and bringing it to this point.












          2                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Thank you,


          3  Mr. Speaker.


          4                 We'll now have a few comments from


          5  the sponsor of the bill, Council Member Perkins.


          6                 COUNCIL MEMBER PERKINS: Thank you,


          7  Councilwoman, and Chair of this Committee, for


          8  allowing me a moment to say a few words and for


          9  presiding over this very significant legislation,


         10  which as you point out is very emotional and of


         11  great concern to all New Yorkers.


         12                 Let me first start by thanking


         13  sincerely the Speaker and the other 36 Council


         14  members who support Intro. 101-A, the Childhood Lead


         15  Paint Poisoning Prevention Act.


         16                 This bill is a state-of-the-art


         17  measure that will put New York City at the head of


         18  the nation for protecting children from lead paint


         19  poisoning. It is comprehensive, cost effective, and


         20  if enacted, will provide for the control of lead


         21  dust. The primary pathway to lead poisoning, as well


         22  as lead paint.


         23                 It requires landlords to eliminate


         24  leadpaint hazards, and the underlying conditions


         25  that cause them. It defines leadpaint hazards as












          2  peeling lead paint, lead dust and certain surfaces


          3  with lead paint, such as friction, impact and


          4  chewable surfaces.


          5                 In addition, Intro. 101-A requires


          6  landlords to affirmatively ascertain the presence of


          7  children under age seven as in the current window


          8  guard law. It mandates that HPD inspectors, when


          9  making routine inspections, always inquire for the


         10  presence of children and conduct line of sight


         11  inspections for peeling lead paint. Intro. 101-A


         12  also requires HPD operators when taking a phone


         13  complaint to ask about children and peeling paint.


         14                 It adds protection from lead dust


         15  hazards during repairs and renovations. It lowers


         16  Health Department action levels to 15 ug/dl from the


         17  current two tests within three months at 15 ug/dl or


         18  one test at or above 20 ug/dl.


         19                 As we all know, Intro 101-A is


         20  supported by countless medical, environmental,


         21  housing, labor and good government groups, as well


         22  as religious leaders, the public advocate and the


         23  City and State Comptrollers, as well as other City


         24  and State elected officials. At today's hearing I


         25  hope we'll be able to add the Mayor to that list as












          2  well.


          3                 Thank you.


          4                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Thank you.


          5  We'll start with our Commissioners. We have Jerilyn


          6  Perine, Commissioner of HPD, and we have Tom


          7  Frieden, Commissioner of Department of Health and


          8  Mental Health, whichever one of you wants to start


          9  first.


         10                 COMMISSIONER PERINE: I'll go first.


         11                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Okay.


         12                 COMMISSIONER PERINE: Good morning,


         13  Chairperson Provenzano  and Speaker Miller, and


         14  members of the Housing and Buildings Committee. I'm


         15  Jerilyn Perine --


         16                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Commissioner,


         17  can I interrupt a minute? Do you have written


         18  testimony?


         19                 COMMISSIONER PERINE: I do.


         20                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Okay, thank


         21  you.


         22                 COMMISSIONER PERINE: Hot off the


         23  presses, sorry.


         24                 I'm the Commissioner of the


         25  Department of Housing Preservation and Development.












          2                 We appreciate the opportunity to


          3  testify today regarding the issue of lead poison


          4  prevention and the revised version of 101-A. As you


          5  are aware, we testified on this issue on June 23rd,


          6  2003. As we all know, since that time the Court of


          7  Appeals has invalidated Local Law 38 on the basis


          8  that the conditions of the State Environmental


          9  Quality Review Act were not fully satisfied. Now


         10  legislation is needed to replace Local Law 38.


         11                 The proposed bill is a big step


         12  forward in the direction of improving the lives of


         13  children, and we believe with some technical and


         14  procedural changes we have the opportunity to have a


         15  better primary prevention program than we have had


         16  to date. The proposed bill makes a firm commitment


         17  to the use of trained workers to deal with lead


         18  paint and lead hazards in New York City.


         19                 The use of qualified workers helps


         20  ensure that work is done properly and safely. All of


         21  the work that HPD currently does in regard to lead


         22  paint violation removal is done with EPA-trained


         23  workers, so we have significant experience regarding


         24  how to accomplish this type of work, and what


         25  resources of time and staff are required to do it












          2  safely and properly.


          3                 The proposed bill requires that lead


          4  dust clean-up and dust clearance tests are done


          5  after any lead hazard remediation work.


          6                 Again, HPD's work meets this standard


          7  now, and extending it to all work undertaken is


          8  helpful to ensure that there is an independent check


          9  on all lead hazard remediation work and that


         10  clean-ups are done properly.


         11                 In addition, the proposed bill


         12  provides that friction surfaces could now be a


         13  stand-alone violation which will help to target


         14  repairs where lead dust is most likely to be


         15  generated. We also note that the definition of lead


         16  paint has been changed to the nationally recognized


         17  standard of one milligram per square centimeter.


         18                 This helps to ensure that the


         19  violations written by HPD and the Department of


         20  Health will be enforceable in court.


         21                 That being said, let me also say that


         22  we are confident that the Council will take this


         23  opportunity to address some technical and procedural


         24  issues which will strengthen the proposed law's


         25  effectiveness.












          2                 Such changes will make sure that the


          3  maximum resources go to correcting problems that


          4  threaten the health of children.


          5                 When I last testified before the


          6  Council on this issue, I provided a detailed


          7  overview of concerns that we had regarding the


          8  implementation of the proposed legislation, and I


          9  will not repeat them all again here today.


         10                 We hope you will continue to consider


         11  those concerns. Today I will briefly summarize some


         12  of the key technical and procedural concerns we


         13  would like you to consider, as you deliberate this


         14  bill.


         15                 To protect children's health, it is


         16  important to have quick and professional action by


         17  owners of the City's housing stock, which may now


         18  have lead paint violations. Owners are usually in


         19  the best position to quickly address problems in the


         20  building. The proposed bill, as you well know,


         21  includes a more extensive scope of work that must be


         22  completed, a higher standard of workers qualified to


         23  do the work and more stringent dust testing


         24  requirements. To ensure that this higher standard is


         25  met and met properly, deadlines should be set that












          2  will ensure that there is sufficient time to


          3  complete all of the tasks properly.


          4                 Deadlines that are too short will


          5  reduce compliance by owners. Responsible owners will


          6  struggle with time frames that are impossible to


          7  meet, pushing them out of compliance and subject to


          8  significant penalties that could threaten their


          9  ability to keep their buildings in good repair.


         10                 Unscrupulous or unsophisticated


         11  owners will ignore the work all together, relying


         12  instead on the City to carry out the tasks they're


         13  responsible for, or perhaps worse, seek shortcuts


         14  which could in fact place children at greater risk


         15  if work is undertaken improperly.


         16                 Realistic time periods will help to


         17  ensure that quality work, undertaken by qualified


         18  professionals, can take place. Here we can look to


         19  our broader experience in housing, construction and


         20  renovation as an example.


         21                 We know that renovation or new


         22  construction typically requires between 18 to 24


         23  months to complete, and we have a good idea of what


         24  that costs. When we offer sites for such


         25  construction competitively, we would not consider as












          2  competent a proposal which promised construction


          3  completion in six months, at a cost far below the


          4  costs that are commonly incurred.


          5                 Such a proposal would most assuredly


          6  be relying on shoddy construction techniques, and


          7  unqualified workers being paid far below the


          8  accepted skilled wage rates. Indeed the entire basis


          9  of wage rates in construction trades is based on the


         10  premise that to ensure standards, qualified workers


         11  should not have to compete unfairly with those


         12  willing to undercut the market in order to meet the


         13  expedient objectives of building poorer quality.


         14                 The work required under the proposed


         15  bill can be viewed in the same light. Clearly, the


         16  bill seeks to increase standards for both work and


         17  the workers to carry it out. The time frames should


         18  support that goal.


         19                 For example, the time period in which


         20  to correct a lead hazard violation is reduced in the


         21  proposed bill to one time frame of 14 days. The


         22  maximum time period for a postponement is similarly


         23  shortened from 45 days to 14 days, with the


         24  possibility of one additional 14-day extension, but


         25  only if the work had substantially already been












          2  completed.


          3                 Based on our experience of having


          4  carried out over 9,000 lead violation repairs,


          5  essentially following these higher standards, we


          6  know that these time frames simply cannot be met.


          7                 In Boston, owners get 30 days just to


          8  hire contractors, and another 60 days to do the


          9  corrective work. In Baltimore owners have three, six


         10  or even nine months more to bring buildings into


         11  compliance, and in Chicago average compliance is


         12  four months.


         13                 Moreover, our own experience shows


         14  that smaller, less sophisticated owners need more


         15  time. Under Local Law 38, during Fiscal Year 2003,


         16  owners of buildings of ten units or less, needed


         17  more time to correct lead violations than owners of


         18  larger buildings, which can often rely on


         19  sophisticated property management companies.


         20                 Smaller owners were far more likely


         21  to certify correction of violations later in the


         22  36-day process allowed under Local Law 38 than were


         23  the owners of larger buildings.


         24                 Our analysis shows that more than 40


         25  percent of owners of these smaller buildings needed












          2  the extra time to complete their correction process,


          3  compared to about 33 percent of owners overall.


          4                 And getting work done requires the


          5  cooperation of tenants. The more extensive the work


          6  that is required, the more important tenant


          7  cooperation is.


          8                 Tenants who are given little notice


          9  to clear out of his or her bedroom or living room or


         10  to make accommodation for their children in order to


         11  make way for a work crew may well be uncooperative.


         12  A reasonable time frame for correction will also


         13  allow the work to be scheduled flexibly in order to


         14  accommodate the tenants along other requirements.


         15                 Currently the proposed law will


         16  ensure that all units will be made lead safe at


         17  turnover when one household leaves before another


         18  occupies the apartment. A provision we support.


         19                 Those apartments without turnover


         20  between now and July 1st, 2007, will require


         21  completion of a series of standard treatments in


         22  child-occupied apartments by July 1, 2007. We


         23  estimate that the universe of apartments with a


         24  child under seven between now and July 1, 2007, is


         25  approximately 350,000. With a low vacancy rate we












          2  can assume that most will remain occupied until that


          3  date.


          4                 This raises the prospect that


          5  significant numbers of families will find their


          6  apartments the subject of very invasive work and may


          7  find themselves dislocated. This provision can be


          8  improved by extending the deadline and developing a


          9  method that would allow the deadline to be applied


         10  to those units most likely to contain lead


         11  violations.


         12                 Moreover, the revised bill does not


         13  provide for what happens when tenants do not provide


         14  access to our inspectors or to work crews in a


         15  timely manner.


         16                 Whether it's the time period for


         17  owners to comply for HPD to step in and do the work


         18  that owners failed to do, or HPD's obligation to


         19  inspect each unit after work is complete, shortened


         20  and unrealistic time frames will not further the


         21  goal of carrying our lead hazard reduction work out


         22  safely and quickly.


         23                 In addition, it appears that the City


         24  and owners will be made liable for failure to comply


         25  with the time frames which were outside of their












          2  control. It's not clear that this would be


          3  beneficial to the residents of the City in any


          4  meaningful way.


          5                 I'm sure you will hear today from the


          6  affordable housing industry, which has expressed


          7  concerns regarding the potential impact of liability


          8  risk in the City's housing markets, particularly in


          9  our low-income communities.


         10                 In addition to ensuring that the work


         11  is done properly, we are also seeking to ensure that


         12  the City derives the maximum productivity out of the


         13  code inspectors that are charged with the


         14  enforcement of the housing maintenance code for more


         15  than 1.6 million multiple dwelling units, as well as


         16  for the enforcement of whatever lead paint law the


         17  City has.


         18                 The more efficiently the inspection


         19  force can be used, the more apartments would be kept


         20  in good repair. With some minor technical changes,


         21  the proposed bill can ensure that the productivity


         22  of the City's code inspectors are not impeded and


         23  their ability to enforce the Housing Maintenance


         24  Code and the proposed law will be retained.


         25                 Let me give you a few examples of












          2  what I mean. I'm going to provide some level of


          3  detail that I hope you will consider, since it


          4  represents the work of actual City employees, should


          5  this bill go into effect without any modification.


          6                 The revised version of 101-A still


          7  requires that when a code inspector inspects a


          8  pre-1960 dwelling unit where a child under seven


          9  resides, he or she must record the existence of


         10  intact paint surfaces.


         11                 In addition, the inspector must


         12  record the existence or absence of an underlying


         13  defect. Keeping in mind that the definition of such


         14  defect includes a condition that only has the


         15  potential to cause paint to peel.


         16                 So, for instance, the inspector must


         17  move all furniture and wallcoverings away from the


         18  walls, and catalogue the condition of every wall and


         19  surface in every room of every apartment that has a


         20  child under seven that they walk into, whether or


         21  not there is any peeling paint.


         22                 Inspectors will be able to reach far


         23  more apartments if they need only identify the areas


         24  of peeling paint and friction surfaces. By focusing


         25  our inspectors on peeling paint and friction












          2  surfaces, rather than surfaces without problems, we


          3  can ensure that we're using our staff to actually


          4  target the areas most likely to threaten the health


          5  of children.


          6                 Please keep in mind that these


          7  protocols must be followed whenever a child under


          8  seven resides in an apartment and an inspector comes


          9  for any reason. So an inspector responding to a lack


         10  of water, for example, would write that violation,


         11  and then if a child under seven resides in the


         12  apartment, conduct a complete room-by-room


         13  surface-by-surface inspection, moving furniture away


         14  from walls and cataloguing the entire condition of


         15  the apartment's wall surfaces. This will


         16  significantly extend the time that an inspector


         17  spends in an apartment on critical inspections and


         18  shorten the number of inspections that they can get


         19  to on their routes.


         20                 If potential lead violations are


         21  found, the proposed bill adds the requirement that


         22  the inspector use an XRF machine to test all peeling


         23  paint during the same inspection.


         24                 Indeed, both these requirements seem


         25  to exist, even if a complete inspection and XRF test












          2  were done in the very same apartment the prior week.


          3  Clearly, redoing the same inspections over and over


          4  prevents our inspectors from moving on to new


          5  buildings and addressing new problems.


          6                 Now a reasonable person could ask,


          7  well, the inspector is already there, why not just


          8  test at the same time, and that's a fair question.


          9  And here that argument is over method and not


         10  intent.


         11                 We want to find peeling lead paint


         12  quickly and efficiently. In this example, to


         13  accomplish this all inspectors would have to have an


         14  XRF machine with them at all times. But if every


         15  inspector has an XRF machine, then every inspector,


         16  even if they never use the machines, must pick it up


         17  from the office each day and return it there each


         18  night.


         19                 It is far more efficient to have a


         20  specialized team return to the apartment as soon as


         21  possible to conduct any needed XRF test.


         22                 We support the bill's provision that


         23  requires code inspectors to EPA certified, but would


         24  want XRF testing to be done by specialized teams.


         25  This would ensure adequate testing is done where












          2  needed, without diminishing the productivity of the


          3  code inspection staff.


          4                 The proposed bill requires that


          5  common areas be XRF tested before the violation can


          6  be written by the inspector. An inspector who would


          7  have been responding to a tenant in a high-risk area


          8  will instead be spending his day testing paint


          9  surfaces in neighborhoods with low risk of lead


         10  poisoning, and inspectors will have less time to


         11  spend inside tenants' apartments where lead


         12  poisoning is more likely to occur.


         13                 We also note that the targeted


         14  inspection program set forth in section 2056.9 can


         15  be made better. Under this part of the bill, every


         16  time a lead violation has been placed, HPD must


         17  conduct an investigation of which units have


         18  children under seven in the building, and must then


         19  conduct inspections in such units whether or not


         20  they have peeling paint.


         21                 The magnitude of such inspections


         22  will be substantial, and will overwhelm the


         23  Department's capability to do other inspections.


         24  While we have not had a long opportunity to review


         25  and work with this section of the draft, we are sure












          2  that there are better ways to run a targeted


          3  inspection program.


          4                 HPD already maintains the most


          5  complete and easily accessible computerized code


          6  enforcement record system. We make it easily


          7  available on-line for all to see and use.


          8                 The revised version of 101-A also


          9  proposes a requirement that HPD maintain both a


         10  central register for all documents relating to lead


         11  hazards, and an individual file for each dwelling


         12  unit throughout the City where lead hazard work


         13  occurs.


         14                 This expensive and time-consuming


         15  endeavor is an additional cost that does nothing to


         16  prevent lead poisoning. That money is better spent


         17  in repairs and inspections.


         18                 These kind of provisions add unneeded


         19  bureaucratic overhead to the objective of


         20  remediating lead hazards.


         21                 Under the prior law, HPD estimates


         22  that overhead per job carried out is approximately


         23  $4,000 to $5,000 per job. Under the new version of


         24  101-A, HPD estimates that overhead will


         25  significantly increase to about $10,000 to $13,000












          2  per job. The revised bill also proposed to provide


          3  J-51 tax abatement to owners who do lead hazard


          4  remediation. Here we believe that tax incentives


          5  should be given only for those who have done


          6  permanent abatement, and only for those who did it


          7  voluntarily, and not under the impetus of a


          8  violation placed by HPD or the Department of Health.


          9                 The proposed bill includes changes


         10  which are intended to not preclude lawsuits against


         11  the City for failure to timely adopt implementing


         12  rules.


         13                 Currently, it appears to go much


         14  further than that, and might be interpreted to allow


         15  many other kinds of lawsuits against the City.


         16                 This language can be modified to


         17  achieve the stated goal while protecting the City


         18  against unintended lawsuits.


         19                 Last but not least, this is a very


         20  complex bill requiring the writing of complex rules.


         21  The hiring and training of many workers, public


         22  education of owners and the purchase of


         23  sophisticated equipment. Programs at the federal


         24  level that required far less stringent time frames


         25  and scope of work took many years to implement. We












          2  believe that this bill will require a phase-in


          3  process longer than the proposed 90 days in order to


          4  be implemented responsibly.


          5                 New York City has had one of the most


          6  aggressive programs of primary prevention in the


          7  United States. New York City was among the first


          8  cities in the US to ban lead paint in 1960. Our lead


          9  hazard reduction law preceded the federal


         10  government's Title X rules and we have spent more


         11  money than any other municipality on direct work to


         12  reduce lead hazards.


         13                 In addition, as a result of an


         14  extended and significant public investment, in the


         15  renovation of the City's low-income housing stock,


         16  today we have the lowest dilapidation rate since it


         17  has measured by the US Census Bureau.


         18                 Once again, we look forward to slight


         19  revisions to this new legislation that will create


         20  even stronger safeguards for our City's children,


         21  and ensure that the City's housing stock remains in


         22  good repair for generations, with some technical and


         23  procedural changes, we believe that this bill can


         24  reach this goal.


         25                 Thank you.












          2                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Thank you,


          3  Commissioner.


          4                 We'll hear from the Health


          5  Commissioner and then we'll take questions.


          6                 COMMISSIONER FRIEDEN: Thank you. Good


          7  morning. I'm Dr. Tom Frieden, Commissioner of Health


          8  and Mental Hygiene, and I appreciate the opportunity


          9  to speak with Council Committee on Housing and


         10  Buildings and other members about lead poisoning in


         11  New York City and Intro 101-A.


         12                 I appreciate and welcome the


         13  Council's concern and commitment to ending childhood


         14  lead poisoning.


         15                 Since Local Law 38 was ruled invalid


         16  by the Courts, it is important that we have an


         17  enforceable primary prevention law. We're all here


         18  today with the same goal, to ensure that a law is


         19  passed in the near future, so we can continue and


         20  strengthen our efforts to eliminate childhood lead


         21  poisoning in New York City.


         22                 Lead poison is a serious problem in


         23  New York City, throughout the United States,


         24  especially the older communities of the northeast,


         25  as well as in many developing countries.












          2                 The emerging scientific consensus is


          3  that no level of lead is safe, particularly for


          4  children less than three years of age, although


          5  there is still some uncertainty about this effect.


          6                 The prevention of lead poisoning in


          7  our City's children is a top priority for the


          8  Department of Health. For more than 40 years we've


          9  been addressing the problem with childhood lead


         10  poisoning and we've made significant progress.


         11                 Between 1995 and 2002 alone, there


         12  was a 79 percent decline in elevated blood levels in


         13  New York City children under six, with the falling


         14  from more than 19,000 to just over 4,000. This


         15  amounts to a 20 percent average annual reduction in


         16  cases. Very few diseases have as rapid or sustained


         17  a reduction.


         18                 The decline is primarily due to


         19  regulations the prohibit the use of lead in


         20  residential paint and gasoline, reduction of lead


         21  paint hazards in homes, discontinued use of other


         22  lead-containing projects and early identification


         23  through screening.


         24                 In 1960, New York City banned lead


         25  paint in residential buildings 18 years before this












          2  was done nationally.


          3                 In 1982 the City developed a primary


          4  prevention law. These laws have made a difference.


          5  Our rates are far lower than rates of other cities,


          6  even though 67 percent of our housing was built


          7  before 1960.


          8                 In 2001, the percent of children with


          9  elevated blood lead levels was five percent in


         10  Chicago and Philadelphia, three percent in Boston


         11  and 0.7 percent in New York City, using the census


         12  population as a denominator.


         13                 Although we have higher rates of both


         14  testing and reporting than most of these


         15  jurisdictions, we had five or ten times fewer cases


         16  of lead poisoning. We must continue to build on this


         17  progress.


         18                 As the Department stated in its 2001


         19  annual report, our goal is to eliminate lead


         20  poisoning in New York City. To continue our progress


         21  we have to focus our efforts and reduce exposure to


         22  multiple sources of lead of which lead paint is by


         23  far the most important.


         24                 Although we've come far in our


         25  efforts to end lead poisoning, we have a long way to












          2  go.


          3                 The continuing rate of lead poisoning


          4  in our City is unacceptable. In 2002 there were


          5  still nearly 4,000 children less than age six with


          6  elevated blood lead levels. To prevent future cases


          7  we have to enhance our efforts by ensuring that


          8  effective laws are in place, continuing to focus our


          9  efforts on children, buildings and areas at highest


         10  risk, improving compliance with these laws and


         11  improving education to families, providers, owners,


         12  maintenance and repair staff and others about lead


         13  poisoning prevention.


         14                 Each year we receive more than


         15  400,000 blood lead test results for New York City


         16  children. We use these data to characterize problems


         17  set goals, design solutions and evaluate our


         18  efforts. It's important to understand the


         19  characteristics of lead poisoned children in order


         20  to target interventions. Young children, children


         21  living in poorer neighborhoods, children of color,


         22  are more likely to be lead poisoned.


         23                 It is to these children that we need


         24  to focus our resources.


         25                 Children between ages one and two












          2  years are at highest risk for lead poisoning because


          3  of frequent hand-to-mouth activity. These youngest


          4  children are also more susceptible to the harmful


          5  effects of lead poisoning, due to their rapidly


          6  developing nervous systems.


          7                 In 2002, 55 percent of lead poisoned


          8  children in New York City were less than three years


          9  of age, and an even greater proportion of the


         10  negative health impact from lead poisoning will be


         11  in this group.


         12                 Lead paint continues to be the


         13  primary source of lead poisoning in New York City.


         14                 Lead poisoning is concentrated in


         15  poor New York City neighborhoods with older housing.


         16                 In 2002, for children six months to


         17  six years of age, with environmental intervention


         18  blood lead levels, five of 42 neighborhoods


         19  accounted for more than a third of the cases.


         20                 Immigrant status is also associated


         21  with lead poisoning in New York City children,


         22  particularly among children over three. The primary


         23  countries of birth associated with elevated blood


         24  lead levels were Haiti, Mexico, Pakistan, Dominican


         25  Republic and Bangladesh. Lead hazards in these












          2  countries are ubiquitous. Sources include lead from


          3  gasoline, battery repair, soldering, mining and


          4  smelting, small manufacturing and paint, lead-glazed


          5  pottery, traditional medicines, imported foods and


          6  cosmetics. Exposure levels can be very high.


          7                 A significantly lower proportion of


          8  immigrant children with blood lead levels receiving


          9  environmental intervention have lead-based paint in


         10  their homes that was peeling or deterioriated than


         11  US born children.


         12                 This suggests that other sources may


         13  be more common among immigrant children.


         14                 Today, because of reduction in


         15  severity of lead poisoning has occurred, the vast


         16  majority of lead-poisoned children have no symptoms.


         17  Screening is therefore critical for early detection


         18  and to prevent more serious lead poisoning.


         19                 Since 1993, New York State has


         20  mandated blood lead testing of young children. By


         21  New York State law, all children are to be tested at


         22  ages one and two and between six months and six


         23  years of age, the medical provider must assess risks


         24  for lead poisoning every year and test those


         25  children with high risks.












          2                 Testing at age one is both most


          3  important for early identification of children with


          4  elevated levels, and most consistent with national


          5  recommendations.


          6                 In 2002 in New York City about 63


          7  percent of one-year-olds were tested, 83 percent of


          8  children were tested either at age one or age two.


          9                 The key indicator to track is the


         10  proportion of kids who are tested in high-risk


         11  communities, and the key intervention needed is


         12  improved follow-up of those with high levels.


         13                 New York City has among the highest


         14  testing rates in the country. More than 11 percent


         15  of blood lead tests reported to CDC are from New


         16  York City, while we represent less than three


         17  percent of the US population.


         18                 The Department is committed to


         19  further improving physician testing for lead


         20  poisoning and uses multiple strategies to increase


         21  testing rates, with the focus on communities most at


         22  risk.


         23                 However, regulation and practice of


         24  medicine is a state issue. As the draft statute


         25  correctly notes, preventing lead poisoning, primary












          2  prevention is key. Preventing exposure to sources of


          3  lead prevents lead poisoning, and the most important


          4  strategies for prevention are, first, to reduce lead


          5  paint hazards by safely repairing peeling or damaged


          6  paint, as well as friction and impact surfaces,


          7  identifying and mitigating non-paint lead sources,


          8  and educating parents, physicians and those involved


          9  in providing, maintaining and repairing housing


         10  about prevention and exposure reduction.


         11                 The key to making primary prevention


         12  work is getting landlords to understand and comply


         13  with the law. This requires educating landlords,


         14  superintendents, contractors, families, doctors and


         15  CBOs. That requires targeted enforcement in


         16  buildings and areas that are most likely to cause


         17  exposure.


         18                 It also requires creative programs


         19  that addressed lead hazards, including programs such


         20  as grant and loan mechanisms similar to the


         21  weatherization program to replace windows.


         22                 I cannot emphasize strongly enough


         23  that the way to continue a rapid progress in


         24  controlling lead poisoning is to focus our effort


         25  and attention on communities, buildings and












          2  populations at highest risk, only by doing this will


          3  we continue our rapid progress.


          4                 Efforts that divert attention away


          5  from these high-risk and high-need communities carry


          6  this serious risk of slowing progress in the


          7  communities where progress is most needed.


          8                 Turning to Intro. 101-A. We commend


          9  your work to improve on previous New York City laws


         10  addressing lead paint hazards. We are hoping, as is


         11  the Council, that improvement to pass laws will


         12  continue or even accelerate progress toward this


         13  goal. Ending childhood lead poisoning is our goal,


         14  as well.


         15                 Intro. 101-A has been improved in


         16  many ways from its earlier version, and from Local


         17  Law 38 and provides us with a sound basis for a new


         18  law.


         19                 Many important elements of primary


         20  prevention are incorporated into, or strengthened in


         21  this version. Among these are the requirements that


         22  landlords annually identify children living in


         23  multiple dwellings before 1960 and inspect incorrect


         24  peeling paint hazards in these apartments. Similarly


         25  prohibiting dry scraping and sanding, which our












          2  analysis shows to be very important causes of lead


          3  exposure, is an important step to continue the


          4  prevention of lead poisoning.


          5                 We wholeheartedly support many of the


          6  clear improvements in the previous laws that Intro


          7  101-A incorporates. These include dust testing after


          8  work is performed. Lead and dust is the strongest


          9  predictor of a child's blood lead level, inclusion


         10  of dust testing to determine if a dwelling unit has


         11  been properly cleaned is essential and will result


         12  in safer work practices, protecting workers,


         13  families and children.


         14                 Safe work practices and training of


         15  workers disturbing lead paint. The new version of


         16  Intro 101-A requires that workers doing work after


         17  an HPD violation are doing large scale work EPA


         18  certified. It also requires smaller jobs use workers


         19  who have received some training.


         20                 Both of these requirements increase


         21  our assurance that lead hazards will be addressed


         22  when work is performed.


         23                 The definition of lead paint. We


         24  fully agree with the Council's definition of 1.0


         25  mg/cm2 as the definition of lead paint. This is the












          2  level the federal government uses, and a level which


          3  the standards for machines are set.


          4                 Definition of lead hazards. We also


          5  agree with the addition of conditions that cause


          6  dust to the definition of lead hazards.


          7                 There are other aspects of 101-A


          8  which we believe can be more effective in protecting


          9  children with minor modifications. Some examples of


         10  these include, first, the ages of children. I


         11  understand the intuitive appeal of raising the age


         12  at which the law applies from below six to below


         13  seven. On the face of it, this change would seem to


         14  protect more children, and further, I'm aware the


         15  court mentioned this issue when it invalidated Local


         16  Law 38. But how ever appealing this concept is, it


         17  is wrong. A look at lead-poisoned children in New


         18  York City explains why.


         19                 The vast majority of children with


         20  lead poisoning are below the age of six, and older


         21  children with elevated lead levels are much less


         22  likely to have been exposed in their own homes. Even


         23  among children three to five years of age, the


         24  proportion who have peeling or deteriorated lead


         25  paint in their homes is lower than among the












          2  youngest children.


          3                 While it would first appear that


          4  increasing the age from six to seven could be more


          5  protective of children, in fact, what it would do


          6  would be to divert attention, focus and resources


          7  away from the children who need it most to children


          8  who are at much lower risk from lead poisoning.


          9                 Young children are more likely to


         10  crawl on the floor, have more hand-to-mouth


         11  activity, are more susceptible to neurological


         12  damage from lead, are more likely to have lead


         13  hazards in their home, and are more likely to


         14  benefit from environmental and other intervention.


         15                 Increasing the age from six to seven


         16  increases the population to be covered by 15


         17  percent, but in doing so, in effect, it takes 15


         18  percent of all of the effort, energy, resources and


         19  attention away from the children who need it most.


         20                 Increasing the age from six to seven


         21  would inadvertently reduce the effectiveness of all


         22  of our lead poisoning prevention efforts by 15


         23  percent.


         24                 In this area, as in so much of public


         25  health, prioritization is absolutely essential. This












          2  is why CDC, Center for Disease Control and


          3  Prevention recommendations and New York State laws


          4  focus on children under six years of age. New York


          5  City Housing laws should do the same.


          6                 Second, proactive enforcement:


          7  Enforcement is key to ensuring that any law is


          8  effective, and Intro 101-A has provided for the


          9  proactive enforcement that's necessary.


         10                 The proactive enforcement must be


         11  driven by the best available data, and these data


         12  can change from year-to-year. Hence, the means and


         13  definition of this law could benefit from some


         14  modification.


         15                 Tax abatements that have been


         16  mentioned, it's an excellent suggestion, should only


         17  be provided for permanent abatement and only for


         18  those who do it voluntarily.


         19                 Timeframes: We agree with the need to


         20  make timeframes consistent. Timeframes under 38 were


         21  confusing. But the timeframes currently proposed are


         22  simply not adequate for a landlord to identify and


         23  secure a contractor, have the work completed safely


         24  and ensure that dust testing is completed and


         25  analyzed by a laboratory.












          2                 Not providing for adequate time


          3  places the burden to perform remediation and


          4  provides no incentive for landlords to take


          5  responsibility for their property.


          6                 Confidentiality of data is another


          7  significant concern. The current draft requires that


          8  HPD examine Health Department records. Our records


          9  are confidential, and they must stay that way.


         10  Similarly, making HPD records, including all


         11  inspection reports on an apartment-by-apartment


         12  basis open to the public could invade a tenant's


         13  personal privacy and does not seem to have a


         14  corresponding benefit.


         15                 The next area has to do with the


         16  promulgation of rules. HPD is most familiar with


         17  their own policies and procedures. They should


         18  promulgate their own rules. We could revise, review


         19  or even approve these, but we should not be


         20  promulgating rules that mandate prophesies and


         21  procedures for HPD.


         22                 There are also areas in the draft


         23  where DOH is expected to promulgate rules but the


         24  bill is much too specific with regard to the content


         25  of these rules.












          2                 The advantage of rule-making is


          3  flexibility to improve processes and procedures in


          4  light of new data or knowledge and to use expertise


          5  of operating agencies.  To most effectively protect


          6  children now and in the future, rule making must


          7  have latitude.


          8                 Common areas: As a result of decades


          9  of use in paint and gasoline, lead is unfortunately


         10  widespread in our environment.


         11                 Again, key to success is focus. Young


         12  children get most exposure in their homes. We do not


         13  know whether lead in common areas adds a significant


         14  contributor to lead poisoning. We do know that the


         15  current draft enforcement requirements would divert


         16  attention and resources away from children's homes


         17  where we know that the risks are occurring.


         18                 Common areas can be addressed when


         19  indicated. Peeling paint in common areas is a


         20  violation of the Housing Code.


         21                 There are unnecessary administrative


         22  requirements in the draft, including the filing of


         23  all positive dust tests with the Department. These


         24  would not have clear benefits, but would have


         25  significant costs. We should be using our resources












          2  to protect children, not to increase bureaucracy.


          3                 The most important element is


          4  apartments pass dust clearance testing and that


          5  tenants not be exposed until such clearance is


          6  assured.


          7                 Another similar example is filing of


          8  all work 100 square feet or greater with the


          9  Department of Health. This requirement would create


         10  a large burden without clear benefits. It would be


         11  very costly.


         12                 This clause alone, would, we


         13  estimate, cost us more than $9 million in the next


         14  year and more than 7 million in every subsequent


         15  year, with no discernible benefit to children.


         16                 There is another area which appears


         17  in the current draft to require the department to


         18  clean dust where lead hazards, the source of lead


         19  hazards haven't been determined. It should be


         20  modified to make it clearer and more effective. It


         21  should be limited to lead poisoned children,


         22  furthermore, landlords, and not the Health


         23  Department, should be responsible for removing lead


         24  contaminated dust, if this exists in the home of a


         25  lead poisoned child.












          2                 Screening case rate targets. This is


          3  a complicated area. We recommend that screening and


          4  case targets not be specified in the law, but if


          5  they are to be included they need to be realistic.


          6  Screening targets need to focus on one- and


          7  two-year-olds, particularly in high-risk areas. Case


          8  targets need to take into account that non-paint


          9  sources also exist, and that an increasing portion


         10  of our cases will consist of foreign-borne children,


         11  many of whom will have been exposed abroad.


         12                 Recording of inspection of all


         13  surfaces has been mentioned by Commissioner Perine.


         14  This would be very time consuming, would


         15  dramatically reduce productivity and doesn't seem to


         16  serve any purpose.


         17                 We rely on these inspectors for


         18  proactive inspections. Diverting them from their


         19  work would unintentionally reduce our effectiveness


         20  in preventing lead poisoning.


         21                 There is also a requirement to


         22  inspect when a pregnant woman with an elevated


         23  level. In fact, pregnant women are mostly exposed


         24  through the ingestion of non-food items for an


         25  elevated pre-existing blood lead level. They're












          2  rarely exposed through ingestion of lead dust caused


          3  by lead-based paint, and requiring inspections in


          4  these situations would divert attention from those


          5  who need resources the most.


          6                 There are, finally, aspects of 101-A


          7  which should be carefully reviewed and could, we


          8  think, be better targeted. I will mention two.


          9                 I'm sure we all agree expenditures


         10  should be targeted to preventing lead poisoning as


         11  effectively as possible.


         12                 First is turnover requirements. Intro


         13  101-A recognizes that turnover of apartments provide


         14  the good opportunity for landlords to correct


         15  hazards. Work can be done more safely, more


         16  effectively and with less disruption if it is done


         17  at turnover.


         18                 But we need to be careful that


         19  requirements for turnover are focused on where


         20  there's a need and a way that will be most


         21  effective.


         22                 Furthermore, the details of the


         23  requirement at turnover should be carefully


         24  reviewed.


         25                 The Department's -- the draft's












          2  statute requirement to abate all windows and doors


          3  and surfaces with peeling paint in apartments


          4  housing young children throughout New York City by


          5  2007 is unnecessary in that it doesn't distinguish


          6  between dwellings and conditions that are likely to


          7  cause hazards, and those where hazards are unlikely.


          8                 Unnecessary abatement can expose


          9  children to hazards where none previously existed


         10  and can inadvertently do more harm than good.


         11                 There are also possible unintended


         12  consequences of Intro. 101-A. I'm neither a housing


         13  expert nor a legal expert, but in closing I would


         14  like to briefly mention from the standpoint of the


         15  Health Department possible implications of these


         16  potential unintended consequences.


         17                 In the case of housing unintended


         18  consequences potentially include decreased


         19  availability of apartments for children with


         20  families.


         21                 We are all too familiar with negative


         22  health consequences of homelessness and unstable


         23  housing. These include higher rates of tuberculosis,


         24  drug use, alcoholism, AIDS, poor educational


         25  performance and more. Homeless children are less












          2  healthy. Neighborhoods with more abandoned property


          3  are less healthy. These factors and their impact on


          4  health would certainly need to be considered if the


          5  turnover and Citywide abatement clauses are not


          6  carefully targeted.


          7                 In the case of legal issues it is


          8  possible that an unintended consequence of this


          9  legislation, there could be a large increase in


         10  taxpayer costs, as a result of the impossibility of


         11  compliance with proposed timeframes or of landlord


         12  irresponsibility.


         13                 As Health Commissioner, I hope that


         14  costs resulting from this bill will go toward


         15  preventing lead poisoning.


         16                 Again, thank you for the opportunity


         17  to address you today. I look forward to working with


         18  the Council to continue our progress toward the


         19  elimination of childhood lead poisoning, and we're


         20  happy to answer your questions.


         21                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Thank you,


         22  Commissioner.


         23                 We've also been joined by Council


         24  Member Lou Fidler, and Council Member Martinez.


         25                 The Speaker has a question.












          2                 SPEAKER MILLER: Thanks, Madam Chair.


          3                 I just wanted to ask Commissioner


          4  Perine about the XRF. With regard to the XRF


          5  detection, can you just explain to us a little bit


          6  more what the concern is with regarding to the


          7  dropping off of these items and how it would be more


          8  efficient to have people go and visit the same place


          9  twice in order to accomplish a test that I guess at


         10  least theoretically could be accomplished in the


         11  first instance.


         12                 COMMISSIONER PERINE: Yes. And, again,


         13  I think -- go ahead.


         14                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: So, the size


         15  of the machine?


         16                 COMMISSIONER PERINE: Yes. There's two


         17  different sort of issues raised in your question,


         18  Speaker Miller.


         19                 In terms of why it would be better to


         20  bring back a second team, any time we can conserve


         21  the housing inspector's time and keep them to their


         22  route, you know, they start out the day knowing that


         23  they've got to visit these ten or 12 places.


         24                 SPEAKER MILLER: And do they check in


         25  anywhere?












          2                 COMMISSIONER PERINE: Yes, they do.


          3                 SPEAKER MILLER: They do check in.


          4                 COMMISSIONER PERINE: On the radio.


          5                 SPEAKER MILLER: On the radio.


          6                 COMMISSIONER PERINE: Exactly.


          7                 SPEAKER MILLER: So they never got to


          8  a spot and say I'm starting today?


          9                 COMMISSIONER PERINE: They start in


         10  the morning, and they're dispatched and they have to


         11  finish up the day. But where they start and where


         12  they end can vary. And, so, you know, some


         13  inspectors, depending on their route and depending


         14  on where they live, may actually either start or end


         15  their day directly from home and not come back to


         16  the office necessarily twice in one day.


         17                 SPEAKER MILLER: And how often does


         18  that happen?


         19                 COMMISSIONER PERINE: I think that


         20  happens pretty frequently. We actually attempt to do


         21  that whenever we can, because, again, it's cutting


         22  down on time. We don't need to make -- I mean, just


         23  to make an extreme example, we don't have to make a


         24  code inspector who lives out in Queens and has a


         25  route that day to inspect things in Queens come all












          2  the way downtown at the beginning of the day and the


          3  end of the day both times.


          4                 SPEAKER MILLER: So they come in one


          5  time.


          6                 COMMISSIONER PERINE: They would come


          7  in one time normally. And of course there are


          8  exceptions when inspectors would come both at the


          9  beginning and the end of the day. I don't want to


         10  make it seem like that never happens, it does


         11  happen, but we like to maintain the flexibility to


         12  be able to cut off one of those trips whenever we


         13  can, essentially in order to squeeze in more of


         14  their time being spent doing inspections rather than


         15  traveling to and from their respective offices.


         16                 So, that's one of the issues, so


         17  that's, with an XRF machine, because of the nature


         18  of the machine, it can't be taken home with an


         19  inspector. So, unlike, you know, their radios and


         20  their forms --


         21                 SPEAKER MILLER: Why is that?


         22                 COMMISSIONER PERINE: The machines


         23  themselves have a slight amount of radioactivity.


         24  They actually have to be carried in a case that has


         25  that, if we all remember from like the 1950s, you












          2  know, those yellow and black radioactive symbols,


          3  that's on the outside of those cases, and so these


          4  cases, these machines are not things that we would


          5  have employees bring home to their home. We would


          6  keep them in a secure location in the work place and


          7  they would have to check them in and check them out


          8  in that way.


          9                 So, you know, that's one of the level


         10  of complications. We also think it would be very


         11  difficult to send inspectors, send all of our


         12  inspectors with such a case, with such a radioactive


         13  symbol, on public transportation. Most of our


         14  inspectors get to their locations by public


         15  transportation. We don't have a fleet of cars for


         16  every single inspector. You know, we have a small


         17  number that we use critically, but most actually are


         18  on public transportation.


         19                 We think they probably couldn't do


         20  that with these cases, even though they don't, you


         21  know, from our information we're not saying that


         22  these things represent an actual threat to people,


         23  but we think that they could seem a little scary to


         24  somebody in a crowded subway car.


         25                 SPEAKER MILLER: And you can't put












          2  something over that?


          3                 COMMISSIONER PERINE: I don't think


          4  you're allowed, no.


          5                 This is part of the regulation of an


          6  XRF machine, it has to be carried in this way with a


          7  case that clearly delineates it as having some


          8  radioactive material.


          9                 SPEAKER MILLER: So, you're proposing


         10  then that after the violation is written by the


         11  regular inspector, that you want to then go back and


         12  test every single paint violation in pre-1960


         13  buildings?


         14                 COMMISSIONER PERINE: We're saying


         15  wherever XRF testing would be required, we would do


         16  it as part of a second inspection. That first


         17  inspector would write his violation, move on to his


         18  next step on the route, get to that next apartment


         19  to be writing new violations, and then meanwhile


         20  phoning in that an XRF team has to now come into


         21  this apartment and make a subsequent inspection,


         22  yes.


         23                 And we think really --


         24                 SPEAKER MILLER: Doesn't that seem


         25  more inefficient than just having somebody have to












          2  check in in the spot perhaps in each borough once,


          3  twice a day?


          4                 COMMISSIONER PERINE: No. Again, every


          5  time you're having an inspector make a travel time


          6  back and forth, you're losing time on their route


          7  for them to get to their next inspection. So, we're


          8  trying to use our inspection staff, spending as


          9  little -- our goal is always to have them spend as


         10  little time traveling as possible, and as most time


         11  possible on their shift, actually getting to that


         12  next appointment.


         13                 SPEAKER MILLER: Okay, I'm sure we can


         14  explore this further.


         15                 COMMISSIONER PERINE: Right. You know,


         16  again, we're not debating that the inspections


         17  should be done with an XRF machine; we're simply


         18  saying from a procedural point of view, we think


         19  that there is a more efficient operational way to do


         20  that.


         21                 SPEAKER MILLER: And let me ask


         22  Commissioner Frieden, do we know how many children


         23  we're talking about> In your view that the universe


         24  should be reduced from under seven, under six, how


         25  many children are we talking about? What is the












          2  population and what are the incidences of lead


          3  poisoning? Can you give us a little bit more of a


          4  detail on why it is that the Council should, you


          5  know, reduce the population that we're focusing on


          6  by such a significant number, and how significant is


          7  that number?


          8                 COMMISSIONER FRIEDEN: I would first


          9  point out that Local Law 38 was under six, and so


         10  it's not eliminating, it's not increasing it.


         11                 SPEAKER MILLER: Local Law 38 isn't in


         12  effect, Local Law 1 is in effect. It's under seven.


         13                 COMMISSIONER FRIEDEN: Well, not


         14  really. But just to answer your question, there were


         15  --


         16                 SPEAKER MILLER: Really.


         17                 COMMISSIONER FRIEDEN: No, not really.


         18  Not according to what the magistrate --


         19                 SPEAKER MILLER: Local Law 1 hasn't


         20  been implemented, but it is on the books. I don't


         21  think anyone would say that it isn't the law. It's


         22  the law. The question is when are the courts going


         23  to actually force people to administer it. But it's


         24  the law, it's on the books. Local Law 38 is off the


         25  books.












          2                 COMMISSIONER FRIEDEN: My point was


          3  that the significant reductions that we've seen were


          4  under Local Law 38 which had under six as their


          5  number. There were 33 or 34 children who are aged


          6  six in 2002 who had early intervention blood lead


          7  level. The vast majority of those children had


          8  previously elevated blood lead levels and would have


          9  been picked up for some sort of intervention before


         10  this.


         11                 So, I think the concern is that what


         12  you end up doing is you end up diverting resources


         13  away from the kids who need it most. Remember that


         14  it's a zero to five group that was already used as a


         15  buffer. You're most concerned about the zero to


         16  threes. In order to provide a buffer for the zero to


         17  threes, you provide zero to five. That's the


         18  national guideline, it's the state guideline. It's


         19  the guideline we've been using for many years in New


         20  York City.


         21                 The reality is that most of the lead


         22  poisoning occurs at ages one and two. That's the


         23  time when kids are crawling on the floor most, it's


         24  the time when they have the most hand-to-mouth


         25  activity. It's also the time when they're most












          2  susceptible to the damage from lead paint.


          3                 The older you get, the older kids


          4  get, if we look at kids with elevated levels, the


          5  older you get, the less likely you are to find


          6  violations in the home and the more likely you are


          7  to have a foreign-borne child who may have been


          8  exposed outside of the US. So, the older you get,


          9  the more likely you are not to be dealing with a


         10  lead hazard in the home.


         11                 We already had the buffer of three to


         12  five, adding another year just really robs us of


         13  those resources for the kids who need it most.


         14                 SPEAKER MILLER: Okay. Thank you,


         15  Madam Chair. Thank you, my colleagues.


         16                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Thank you.


         17                 Just to follow up on the XRF. What is


         18  the size of whatever it is these people have to


         19  carry around?


         20                 COMMISSIONER PERINE: The XRF machine


         21  itself is a little bit shaped like a gun, it's


         22  something that you actually hold, it's about this


         23  big (indicating). I don't know if I'm really


         24  describing it. The box is larger, obviously.


         25                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Okay, could












          2  you give us dimensions?


          3                 COMMISSIONER PERINE: I don't know,


          4  maybe like --


          5                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: A foot?


          6                 COMMISSIONER PERINE: Maybe a bit


          7  longer.


          8                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Okay.


          9                 COMMISSIONER PERINE: Again, think of


         10  a gun shape.


         11                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Right.


         12                 COMMISSIONER PERINE: So you're


         13  holding the handle, and then it's got a gun-like


         14  shape. Twenty-five by 15.


         15                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Twenty-five


         16  by 15?


         17                 COMMISSIONER PERINE: Right.


         18                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: But then this


         19  goes into a case?


         20                 COMMISSIONER PERINE: Into a case,


         21  exactly, that's obviously larger, and the case is --


         22  you know, the case has padding.


         23                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Larger than


         24  25 by 15.


         25                 COMMISSIONER PERINE: It's got












          2  significant padding and stuff inside.


          3                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Okay.


          4                 And probably, as you said, cannot be


          5  carried on public transportation because of the


          6  radioactivity.


          7                 COMMISSIONER PERINE: We think it


          8  could from a safety point of view. I just think it


          9  would frighten people unnecessarily.


         10                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: You mentioned


         11  an XRF team, so in your explanation you said an


         12  inspector that went out and found that there was,


         13  could possibly be an incident of, would call back


         14  and say, you know, there's probability that we have


         15  lead here, and then there would be -- is there, or


         16  there would be an XRF team that would go out? Is


         17  there one now, or you're saying there would be?


         18                 COMMISSIONER PERINE: There is one


         19  now. I mean, we obviously do XRF testing for all of


         20  the violations that we undertake the repair of when


         21  the owner doesn't act, so we've already got a team


         22  of people who are specialized just in testing, but


         23  it would have to be expanded. But, yes, we would


         24  follow that same model, I think we have a model that


         25  works pretty well already that we could apply here.












          2                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: I have a


          3  question that I think was explained fairly well by


          4  the Health Commissioner, but just to kind of verify


          5  what I think I heard, the Department of Health would


          6  draft the rules and regulations that must be


          7  followed by HPD?


          8                 COMMISSIONER FRIEDEN: The current


          9  draft, 101-A, has the Department of Health


         10  promulgating those regulations. We think that each


         11  agency knows its operations best. If the Council


         12  wishes, we can review them, we can even approve


         13  them, but they should be promulgated by the relevant


         14  department.


         15                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: How is it


         16  done now?


         17                 COMMISSIONER FRIEDEN: Each


         18  departments their own.


         19                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Does their


         20  own.


         21                 COMMISSIONER FRIEDEN: Yes.


         22                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Okay.


         23                 Commissioner Perine, you also talked


         24  about an inspector goes into a building for a heat


         25  complaint or water complaint, whatever, that there's












          2  a child in the apartment under age seven, they then


          3  have to proceed to do this inspection which you


          4  explained. How long do you think that inspection


          5  would take as opposed to going in for a heat


          6  complaint or a water complaint or whatever? What


          7  would be the extra time spent?


          8                 COMMISSIONER PERINE: Depending on the


          9  size of the apartment --


         10                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Four-room


         11  apartment.


         12                 COMMISSIONER PERINE: The same


         13  apartment, a heat complaint is probably going to


         14  take no more than 15 or 20 minutes. If they then


         15  have to move furniture, wall hangings away from the


         16  wall, and be able to inspect every single surface


         17  and document it on the spot, it's got to take a


         18  couple hours.


         19                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: So, the only


         20  indication, then, would be there's a child under


         21  seven so now I have to look at all these things.


         22                 COMMISSIONER PERINE: That's right.


         23  That's right.


         24                 And obviously we still, of course,


         25  would always maintain our normal line of sight












          2  policy. You know, an inspector who goes in on a heat


          3  and hot water complaint and sees peeling paint, is


          4  going to look at that and write the violation for


          5  that as well. So we're not suggesting that that


          6  wouldn't continue to happen. We're simply saying it


          7  doesn't really make a lot of sense to make an


          8  inspector catalogue the condition of walls that on


          9  the face of it don't even necessarily have a problem


         10  and need to go to those kinds of extraordinary


         11  lengths. It will also, obviously, whatever his next


         12  step was on his routing for that day, he's obviously


         13  not going to get there --


         14                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: If it happens


         15  to be the heat season and we have a lot of heat


         16  complaints, there are a lot of people that are not


         17  going to get an inspector that day.


         18                 COMMISSIONER PERINE: Correct.


         19                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Let's say


         20  that the same inspector goes into this apartment for


         21  a heat complaint, and he doesn't see a child under


         22  seven, or the tenant does not tell him he or she has


         23  a child under seven and he leaves. Is there any


         24  responsibility that he must assume under this


         25  legislation?












          2                 COMMISSIONER PERINE: Well, we're


          3  assuming that --


          4                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Is he


          5  supposed to ask?


          6                 COMMISSIONER PERINE: Yes, he's


          7  supposed to ask. He or she is supposed to ask and


          8  also obtain some kind of verification of the answer.


          9  So that may mean, you know, getting the tenant to


         10  sign something, an inspector, that says, yes, I have


         11  a child under seven or no, I don't.


         12                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Okay.


         13                 All right, I'm going to turn it over


         14  to my colleagues. I have some more questions.


         15                 Council Member Oddo.


         16                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Thank you, Madam


         17  Chair. Good afternoon, Commissioners.


         18                 Commissioner Frieden, you went to


         19  great lengths to talk about our need to focus our


         20  resources on attention and where the problem was.


         21  You talked about five of the 42 neighborhoods,


         22  accounting for more than a third of the cases, you


         23  talked about those children who are likely to have


         24  elevated lead levels. You are in line with Speaker


         25  Miller's thinking apparently because in a press












          2  release that the Speaker issued on the 6th, the last


          3  sentence in his quote was, "the City's efforts must


          4  be concentrated in the lead belt where the problem


          5  is pervasive."


          6                 Does this bill in fact concentrate


          7  our resources on the lead belt?


          8                 COMMISSIONER FRIEDEN: Not quite.


          9                 I think with some modifications it


         10  could do that. In particular, the age issue, the


         11  common area issue, the turnover issue and the


         12  requirement to abate by 2007, those are four areas,


         13  just to give examples, where it could be better


         14  targeted and it could do more good for more kids.


         15                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Could you, and I


         16  think this is a difficult question to answer, but


         17  could you -- you used a 15 percent example, could


         18  you estimate how much of the resources, a percentage


         19  of the resources you would be spending in areas


         20  outside the lead belt, which in your opinion I would


         21  say is time and money not well spent; how much of


         22  our resources would be wrongly diverted away from


         23  where the problem is?


         24                 COMMISSIONER FRIEDEN: It's an


         25  interesting question. We tried to see if we could












          2  come up with an estimate. Although I could come up


          3  with a back of the envelope estimate, I really would


          4  be very hardpressed that absolutely this is correct.


          5  I could give you a guess but it's nothing more than


          6  a partially educated guess.


          7                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Is it two


          8  percent, is it ten percent? Can you give me a range?


          9                 COMMISSIONER FRIEDEN: I would


         10  certainly think for the turnover and the abatement


         11  by 2007 requirement, most of the work being done


         12  would be done outside of the areas of highest need,


         13  so a majority.


         14                 And even in the areas of highest


         15  need, because of some of the details of the wording


         16  of those sections, a significant proportion even


         17  most expenditures, even in the areas of high need


         18  would not be of the greatest benefit.


         19                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: That's a


         20  critical issue for me, and I think it should be a


         21  critical issue for this Council. Those of us who are


         22  proponents, and those of us who were opponents of


         23  101-A, we have the same thing in common, we don't


         24  want to see kids poisoned by lead. But by the same


         25  token, I don't think that we should pass a bill that












          2  is more a chainsaw than a scalpel in addressing the


          3  problem.


          4                 We have heard only some brief


          5  references to cost of this bill. I mean, in your


          6  testimony you ended with two, which I believe are


          7  important paragraphs, but very brief and very


          8  general about unintended consequences. Is the


          9  Administration at any point in time going to come in


         10  before the Council and testify or give to the media


         11  and the advocates an estimate of the cost of this


         12  bill?


         13                 COMMISSIONER PERINE: I think cost


         14  estimates are being worked on now as we did for the


         15  original version of 101-A. We don't have final


         16  estimates right now. I think the key thing for us,


         17  though, is not so much the cost, but what we would


         18  be spending the money on. And, again, I think we are


         19  saying that we are supportive of increasing a scope


         20  of work that would be required by owners, you know,


         21  trying to increase the level of trained workers who


         22  are going to be carrying out the work. And, so, yes,


         23  of course, those things are going to cost more. I


         24  can't tell you exactly how much more. But, you know,


         25  we would just like to see those things really done












          2  effectively.


          3                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: How about a


          4  range today?


          5                 COMMISSIONER PERINE: I don't have a


          6  range.


          7                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: How about a


          8  timetable of when we will -- before we vote on the


          9  bill?


         10                 COMMISSIONER PERINE: You know, we


         11  will be happy to get back to you quickly on what the


         12  timeframe is. This is something, again, this is


         13  being worked on but the budget office and others,


         14  and so I'm not, you know, I'm not really able to


         15  give an assignment to the budget office.


         16                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: I'll tell you


         17  why --


         18                 COMMISSIONER PERINE: But I'm happy to


         19  get back to you.


         20                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: I'll tell you


         21  why I'm concerned about that.


         22                 There was a series of bills of


         23  emergency contraception that the Administration


         24  opposed one bill. I was opposed to it, let me just


         25  make the record clear, but the Administration was












          2  opposed to it, despite overwhelming support in the


          3  Council, and Commissioner Frieden came in and


          4  testified and said I'd have to spend a million


          5  dollars on this bill, if we pass it, and that's a


          6  million dollars in resources I don't have X, Y and


          7  Z. So, I think it's important that we know how much


          8  money we're spending on the bill so that we then


          9  could assess, and how much of it is going outside


         10  the lead belt, and then we can ask the question,


         11  well, what program will Department of Health and HPD


         12  not be able to do because we're spending resources


         13  on the well-intended but misguided piece of


         14  legislation. I think that's an important question to


         15  ask for some of us here, and the sooner we get that


         16  information, the sooner some of us can make up our


         17  minds about where we are in this legislation.


         18                 Let me just say one other thing.


         19  Commissioner, I agree with you in reference to this


         20  notion about HPD writing rules that DOH has to


         21  implement or abide by, or vice versa. We need to


         22  look no further than the debacle of City Planning


         23  and the Building Department. City Planning writes


         24  the resolution, and DOB is supposed to interpret it


         25  and the two can't agree on it. So, I strong support












          2  your notion that we have to change this bill so that


          3  each agency has its own purview and its own general


          4  area.


          5                 I asked a question the last time we


          6  were together and you good folks weren't able to


          7  answer it and I would hope that somebody from the


          8  Administration would answer it; and that's the


          9  number of claims against the City over the years.


         10                 I mean, could either of the


         11  Commissioners testify as to the pattern since Local


         12  Law 38 was implemented, in terms of claims against


         13  the City on lead poisoning?


         14                 COMMISSIONER PERINE: This is Harold


         15  Schultz. He's the Special Counsel at HPD.


         16                 MR. SCHULTZ: Yes, I'm afraid we still


         17  don't have a clear answer for that. They are fairly


         18  substantial. I do know that there are numbers of


         19  claims against the City. The average settlement of a


         20  claim against the City is about $300,000 in a


         21  typical case. I don't have the overall numbers to


         22  give you today. We can get back to you with that.


         23                 I would also say we are somewhat


         24  concerned in this draft of Intro 101-A, that there


         25  be more clarity that the City is not a target for












          2  lawsuits in its regulatory capacity.


          3                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Is it safe to


          4  say that the pattern goes downward since Local Law


          5  38 is implemented, in terms of suits against the


          6  City?


          7                 MR. SCHULTZ: Yes, I think there has


          8  been a reduction of suits. It comes from a lot of


          9  factors, though, not just Local Law 38.


         10                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Is the pattern


         11  significant? Is the reduction significant?


         12                 COMMISSIONER PERINE: I don't think we


         13  can answer that.


         14                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Okay. Well,


         15  Madam Chair, I would just want to go on the record,


         16  this is the second time that we've had a hearing on


         17  this bill and the second time that I've asked


         18  questions about liability which in my mind is a huge


         19  aspect of this bill, it's about dollars and cents,


         20  and it's the second time that the Administration


         21  hasn't been able to testify.  And I don't fault


         22  either of these two commissioners, but I would like


         23  at some point Corporation Counsel to come in here


         24  and testify on this bill.


         25                 How could we have an intelligent












          2  discussion about this bill and not address the


          3  liability. And at some point the Administration has


          4  to come in and we have to bring Corp Counsel in and


          5  we have to talk about this.


          6                 So I would suppose then we can't talk


          7  about any of the specific legal technicalities of


          8  the bill, the fact that the presumption that once


          9  applied solely to the Housing Code now theoretically


         10  can be applied in terms of civil cases and tort


         11  cases against the City; can we have a discussion on


         12  that, or do we need Corp Counsel for that?


         13                 MR. SCHULTZ: No, we can answer that,


         14  and I believe in this draft your interpretation of


         15  that is correct, and that will have an impact on,


         16  certainly will have an impact on private owners.


         17                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: So, am I correct


         18  in saying that previously the presumption was allow


         19  -- or the nexus was the presumption to enforcement


         20  of the Building Maintenance Code, and now the


         21  presumption is being extended so that you can use


         22  that presumption in tort cases against private


         23  owners, but also the City of New York by extension,


         24  because the City is usually brought in; is that


         25  correct?












          2                 MR. SCHULTZ: I think it's fairly


          3  clear, that, yes, that compared to Local Law 38, the


          4  presumption with regard to owners would reverse for


          5  a variety of factors in the bill, one of them has to


          6  do with the way the notices is done, and the other


          7  has to do with the extent to which owners are put


          8  under an obligation to conduct inspections whenever


          9  they have some reason to believe that there might be


         10  peeling paint.


         11                 Now, it's not clear to us, honestly,


         12  whether or not the statute is or is not intended to


         13  bring the City in as a defendant in this, but we


         14  believe if it's not intended, it certainly could be


         15  much better drafting.


         16                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: But normally in


         17  past the City has been brought in.


         18                 MR. SCHULTZ: The City has been


         19  brought into a number of such lawsuits, yes.


         20                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Are we troubled?


         21  I mean, is the Administration troubled by the fact


         22  that this in essence makes it much more likely that


         23  the City will be in court defending these cases?


         24                 MR. SCHULTZ: Yes, we are quite


         25  concerned.












          2                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: All right. Well,


          3  I guess concern is a good first step.


          4                 If I could just ask two more


          5  questions, Madam Chair?


          6                 The presumption that's being extended


          7  now to tort liability is a presumption that pre-1960


          8  building, paint is peeling, kid less than a certain


          9  age, it's presumed to be lead paint. That


         10  presumption now potentially opens the door to all


         11  kinds of lawsuits against the City. How many times


         12  is that presumption correct? How many times does it


         13  turn out to be that in fact it is lead paint?


         14                 COMMISSIONER PERINE: You know, I


         15  couldn't answer that in a broad sense. I can only


         16  answer it in relation to a subset of the universe of


         17  the lead violations that we actually at HPD have to


         18  step in and correct ourselves, because those are the


         19  ones that we go in and test ourselves.


         20                 So, you know, I don't know how fairly


         21  one can apply it to the broader stock, but of the


         22  universe of about 9,000 violations that get removed


         23  by our activity where we go out because the owner


         24  didn't do what he was supposed to do, in about 75


         25  percent of the cases where we test, we don't find












          2  lead paint.


          3                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Three out of


          4  four times the presumption is wrong?


          5                 COMMISSIONER PERINE: But, you know,


          6  again, I mean it's within the subset of the


          7  universe. So, you know, I'm a little reluctant to


          8  say that that same 75 percent would hold in every


          9  other application of the housing stock, I can just


         10  say that in that subset of the ones where owners


         11  have not act, and we have gone in to test, that's


         12  been our experience.


         13                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: I think that, in


         14  my mind at least, that cause for the Administration


         15  to be really concerned that this bill then extends


         16  the power, if you will, of that presumption.


         17                 I will save the questions about the


         18  defenses for Corp Counsel. My last question to you,


         19  Jerilyn, is the insurance issue. Are you concerned


         20  that folks aren't going to be able to get insurance


         21  and that -- what happens at that point when people


         22  can't get insurance to insure the buildings? They


         23  walk away from buildings?


         24                 COMMISSIONER PERINE: You know, again,


         25  I think you'll probably hear from the industry












          2  experts directly. I think, you know, we are always


          3  concerned when something can encourage a high-risk


          4  environment, particularly for our low-income


          5  neighborhoods that could potentially dissuade


          6  insurers or lenders from acting.


          7                 I wouldn't certainly say that, I


          8  think that we've laid out come concerns here today


          9  that really, for the most part are kind of, you


         10  know, procedural, particularly around the time


         11  frame.


         12                 I don't think requiring a higher


         13  standard of owners in and of itself is any reason


         14  that should give people a great deal of alarm. I


         15  think the issue really is can we give them a fair


         16  shot at actually complying with the law, you know,


         17  which is why we tried to make a point out


         18  timeframes. Any time you increase the risk of the


         19  business, or attracting investment in the low-income


         20  housing stock, that's not good. And I think here we


         21  could make really just some small technical changes


         22  to the time frames which would allow owners to


         23  actually comply with an increased scope, and


         24  actually comply with a higher standard of worker


         25  training, without it having a deleterious impact.












          2                 So, I think there's a big opportunity


          3  here to make sure that we keep the pieces that are


          4  important, which is the increased scope and work by


          5  qualified workers, while minimizing the risk to our


          6  ability to attract new investment in the housing


          7  stock.


          8                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Thank you,


          9  Commissioner.


         10                 Thank you, Madam Chair.


         11                 I would just say in closing that, you


         12  know, I can't fault any of the advocates and the


         13  proponents of this bill in terms of what they're


         14  trying to do, and all of us staying on the same side


         15  and wanting to protect kids, but I have to think


         16  that somebody has got to ask the other questions,


         17  and I haven't heard many people asking the other


         18  questions about the cost.


         19                 We'll come together for a budget mod


         20  in early January, and what you take away and you


         21  spend, as well intentioned as it may be, spend in


         22  areas outside the lead bill, that has a direct


         23  impact on the types of services that we're going to


         24  be providing as a City. And if we think the two


         25  aren't related we're fooling ourselves.












          2                 And I would ask you, Madam Chair,


          3  that there has to be some answers from the


          4  Administration in terms of the liability issue, and


          5  they can't just put the DOH and the HPD Commissioner


          6  here and not have Corp Counsel answer those


          7  questions, and answer before we're supposed to vote.


          8                 So, I would ask you for your


          9  cooperation in getting those folks. Thank you.


         10                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Thank you,


         11  Council Member Oddo.


         12                 I agree with you. I did question


         13  before this hearing if they were going to be here,


         14  and I think definitely we should have them if we


         15  have another hearing.


         16                 Again, you know, we all know that we


         17  can't put a price tag on a child's life, and that's


         18  not what we're doing here.


         19                 I think if the cost of this


         20  legislation appears to be, you know, high, there are


         21  adjustments that can be made and still do what it is


         22  we want to do for the kids of the City of New York.


         23                 In response to one of the questions,


         24  though, I think that, Commissioner, you pretty much


         25  did indicate that the price -- Commissioner Perine












          2  -- would be much higher. When you talked about the


          3  remediation of lead hazards, was approximately four


          4  to five-thousand per job, and under the new version


          5  it's increased to ten to thirteen thousand.


          6                 COMMISSIONER PERINE: Yes. Again, that


          7  was overhead. You know, what I was trying to say


          8  there was not so much that -- of course, if you want


          9  people to do more, if you want government to do


         10  more, it's going to cost more, and I don't think,


         11  you know, our intent is not to even to date that


         12  part of it. We're just saying that if we're going to


         13  do that, let's try to make that more go towards


         14  actual repair of the housing stock in the highest


         15  risk areas to deal with the problems that we know we


         16  can actually affect, rather than seeing more of


         17  those dollars go towards, you know, an


         18  administrative overhead burden, which I think


         19  everyone would agree, is not the wisest use of our


         20  funds, if we had. You know, unlimited dollars to


         21  spend, I think everybody wants the money to actually


         22  go to where it's going to be most effective.


         23                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: I agree. And


         24  also better use of inspector's time, you know, time


         25  is money and I think there were several areas that












          2  could be revisted.


          3                 I also want to thank Council Member


          4  Oddo. I'm not an attorney, so I always hesitate


          5  getting into those kinds of questions. And talking


          6  about attorneys, Council Member Fidler.


          7                 COUNCIL MEMBER FIDLER: Thank you,


          8  Madam Chairwoman.


          9                 Notwithstanding the colloquy between


         10  Dr. Frieden and the Speaker, I'm a little concerned


         11  that we don't have a lead law in the City, and that


         12  puts our children at risk and I think that makes it


         13  incumbent upon us to come to a conclusion on this


         14  matter in an expeditious way, because if we have a


         15  law and it's not being enforced because we're


         16  waiting for a new law, then we need to get together


         17  on the new law.


         18                 Also, however, I'm somewhat concerned


         19  about some of the issues that we share and


         20  Councilman Oddo just raised.


         21                 On page four of your testimony, Dr.


         22  Frieden, you said that efforts that divert the focus


         23  away from these high-need communities impedes our


         24  progress. And then in your testimony, you I think


         25  tagged five areas that you feel would be a diversion












          2  of limited resources: Raising the age level; having


          3  the law apply to common areas in buildings; filing


          4  positive dust tests; following all work 100 square


          5  feet or greater, and the reporting inspection of all


          6  surfaces, which I think we have been referring to as


          7  cataloguing of healthy walls.


          8                 I'm well aware of the fact that we


          9  have a limited amount of resources to apply to


         10  anything, no less in critical health issues like


         11  lead poisoning. I'd like to know, and I'm sensing


         12  from your answers to Councilman Oddo that you don't


         13  have those answers today, I'd like to know what cost


         14  you apply to each one of those quote/unquote


         15  diversions of resources?


         16                 Because when we have a cost on this


         17  bill, and I need to decide whether or not I can vote


         18  for 101-A, if it catalogues healthy walls, but


         19  that's going to cost $4 million, and I have a $4


         20  million decision to make, $4 million that I might


         21  apply to cancer patients or to AIDS or to the lead


         22  belt directly.


         23                 So, do you have any indication as to


         24  what each of those diversions would cost?


         25                 COMMISSIONER FRIEDEN: I gave the one












          2  example. I think there are really two different


          3  categories of concerns. One is, I think you could


          4  summarize as unnecessary administrative or


          5  bureaucratic actions, and one that I gave an


          6  estimate for there was work practices. The current


          7  draft would have every significant repair sent to


          8  us, that would result in an affirmative


          9  responsibility of us to potentially inspect work as


         10  is ongoing and that as well as catalogue, monitor,


         11  supervise, that would be very costly and we don't


         12  really think that would be very protective of


         13  children.


         14                 So one of the areas is an


         15  administrative or bureaucratic area. Second is a


         16  more specific diversion concern, such as the six to


         17  seven and the common areas, the turnover


         18  requirements that would be Citywide, so you'd have


         19  to actually replace all lead-containing windows and


         20  doors and frames, even in places where you don't


         21  have a lead problem, and the 2007 requirement to


         22  turn over with young children in place, I don't have


         23  specific numbers for those.


         24                 I think in looking at costs, it's


         25  important that we think about, and the Council is












          2  responsible as, as you know, for coming up with


          3  those costs as well, for looking at several things:


          4                 One is, what is the actual cost to


          5  the City government? That's one cost.


          6                 The second is, what is the cost to


          7  the City in terms of what work needs to be done, or


          8  elsewhere.


          9                 And the third is, what is the cost


         10  that is currently being borne by landlords that


         11  would in the future have to be borne by the general


         12  taxpayers because the City has to do work that the


         13  landlords are currently doing.


         14                 So, to the extent that we're letting


         15  landlords off the hook, and letting the taxpayers


         16  pick up that tab. These are all areas that have to


         17  be looked at.


         18                 COUNCIL MEMBER FIDLER: Doctor, I


         19  think you articulated the question very well. I hope


         20  that the next time we see you, and I'm sure there's


         21  going to be another hearing on this bill, that we


         22  have actual answers from the Administration, at


         23  least as to what your perspective is.


         24                 I am very comfortable in relying on


         25  Council Finance's estimates of things, I find that












          2  sometimes the Administration has a different view,


          3  and I'd like to hear it. I really think that we're


          4  entitled to it. I know in fact when we concluded the


          5  last hearing on this, I asked for the same panel to


          6  come back with a series of recommendations for what


          7  they would improve upon on Local Law 38, and I never


          8  got that answer.


          9                 The other topic I would just like to


         10  briefly touch on, on page three of your testimony


         11  you said a significantly lower proportion of


         12  immigrant children with blood lead levels receiving


         13  environmental intervention had lead-based paint that


         14  was peeling or deterioriated in their homes than


         15  US-born children. I'd just like to know what the


         16  difference in the numbers were?


         17                 COMMISSIONER FRIEDEN: It's not a


         18  simple question, because the next question to ask


         19  is, if you go into these same communities, in


         20  families that don't have lead poisoned kids, what


         21  portion of the households have peeling lead-based


         22  paint? And we don't know the answer to that


         23  question. It may be as high as 30 percent or more.


         24  Among the US-born kids it's about 71 percent, among


         25  foreign-born kids it's about 49 percent haphazard.












          2  And, so, that would be probably the upper limit of


          3  the number that would be attributable to lead paint.


          4                 COUNCIL MEMBER FIDLER: So it's then a


          5  logical construct, I would think, I mean obviously


          6  lead paint in homes is a single, most significant


          7  factor in lead poisoning among children, but as


          8  we've seen the immigration phenomenon in New York,


          9  that a large number of these children are being


         10  affected before they get to the United States.


         11                 COMMISSIONER FRIEDEN: Right. We know


         12  that in the US 30 years ago, the average lead level


         13  was 15 to 20, and in many developing countries it's


         14  that high or higher now. And, so, we are addressing


         15  that issue as well.


         16                 COUNCIL MEMBER FIDLER: I mean, would


         17  you say that while lead paint is the most


         18  significant, that there are other significant


         19  factors that are also at play in lead poisoning


         20  children in the City?


         21                 COMMISSIONER FRIEDEN: It depends in


         22  part on the age of the kids. But, yes, there are


         23  other ways that kids get lead poisoned, as lead


         24  paint is by far the most important source of lead


         25  poisoning in New York City.












          2                 COUNCIL MEMBER FIDLER: What, if


          3  anything, is the Administration doing currently to


          4  attack those other significant causes of lead


          5  poisoning among children?


          6                 COMMISSIONER FRIEDEN: They're


          7  educational measures. They're measures about


          8  specific products. You may have seen in the news, we


          9  recently identified a product brought in from the


         10  Dominican Republic and we're working to get that off


         11  the shelves here. We're looking at ceramics and


         12  lead-based, that are used in ceramics and cosmetics,


         13  we've had problems from various countries. There's


         14  also a global issue of controlling lead paint


         15  globally.


         16                 COUNCIL MEMBER FIDLER: I think the


         17  substance you're referring to is litigerial. I just


         18  filed an intro to make the sale of that illegal, if


         19  it's not already, and hopefully you'll be able to


         20  join in that.


         21                 Has there been any discussion, and I


         22  realize this is entirely beyond our purview, but on


         23  the federal level requiring children adjusting their


         24  status under a certain age from having a lead test


         25  done at the time of their adjustment so there might












          2  be early intervention on a health basis?


          3                 I mean, obviously we can't legislate


          4  what happens in Mexico or Ecuador or Pakistan or


          5  Haiti, or any of the countries that you listed, but


          6  when a child comes here to become a permanent


          7  resident of the United States, and we find out that


          8  they have a condition, we give treatment to them as


          9  quickly as possible; has there been any discussion


         10  of that with our federal representatives?


         11                 COMMISSIONER FRIEDEN: The treatment


         12  is to remove from the source, and if the child is


         13  coming and they're being removed from the source


         14  that they're being exposed globally, there are


         15  complicated issues with respect to immigration


         16  requirements and it's very important that we remain


         17  welcoming to the immigrant community that remain


         18  really the vitality of this City.


         19                 COUNCIL MEMBER FIDLER: I'm certainly


         20  not suggesting that a child who has lead in their


         21  blood, you know, be barred from adjusting. Excuse my


         22  ignorance, I thought that there might be something


         23  that could be done for a child who has been


         24  afflicted in terms of treatment.


         25                 You're saying that the only treatment












          2  is removing them from the source of the lead?


          3  There's nothing that can be done to help them?


          4                 COMMISSIONER FRIEDEN: The levels that


          5  we're seeing are not levels that require any medical


          6  treatment or benefit from any medical treatment.


          7                 If you have a very level, 50, 60,


          8  there may be benefit for treatment, but we barely


          9  see that.


         10                 COUNCIL MEMBER FIDLER: Okay. Thank


         11  you.


         12                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: I was just


         13  informed by my staff, I'd like to say it for the


         14  record, that Corp Counsel was invited to attend this


         15  hearing and we got no response from them.


         16                 Council Member Martinez.


         17                 COUNCIL MEMBER MARTINEZ: Thank you,


         18  Madam Chair.


         19                 Commissioner of HPD, I just want to


         20  touch base again on the XRF machines; is that the


         21  latest in technology available that HPD is using?


         22                 COMMISSIONER PERINE: Yes. I think


         23  it's the only portable technology available to


         24  detect lead paint, yes.


         25                 COUNCIL MEMBER MARTINEZ: Okay, that












          2  wasn't mentioned earlier.


          3                 Commissioner of Health, would it be


          4  fair to say that even though you have that


          5  population of immigrant children coming in lead


          6  poisoned, the fact still remains that they're living


          7  in apartment conditions where there are peeling


          8  paints and lead-based paints where they're migrating


          9  to; is that fair to say?


         10                 COMMISSIONER FRIEDEN: I've been very


         11  clear about this last time and this time also. We're


         12  not saying that every immigrant child had a


         13  lead-based paint hazard overseas. We are saying, is


         14  that as we think about what's going to happen future


         15  years with lead poisoning in New York City, we need


         16  to recognize that we have a variety of different


         17  populations that we need to address and deal with,


         18  and one of them is immigrant children, many of whom


         19  who have high levels will have had them from


         20  overseas. Some of them will have them from here. I'm


         21  not trying to say that all of the problem is


         22  overseas.


         23                 COUNCIL MEMBER MARTINEZ: No, no. I


         24  just want to be clear on the fact that it is a


         25  problem overseas, but the fact still remains that












          2  the housing stock that we are identifying in the


          3  community where kids are more likely to be at risk,


          4  is because they're living conditions, either you


          5  have lead-based paint, or you have peeling paint, or


          6  you have lead dust in those apartments.


          7                 Now, have the Department of Health


          8  conducted a study to the sense of, for example, if


          9  you have a child born in the United States, let's


         10  say in my district, Washington Heights, you have a


         11  child born in the United States, and a child born


         12  overseas in the Dominican Republic, how many


         13  households does the -- let me try to think this over


         14  again.


         15                 Has the Department had a study that


         16  looked at families where you have children who are


         17  born in the United States and children who were born


         18  overseas who were living in the same apartment? And


         19  have you compared statistics to the lead poisoning


         20  rate among those children?


         21                 COMMISSIONER FRIEDEN: No, we haven't


         22  done a study like that.


         23                 What we do know is that the rate


         24  among children who immigrate, even in the same


         25  communities, is higher than the rate among US born












          2  children, because they're getting exposed to more


          3  lead in other countries than they would be here.


          4                 COUNCIL MEMBER MARTINEZ: Now, what


          5  kind of collaboration is the Department of Health


          6  conducting with these communities in terms of


          7  addressing the early intervention overseas, if any?


          8                 COMMISSIONER FRIEDEN: Our activities


          9  to date have been in New York City, and working with


         10  the communities on education, outreach,


         11  presentation, working with community organizations,


         12  educating people on ways to avoid lead poisoning


         13  both here and abroad.


         14                 COUNCIL MEMBER MARTINEZ: Thank you.


         15                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Council


         16  Member, are you finished?


         17                 COUNCIL MEMBER MARTINEZ: Yes.


         18                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Oh, okay.


         19                 I'm sorry, I'm derelict in my duty.


         20  We've been joined by Councilwoman Gale Brewer, in


         21  back of me we have Council Member Kendall Stewart.


         22                 I have a question for the


         23  Commissioner of Health.


         24                 There was recently an article in the


         25  New York Times, I'm sure you read it, "Overhead And












          2  Underfoot," and since there are environmental issues


          3  involved, you know, we talk about kids coming into


          4  the country, and I was wondering if you have any


          5  idea of the incidence, the percentage or the


          6  incidence of lead poisoning that we could be seeing


          7  from these kinds of things, elevated trains,


          8  highways?


          9                 COMMISSIONER FRIEDEN: Lead,


         10  unfortunately, as I mentioned, is ubiquitous in our


         11  environment as a result of decades of use of


         12  lead-based paints and leaded gasoline. You find lead


         13  hazards in about two-thirds of all apartments where


         14  there is a lead-poisoned kid.


         15                 Now that doesn't necessarily mean


         16  that those hazards caused that lead poisoning, but


         17  certainly those hazards need to be repaired.


         18                 But in one-third we don't find


         19  lead-based hazards, and that proportion increases as


         20  children get older, that proportion increases if the


         21  child is foreign-born, and over time that proportion


         22  will increase as it has increased, as we improve the


         23  correction of lead-based hazards in housing stock.


         24                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: I mean, I


         25  often think those of us that are on this side of 50












          2  in this room, when we were kids we had lead-based,


          3  we had lead in gasoline, we had lead in just about


          4  everything that was around us. If we had been


          5  tested, I'm sure all of us would have had fantastic


          6  amounts of lead.


          7                 Next questioner, Council Member


          8  Perkins.


          9                 COUNCIL MEMBER PERKINS: Thank you


         10  very much, Madam Chair.


         11                 I first need to say unequivocally


         12  that I appreciate the step forward that is being


         13  reflected in the testimony. It is a step forward


         14  that is almost a giant step by comparison to the


         15  attitude that I believe was shared in prior


         16  hearings, and clearly it suggests great promise for


         17  coming together on behalf of the children, as long


         18  as we continue to focus on what is most significant


         19  about the problem.


         20                 And I'm sorry to say that it seems


         21  somewhat diversionary, the preoccupation, on the


         22  immigrant aspect of this, and contrary to some


         23  extent to your testimony which wants us to focus on


         24  where the real problems are, and especially since


         25  you seem to dismiss that immigrant piece is not












          2  really directly related to the lead poisoning that


          3  takes place in the house.


          4                 But be that as it may, I know that,


          5  you know, as marathon runner, it's the last laps of


          6  the race that are most difficult, and as much as I


          7  applaud the fact that we're making progress, I know


          8  that there's still some difficulties that we have to


          9  overcome, but I'm optimistic that we will and look


         10  forward to working with you towards that end.


         11                 I notice that you made some reference


         12  to industry experts and medical experts in


         13  fortifying your testimony, particularly, you know,


         14  and who you anticipate to come in support of your


         15  testimony; did you get a chance to talk to any


         16  industry experts and medical experts that might have


         17  testified in support of 101-A? In either case,


         18  whether it's the housing industry or the medical


         19  community?


         20                 In other words, for instance, as you


         21  know there were some folks who testified in support


         22  of 101-A that might have said, for instance, that


         23  the social costs of lead poisoning are $1.4 billion,


         24  and I know you were here, or you know of that


         25  testimony; did you get a chance to speak to folks












          2  from that perspective, to sort of understand where


          3  they were coming from? And I know that there were


          4  others from the housing community that supported


          5  101-A who testified to the value of this from their


          6  perspective, and I'm just wondering did either one


          7  of you speak to the experts from the other side, as


          8  well as those that may have more or less supported


          9  your point of view?


         10                 COMMISSIONER PERINE: We certainly


         11  didn't, between June and now, speak to everybody who


         12  testified, but we certainly spoke to a number of


         13  people, including those who supported 101-A.


         14                 We had extensive discussions with


         15  some of the community's not-for-profit


         16  organizations, actually who represented both


         17  different points of view, some supported 101-A at


         18  the hearing and some did not. We also probably met


         19  with a large number of advocates for 101-A. We


         20  didn't meet with the people on the medical side, we


         21  were focused more with people on the housing and


         22  community development side of the equation. Yes, we


         23  did.


         24                 COMMISSIONER FRIEDEN: My staff meets


         25  with a variety of folks in environmental health. I












          2  very carefully review any published data that's


          3  relevant on this, and I'm always willing to listen


          4  to data-driven arguments for how best to protect our


          5  kids.


          6                 COUNCIL MEMBER PERKINS: So, for


          7  instance, with regard to the original cost that you


          8  estimated that 101-A would cost, there were experts


          9  that pointed out that the social costs were at least


         10  four to five times greater; did you get a chance to


         11  look at that by comparison?


         12                 COMMISSIONER FRIEDEN: I have seen an


         13  article making that claim, yes.


         14                 COUNCIL MEMBER PERKINS: Did you


         15  dismiss the article? Do you accept the article? I


         16  just want to get a sense of --


         17                 COMMISSIONER FRIEDEN: No. I think, as


         18  I have said before, the weight of scientific


         19  evidence is that even low levels of lead poisoning


         20  are damaging and carry a very significant social


         21  cost.


         22                 COUNCIL MEMBER PERKINS: Beyond the


         23  costs that you originally estimated, and even more


         24  modest costs presented to us by the independent


         25  budget office and State Comptroller, and the City












          2  Comptroller, for that matter.


          3                 COMMISSIONER FRIEDEN: Cost estimates


          4  are challenging, and we're not trying to give you a


          5  less than straightforward answer --


          6                 COUNCIL MEMBER PERKINS: What cost


          7  estimates? Medical cost estimates or social cost


          8  estimates?


          9                 COMMISSIONER FRIEDEN: Let me finish


         10  the sentence.


         11                 Cost estimates are challenging. Even


         12  working out the exact cost of the statute may be


         13  changed drastically by changing a few words here or


         14  then either up or down.


         15                 Social cost estimates are much


         16  harder. They rely on a large number of estimates.


         17  I'm not saying I don't agree with them, I'm just


         18  saying they're complicated.


         19                 COUNCIL MEMBER PERKINS: Thank you.


         20                 I want to be clear as to -- one of my


         21  colleagues made some remarks about the legislation,


         22  though well intended, is misguided, and I just want


         23  to be clear that that's not the point of view that


         24  you're sharing.


         25                 COMMISSIONER PERINE: No, I don't












          2  think either of us said that it was misguided. I


          3  think all that we're saying is let's try to build on


          4  what the law's clear objectives really are, which is


          5  to ensure that the physical work gets done that will


          6  help to eradicate lead paint, especially where we


          7  know children are most at risk. And I think, you


          8  know, and I think that we're supportive of that, and


          9  I think that seems to me to be the overwhelming


         10  objective of this bill as well.


         11                 COUNCIL MEMBER PERKINS: Thank you


         12  very much.


         13                 Commissioner, can I ask you, you


         14  indicated, in terms of the targeting, that there


         15  were unnecessary costs, or costs, I'll not say


         16  unnecessary, that would be incurred in those areas


         17  outside of the lead belt or by comparison to the


         18  more targeted; what are those costs you've come up


         19  with?


         20                 COMMISSIONER FRIEDEN: Well, they


         21  would result from several things.


         22                 First, at turnover you'd have to


         23  remove even impact lead in doors, door frames, and


         24  windows, and replace, and in peeling paint, you


         25  would have to actually remove or permanently cover












          2  lead-based peeling paint, as two examples. And, so,


          3  that would be required in every turnover of every


          4  apartment in New York City.


          5                 COUNCIL MEMBER PERKINS: Do you know


          6  what that is, in terms of dollars and cents? That's


          7  what I was getting at.


          8                 COMMISSIONER FRIEDEN: My


          9  understanding is that a single apartment to correct


         10  is anywhere from four or five or six-thousand


         11  dollars. We're talking about in New York City, I


         12  don't know how many apartments turn over each year,


         13  but we're talking about all apartments which


         14  children under seven 2007. So that's a lot of


         15  apartments.


         16                 COMMISSIONER PERINE: And I guess in


         17  terms of costs, I mean what I would also just point


         18  out was sort of my other basic idea here which is


         19  that, let's try to focus the money on the work and


         20  not build a big bureaucratic burden, and that to me


         21  is less of a question of how much should be spent,


         22  but how it should be spent.


         23                 So, I think, you know, as I said in


         24  my testimony, things like, you know, creating a


         25  central register of every apartment in New York and












          2  keeping a separate file where every piece of paper


          3  goes into the file, that's just a very extensive


          4  kind of thing to do that doesn't really advance I


          5  think what the overall and overarching objective


          6  here is, which is to compel the owners of the


          7  private housing stock who have housing that is most


          8  threatening to the children's lives to actually


          9  invest in it in a substantive way and do work


         10  properly. So, I think if we can keep a focus on


         11  those objectives and not have costs kind of incur on


         12  kind of like building this big bureaucracy, I think


         13  we could really make the law extremely effective.


         14                 COUNCIL MEMBER PERKINS: I agree and


         15  we're obviously interested in doing that, but when


         16  you mention cost, it's important for us to


         17  understand what that means in terms of dollars and


         18  cents to determine how much of a significant focus


         19  this should be, or how much of an obstacle this


         20  really is. One of my colleagues pointed out, it may


         21  be such that they won't be able to support the


         22  legislation. It doesn't seem like that based on what


         23  I'm hearing. Would you say it's relatively modest,


         24  the diversionary focuses, whether they be


         25  administrative, bureaucratic?












          2                 COMMISSIONER PERINE: I don't think


          3  we're in the position to say that it's modest. What


          4  I can say, and what I did say in my testimony on the


          5  administrative overhead is that it can be two or


          6  three times the overhead cost that we see now, and


          7  that, again, I'm not --


          8                 COUNCIL MEMBER PERKINS: What do you


          9  see now as the overhead cost?


         10                 COMMISSIONER PERINE: What I said was


         11  about I think four to five-thousand dollars in


         12  overhead for -- again, I'm going by the work that we


         13  do, because that's what I have more, you know,


         14  knowledge of. And then in the world of, you know,


         15  this proposed law, we think that the overhead on


         16  work that would have to be done could increase to


         17  about ten to thirteen thousand dollars a unit.


         18                 Again, it's not a question of should


         19  three times more money be spent. I'm not trying to


         20  extend that argument that way. I'm just saying if


         21  more money is to be spent, let's focus it on the


         22  actual work, let's not see it just go towards


         23  building a big bureaucratic overhead and increasing


         24  the cost in that regard, because I think we would


         25  all agree that that's not really what any of us are












          2  seeking to accomplish here.


          3                 COUNCIL MEMBER PERKINS: Commissioner


          4  Perine, you had in your testimony made reference to


          5  tenants and their non-compliance, I guess you meant


          6  access and the like; could you share with us --


          7                 COMMISSIONER PERINE: Yes, primarily


          8  I'm talking about access. You know, we have done a


          9  lot of work in the world of how we deploy our code


         10  enforcement staff