Committee on Environmental Protection and Waterfronts

Who's here from the administration? I know people are going to come to listen. Anybody here from the administration? I worked this out with City Legislative Affairs that someone would be here in person to listen. Pardon? Okay, yeah, yeah, just— I'm just, I'm just, I'm just asking a question. Okay, so you're from the administration? Okay, yeah, we just— pardon?

Yeah, yeah, yeah, because the administration is not testifying, but they promised they would send like a, you know, someone from the administration to listen to all the testimony. Of course, people say they're going to be watching it online, but nothing like having a person in the audience. Thank you for being here. Oh, so now I have to officially let you know to do whatever you have to do to start the hearing, right?

Good afternoon and welcome to New York City Council Committee on Environmental Protection and Waterfront. At this time, we're asking everyone to silence all electronic devices. If you have not signed up yet for testimony, please do so at the back with the sergeant. At no time anyone should approach the DS. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon.

I'm Councilmember Jim Gennaro, chair of the Committee on Environmental Protection and Waterfronts. Today we'll be holding an oversight hearing on DEP's citizen enforcement programs. As well as the following legislation. Proposed Intro 11A, sponsored by Speaker Julie Menin, in relation to increasing civil penalties for idling infractions. Uh, Intro 48, sponsored by Councilmember Aviles— we'll be hearing from her— in relation to translating the Citizen Air Complaint Program portal into designated citywide languages.

A preconsidered bill sponsored by Councilmember Crystal Hudson in relation to idling violations in DOF's— DOF? Yeah. Is that finance? In relation to the Department of Finance's fleet program. And 3 bills that I have sponsored. Proposed Intro 561A in relation to regulating the idling of engines and the use of citizens' complaints to enforce Idling laws, proposed Intro 869A in relation to establishing a code of conduct applicable to citizen noise complaints, and Intro 562 in relation to establishing a program that transfers liability for certain engine idling violations to lessees of vehicles.

And the The city's air quality has improved over the last 20 years, thanks in no small part to the council. Over that time, the council has passed legislation to phase out dirty heating oil, regulating emissions from certain commercial cooking equipment, making the city fleet electric, and reducing emissions from certain types of buildings. Each of these laws has demonstrated the council's commitment to making the air cleaner and safer for New Yorkers.

While the air quality has improved, there is still work to be done, work that this committee takes very seriously. Let me just go off script for a second and talk about some of the things that have happened. I remember in one fell swoop, the council working with the state eliminated the dirtiest fuel oil, number 6 oil. So 6 oil went out.

Number 4 oil, many people know what that is, it's a blend of number 2 and number 6. That was reduced from a sulfur content between like 3,000 and 4,000 down to 1,000 or 1,500 or whatever it was. So it made 4 cleaner. And in conjunction with the state, we made number 2 ultra-low— yeah, we made it ultra-low sulfur, ULSD.

And we did something— oh, and then we— there was some other component to that, but those measures taken together cleaned the city's air quality to the equivalent of taking every car, truck, and bus off the road forever. That was a good thing, but we have to keep going and idling is— That's right. a very big deal. I just thought I'd give you that little piece of history.

Okay, back to script. Every year motor vehicles contribute approximately 11% of the local fine particulate matter. By that we mean PM2.5. People who know air pollution know it, PM2.5, PM10, all that. Where was I? And 28% of the local nitrogen oxide emissions. These emissions are harmful to human health, leading to hundreds of premature deaths and emergency department visits for respiratory and cardiovascular disease every year.

What's more, what's more, communities of color are subjected to as much as 15% more fine particulate matter pollution from diesel trucks. In a neighborhood with the greatest levels of pollution attributable, emergency department visits are all EJ neighborhoods. To address these air quality concerns, the New York City Air Code prohibits motor vehicles from idling for longer than 1 minute near a school or a park, and for longer than 3 minutes elsewhere.

Although a citizen complaint program process for these air code provisions has existed in local law since 1971, to better facilitate participation in the citizen complaint program and 2019, the city established the City Air Complaint Portal, which allowed the public to more easily submit evidence of idling to DEP. Since then, the number of idling complaints submitted each year has been climbing dramatically, from 9,070 complaints submitted in 2019 to 163,090 complaints submitted in 2025.

In that time, stakeholders, including DEP, have called upon the council to reform this program to make it more efficient and fairer for all involved. As evidenced by the committee's hearing on citizen enforcement program and accompanying legislation in 2024, and again today— when did we last hear this bill? Yeah, so we, we last heard this bill in 2024, uh, and again today, um, I am committed, as is this as is this committee, to doing our best to make this program easier and fairer for all parties while maintaining the council's ultimate goal of reducing harmful air pollution.

That leads us to today's hearing. And although we invited DEP, OATH, the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings, I guess, Hearings. And Department of Finance to provide testimony about the citizen enforcement program and the proposed legislation being heard today, And despite DEP's previous insistence that the council make reforms to this program, as you can see, they have declined the invitation.

And since then, DEP has provided a page and a half of testimony without much substance. I will be reading that into the record. Feel free to giggle as I read it. And no word from Oath or DOF. The giggle part I just made up. It's not written down. Okay. Uh, I hope that moving forward, the administration can show a bit more respect to this institution and the important role we play in oversight and lawmaking.

While I'm disappointed by their absence, I look forward to hearing from you all today about your experience with the Citizen Enforcement Program and your suggestions to make it better. Thank you for taking the time out of your day to make this a fruitful hearing with your good and thorough testimony. Hopefully, the agencies will be listening in. Well, we got the person right there.

And I'm sure they're listening in. I'm sure they're like— you were giggling when I said giggling. They're not giggling. They're grimacing. So, hopefully, the agencies will be listening in and taking notes.

We certainly will. I would like to thank the committee staff, senior legislative counsels Natasha Bynum and Sierra Townsend, Natasha Bynum is here. Sierra is remote. Senior policy analyst Ricky Chawla, financial analyst Tanvir Singh, as well as my legislative director, Josh Gachette, who's sitting in the front row, for all their hard work. I do want to recognize the other Sierra.

Sierra Unger. We have Sierra Unger, so we have 2 Sierras. dossiers. And she's an intern? What is she? What's that? A legal extern. A legal extern. Okay. After the hearing, I'll find out what that means. Okay. I will recognize the great councilmembers who have joined us. Here we go. Councilmember Sanchez, Councilmember Hanks, Councilmember Epstein, Councilmember Avila is not a member of this committee but has a bill, and she always shows up when her bills are heard.

She's a great councilmember and a great American, if I do say so myself. And so— and okay. Well, okay, all the councilmembers are great Americans, okay. As are all of you. This is like, this is the, you know, yeah, this is like a Vatican of great Americans here. I invoked the Vatican. You did it at the right moment.

Oh, okay. So, yeah, so Mr. Entrance himself, Lincoln Resler, another great American, has joined us. And, okay, as well as financial, Tanvir Singh. Did I say that already? What am I up to? Okay, so I no, I got to recognize. I recognized the colleagues, right? Yeah. Did I do that? Okay, but yes. Oh, I did the colleagues already.

Yes. Yeah. I'm getting older, you know. Yeah, I'm going to recognize Councilman Ravillas. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And now it's my it's my honor to recognize my good colleague. Councilmember Aviles for a statement. Councilmember Aviles.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair Gennaro, for always being very generous and lovely with your comments. Thank you to the members of the committee, members of the public who have joined us here today. Today the committee will hear one of my bills, Intro 48, which brings language justice to the fight for clean air in New York City. Idling vehicles are a major contributor of air pollution in our city.

Cars and trucks idling on New New York City streets produce 130,000 tons of carbon dioxide a year. The consequences of this pollution are deadly, resulting in 2,400 deaths each year in New York City. We see a disproportionate impact in communities like mine, environmental justice communities that bear the brunt of an enormous amount of siting of polluting infrastructures and certainly trucks.

The Citizen Air Complaint Program has been a critical tool to boost enforcement capacity for the city's idling law. This program allows everyday New Yorkers to take on corporate polluters who harm their communities. Early this year, the city recovered $9 million from Amazon alone for one year, one of the city's most flagrant polluters. In a time where the federal government and the state government are rolling back environmental protections.

It is a moment for the city to lean forward, 10 toes down, to strengthen and expand our programs that protect our residents. The city— the citizens complaint portal is a vital tool for improving our city's air quality, but that fact— but the fact that complaints must only be submitted in English limits its ability to deliver true environmental justice for our city where nearly a quarter of the residents have limited English proficiency.

In fact, in my district, we are a majority foreign-born district. 70-plus of my residents speak Spanish or Mandarin or Cantonese. They are effectively locked out from caring for their neighbors in this program. My bill, Intro 48, would require DP to translate the portal into each of these cities' designated citywide languages. This bill is a step forward in addressing the deadly inequities of environmental justice communities that they currently face.

I thank the 38 council members who have signed on to Intro 48 and encourage my colleagues to join in the fight for language justice and co-sponsor this bill and ensure that we have the strongest citizen complaint program and can do everything in Thank you so much. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember Vilas. I have a tradition in this committee, which I've chaired for like 17 or 18 years, not consecutively but cumulatively, of recognizing either words or expressions that have never been put on the record before in this committee. in the committee while I've chaired it. And I'm asking counsel to enter into the— to make a note of the expression 10 toes down has now been uttered in this committee for the first time since I've chaired it.

And so thank you, Alexa. And now it's my duty to read the testimony of DEP into the record. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Before I do that, I'm just going to mention that there were many parties that approached me, approached other entities in the council, and said, don't have the hearing, it's a bad idea. One bill in particular, other bills still need work.

I understand that, but the way we make bills better is to get input from the public. Like, that's how this works. And, you know, we heard the bill in 2024, and now we're back. People are not satisfied with their— with the amendments to the bill, which is precisely why we're here. And, you know, I want to engage in a productive discussion. with all stakeholders to make sure that we can figure out a bill that probably is not going to work for everybody, right?

Because we have to, you know, it's going to be a balance. And, but I, in 17 or 18 years of chairing this committee, I don't think I've ever passed a bad bill. And in my antiquity, I don't plan on starting now. So I wanted to go forward with the hearing in absence of, you know, DEP, because frankly, what I— you know, DEP works for us.

I'm more interested in hearing from members of the public, from stakeholders, everyone who has, like, you know, legitimate concerns. And you all do. You know, I would hope that the testimony is Uh, you know, constructive and not heated, although I don't care what people say about me, so have at it. Um, but, um, you know, this is my goal and this is what's going to happen at the end of the day.

So I did, you know, I heard from a lot of people, don't do it, don't do it, you're being set up. And no, no, no, no, no. It's just like, we're going to go before both sides, 3 sides, 4 sides, whatever. And, you know, get good testimony on the record and take the, uh, You know, clay that's on the potter's wheel now and making it into something that, you know, we can all like.

So that's what we're going to do. And appreciate everyone being here. And someone even brought their little— there he is. There he is back there. And so, yeah. Yeah, that's the youngest environmentalist right there. I'm trying to get to the house. What's that? All right, well, okay, so from now on, no talking during this hearing. There will be no testimony.

There'll be nothing. We will just sit and meditate, you know, and until the baby's like safely asleep. Okay, here we go.

Testimony of Lisa Garcia, Commissioner, DEP for yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Good afternoon, Chairman Gennaro, members in the Environmental Protection and Waterfronts Committee. I am Lisa Garcia, Commissioner of DEP. I'm happy to provide some information about the operation of our citizen complaint program. However, on the advice of counsel and related litigation, I will not be in attendance at the hearing.

And at this time, I will not provide comments on Intro 11A or Intro 561A. Sip of water. That's what it says in here, so I'll follow it. New York City's Civilian Complaint Program allows anyone to record and submit evidence of certain idling, dust, and sound reproduction device violations, and then receive a share of the penalties collected if the evidence results in a violation.

These programs have become increasingly popular in recent years, particularly the program for idling enforcement. I got a little frog in my throat here. I had a sticky bun, maybe that's it. And it has a chart here, talks about complaints submitted, and it's a lot of numbers, and then numbers issued, whatever. I'm not going to do the charts.

To participate in the idling program, Anyone can log into the air complaint system on the DEP website and submit a video of the idling with a description of the incident. 2 DEP staff, including a supervisor, review each submission to determine whether there is evidence of a violation and issue summonses when sufficient evidence is observed. Either DEP or the citizen can pursue the complaint.

If DEP pursues, we issue summonses after the review once sufficient evidence is observed. If the citizen pursues, they issue the summons themselves. The summons leads to a hearing before oath. The person who submitted the complaint is informed of the hearing date and can follow the progress of their submission through the air complaint system. Anybody got a cough drop?

Anybody? Yeah, thank you, thank you. Oh, Ricola, now we're talking. Appreciate that. Um, where are we? Uh, in 2025, DEP reviewed more than 163,000 submissions from the public and issued about 102,000 summonses for idling, almost 300 summonses issued per day. As the council is aware, this has been an exponential increase over just a few years. And then there's a little question mark between the 2 paragraphs.

I don't know what that means. Currently, DEP receives about 700 idling reports per day. Each is reviewed by a DEP inspector and supervisor. We have a current backlog of about 230,000 videos that DEP must review. DP received 21 new lines, you know, personnel lines, approved as part of the FY27 November plan. These new positions include air pollution inspectors, clerical associates, principal administrative associates, and one certified IT developer. 7 inspections— 7 inspectors recently started.

We are working with the Department of Citywide Administrative Services and the Office of Management and Budget to bring the rest on as soon as possible. Citizen complaints are adjudicated at oath, which also support the processing of payments. The council should consider the operational impacts in adjudicating and processing citizen complaints of these cases when making changes to the law. 6 pieces of legislation are being heard today.

The details of some of these bills relate to current litigation. Therefore, I cannot speak to items in the bills. That touch on legal issues being litigated. But they do have, you know, thoughts on some other bills, and I'm going to read those now.

Intro 48. Intro 48 requires that the Citizens Air Complaint website and its components be available in the designated citywide languages. The DEP is already compliant with the bill, okay, because the website currently has instructions and translations in all of the designated citywide languages. We encourage New Yorkers of all backgrounds to participate in the compliant program. I'm just reading what's on the paper.

Okay. Intro 562. 562 would establish a program that transfers liability for certain engine idling violations to lessees of vehicles. DEP issues summonses to vehicle owners based on the license plate or other identifying information on the vehicle seen idling. The evidence we receive does not indicate who was driving the vehicle at the time of the violation. Often there isn't any driver present.

If the vehicle is leased, that is also not indicated in the evidence collected. We have concerns about this proposal, such as removing the vehicle owner's incentive to install anti-idling equipment in vehicles. Intro 869. Intro 869 would establish a code of conduct applicable to citizen noise compliance. We appreciate and support the intent of this bill. Additionally, Oath already has rules of conduct for citizen citizen complainants that are strictly enforced when adjudicating these matters.

Preconsidered Bill T20262662. The preconsidered bill requires the Department of Finance to provide DEP a list of companies and registration plates enrolled in its fleet program and requires DEP to send DOF A list of all idling notices of violation issued for vehicles enrolled in the fleet program. We are reviewing this legislation with our colleagues at the Department of Finance.

I defer to them for discussion about their concerns. Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony today.

Okay, we got that out of the way, and now we're going to start hearing from real people. I think it's— what am I doing here? Oh, I got to do the thing, right? Yeah, yeah. Chair, can we get copies of their testimony? Oh, sure. Yeah. I'm going to— yeah. So the counsel of the committee will email it to all members.

Yeah. Sure. Thank you, Harvey. Public comment period. At the beginning of the public comment period— oh, I'm sorry. Sorry, it's just a note saying that I have to read this. Okay, let me just go with what I have to read. I remind members of the public that this is a formal government proceeding, sort of, and that decorum shall be observed at all times.

As such, members of the public shall remain silent at all times. Well, I guess except when they're testifying. The witness table is reserved for people who wish to testify. No video recording or photography is allowed. From the witness table. Further, members of the public may not present audio or video recordings as testimony, but may submit transcripts of such recording to the Sergeant-at-Arms for inclusion in the hearing record.

If you wish to speak at today's hearing, please fill out an appearance card with the Sergeant-at-Arms and wait to be recognized. When recognized, you will have 2 minutes to speak on today's hearing topic. DEP citizen enforcement programs and accompanying legislation to be heard today. Yeah, because this is also an oversight hearing as well as a legislative hearing.

If you have a written statement or additional testimony you wish to submit for the record, please submit a copy of that testimony to the sergeant-at-arms. You may also email written testimony to testimony@council.nyc.gov within 72 hours of this hearing. Audio and video recordings will not be accepted. I'm about to call the first panel, and I want to— and I want to note that, you know, when it comes to arranging the panels, I have instructed, as I always do, the staff to arrange, you know, the panels in such a way that it is Fair, and we get both sides, and one group doesn't have to wait 3 hours to testify.

And, and I want it known for the record that I play no role whatsoever in figuring out who's testifying when, what panels are first or last or whatever. That is left to staff. I trust them implicitly. They always do a good job. But when it comes to the panels, I have no say. say in who goes first.

With that said, here is the first panel.

Can I say something? Sure. I recognize Councilmember Aviles. I know we want to get into the panels, but I felt compelled to respond to the administration's claim that did they or done that in terms of translating the portal. So I think from my exploration in these several minutes. It is true that a form guidance has been translated separately.

So we will provide kudos to the administration that actually there is a form there that is translated that will guide someone. But what this requires, for the record, is that an individual go into the website, print out the form, then go back to the website and use the form, and then go back to the website to translate each one manually. in their head.

This is a crazy way of doing things. It is not integrated. What we are asking for is a full integration where you go to one place, you make your reports, you submit your documentation and evidence. Not that you have to have a menagerie of documents and, um, you know, investigative, uh, lenses to figure out how to navigate the two things.

So administration, You're on your way. You have not yet arrived to the promised land. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember. And when it comes to portals, I see many doctors, and now it is the era of the patient portal. And so I instruct my doctors to send me the stuff on the patient portal in a language that I do not understand.

So that way— because I want the doctor to tell me what's wrong with me. I don't want to read it. and then go on Google and say, oh my God, what have I got?

And so— People are filing in, so just a reminder that if they want to testify— Okay. Okay. The counsel of the committee is reminding me, number one, to get back to business, and two, to let people know who are— who have entered the room since I talked about the rules, that if they wish to speak, they should see the sergeant-at-arms. fill out an appearance slip, and then they will be called in turn.

And so the first panel, Alex, I can't make out the last name, from Reinvent Albany. Is this first panel too? Come on up. Sure, yeah, come on up. George Thurston. Um, uh, from the NYU School of Medicine, although he's representing himself. Mm-hmm. And, uh, Rocco Lacerta from New York State Energy Coalition. Um, Margaret Perkins from, uh, 350 NYC.

Max Resnick gives a street address, presumably representing himself. He gives no organization. Hold on, I need a— hang on, let me just get a piece of paper to make notes. Can we fit everybody? Didn't we call more than this? Do you want to just repeat the names quickly? Uh, sure. Um, Max Resnick, Margaret Perkins, Rocco Lacerda, Alex from Reinvent Albany.

George Thurston. And so, okay, all right. And why don't we go from my right to my left, and let's see who has submitted testimony. So we have one testimony, right? Yes. Okay. Alex Kamarda. Kamarda. Okay, I'm happy to. Oh, that's right because it's not the administration, so we don't swear them in, right? Okay. Happy to hear your good testimony.

The sergeant will tell you when to start, and you have two minutes to give your good testimony.

Thank you, Chair Gennaro. My name is Alex Camarda. I'm a senior policy advisor for Reinvent Albany, a government watchdog group. Reinvent Albany supports the civilians' air complaint program, believing it's a creative, innovative way to leverage civic-minded New Yorkers to extend the compliance reach of the Department of Environmental Protection to enforce laws against idling. We're concerned by the bills before the committee today, in particular 561A and Intro 11, both of which we oppose.

We oppose 561A because it creates numerous loopholes that will result in more idling, more air pollution, more asthma, and more related diseases like cancer and heart disease. These loopholes include diesel regeneration. Enabling buses to idle anywhere along their routes, enabling buses to idle for 30 minutes without clear beginning and end points, allowing vehicles to idle due to undefined mechanical problems, allowing vehicles that have auxiliary battery-powered units in good working condition, which is undefined, to also idle.

More importantly, these loopholes will make it difficult for both complainants and the DEP to discern between an exception to the idling law and improper idling. DEP and complainants— I'm sorry, I already mentioned that. We also oppose Intro Number 11 because we think that increasing the fines is unnecessary. We think the current fine levels are changing behavior already, and idling has been greatly reduced in many neighborhoods across the city.

We also think that it will increase delinquency on the part of respondents, the commercial vehicle companies. What we see for fines above $1,000 currently is that the delinquency rates are 60% or higher. So that will cause complainants to Um, not participate because they will not be paid their incentive because the companies won't be paying.

Thank you. Thank you. And, um, and, um, um, as people, um, you know, testify, um, it would be important, and I, I, I, I think you were pretty clear that, um, I would be interested to know from everybody who testifies who has a issue with 561, whether they believe that, that 561 is like resurrectable, or just forget about the whole thing.

Because when you say oppose it, it means that, you know, there was nothing— there's nothing we can really do to it to make it fair or better or whatever. So I'm taking your testimony as just like an outright opposition to 561. And those who, you know, believe that 561 with the— with appropriate amendments could be made into a bill that could work, you know, I would like to hear that as well.

It's fine to oppose it. But if people have— and you did indicate some things that were problematic, so we'll take that into account. But, you know, to the extent that people have testimonies— testimony that says, I got a problem with 561, and I think you need to do this, this, this, this, and this. And in a way, in a way, your testimony touched on that.

But to the extent that people can be explicit. And say, you know, the current paradigm works, we like it, and we don't want it touched. That's perfectly fine testimony. And so— and, you know, to the extent that you have testimony that you want to submit after the fact about what could be done about some of the problems that you mentioned, we'll be happy to review it.

But we certainly appreciate your testimony. Thank you. And again, I'm not talking just to you, but to everyone. We're trying to make this as constructive as possible. You know, like, we're trying to get 561 to work. If you think it can never work, that's perfectly acceptable testimony. And with that said, I'm going to go on to the next witness.

Did you have to come down from Albany to be here? Go ahead, let him say it. No, we're based in New York City. We have staff in Albany as well. Oh, okay. But, all right, just in response to what you just raised, um— I, I, I didn't actually ask a question, but I'll tell you what. That's right.

I'll tell you what, it's just like, you know, I, I, I know we're gonna have a long hearing, but you're the first witness, so you get the first witness prize. And so why don't you, um, uh, make a comment, you know, in response to what I just said? So I'm asking you a formal question. In relation to 561, respectfully, I don't think it's fixable.

Um, I think where the council should be focused is on due process. I think there's agreement between the industry and the complainants and environmental groups and civic groups like Reenve in Albany that due process should be expedited. I think everybody agrees with that. OATH and DEP need more resources, as you talked about at the beginning. Yep. And I think that's where everyone would agree.

We want to see complaints processed more quickly. The industry deserves to get those complaints in a timely manner, and complainants will get paid faster, and you'll see a change in behavior faster for those commercial vehicle companies that are getting complaints for the first time. Okay. Thank you. Please.

Good afternoon. Yeah. George Thurston. I work at the New York University School of Medicine. I live outside the city, but I commute in, and I walk from Grand Central to my office a little over a mile. So I experience the kinds of pollution, and probably more noticeable to me because I often carry a pollution monitor, which I recommend, a portable one.

And I actually— And we'll let you go on a little bit, but what kind of device do you carry? Just a portable particulate matter monitor. OK. Anyway, and I'll present some of those data in my written. And I study health effects of air pollution. I published— you mentioned PM2.5. I published the very first paper relating PM2.5 to mortality in the United States.

In 1987, the US EPA cited my research when they set the standard in 1997. And so, and I've done studies here in the United States and, well, throughout the United States, but in New York City of children's— the backpack study, that was mine. I've done a number of studies in New York showing the continuing effects of this on not just from this particular problem, but from diesel, especially particles. in this city.

And so we need to take vigorous action. So I commend the committee for taking this on and enforcing these idling rules. However, I also am concerned about the exemptions, such as for regeneration, clean cycles, and could be potential loopholes and should be avoided. That's in 561A. I, you know, I've done a lot of work with power plants.

And they get exemptions something like this, and where it says, well, if they change operations, they're allowed to emit for a short period of time. And you wouldn't believe how many times they call on that. It's just— and the emissions of— the annual emissions go way up because they just do it and they just mark it down.

We just did this. So I think it's really human nature being what it is. It doesn't sound like you can find out whether it really was happening or not. Please continue because I held you up for a couple of moments with your other thing. So just in conclusion, I think that we need to be more proactive in enforcement, you know, and you mentioned hiring some new people, maybe more of that.

And I also think looking at solutions, not just these kind of extreme events, you know, of idling, but it's a general problem. We're bathed in pollution from traffic every day. We walk around, and if you compare where I live out in Westchester, when I come into work, that's where I get all my exposure to pollution every day.

So we need to do things like giving incentives for EV trucks, heavy-duty trucks, and, and to force— drive that switchover off diesels. We need to get them— Professor, I'm gonna have to, you know, step in because I'll I'm going to have to step in and enforce the time limit. Okay. That's all I was going to say. I just really appreciate all the work you've done on PM2.5 because forever it was like PM10 and then we got smart because of you.

PM2.5 is a very different animal than PM10. That's correct. We certainly appreciate all the work that you've done. Um, you know, please put the professor on our ringers list because he's a ringer. And so, um, that's a compliment. Compliment. Yeah, yeah, okay. Thank you very much, Professor.

Please, the next witness, if you could take the microphone. Yeah, that's probably the closest one. Good afternoon, my name is Margaret Perkins and I'm a member of the Climate Group 350 NYC, and we have been instrumental in the major climate laws that have been passed in this city. We're very proud of them, including Local Law 97, and they pull back on fossil fuels in buildings.

I want to say— everybody is probably going to say the same thing about the intricacies of this Law 561, and we are very much opposed to it. But I think we forget the bigger picture right now. And the bigger picture is that we are in a climate crisis. And we have seen this summer, the heat, the bushfires.

We have to do everything we can to reduce the pollutants from fossil fuels. They are causing the major— they are a major source of heating of this planet. And New York City has a duty to do everything it can. And this includes a bill that works in terms of stopping idling. It's a major contribution. Trucks are 80% of the pollution from vehicles, and we have to figure it out.

And I just want to say that New York City has figured out a lot of problems already, which James Gennaro has been instrumental in. Local Law 97. Everyone said you can't do it, you can't get the buildings to change. We have already shown that we have reduced emissions from buildings by 5% in the first year where it was mandated.

So if people really— and people do want a change, they will do what has to be done. We've done that with congestion pricing. Oh my God, this was going to be the end of the planet, you know, end of New York City. It's working. Particulate matter is down, vehicles are down, accidents are down. So I say we can We can do idling as well.

We have the expertise and the drive and the motivation. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your good testimony. We appreciate you coming back again to testify. And so we do appreciate that. Yes. Let me get my slips in order here. Okay. Mr. Lacertosa, please. Thank you. Good afternoon. Oh, yeah, just speak right into the microphone. It's hard to hear. Yeah, you got to get— Good afternoon, Chair Bonaro and members of the Committee on Environmental Protection and Waterfronts.

My name is Rocco J. Lacertosa. I'm the CEO of the New York State Energy Coalition, or NYSEC. NYSEC represents leading liquid heating fuel distributors in the 5 boroughs of New York City, Lower Westchester, Nassau, and Suffolk Counties. Our members are predominantly small and medium-sized multigenerational businesses that provide an essential service to homes and businesses throughout the region.

NYSECC supports effective enforcement of New York City's idling laws and does not condone unnecessary idling. But enforcement must distinguish unnecessary idling from engine operation that is necessary to perform an essential service. That distinction is particularly important. Heating fuel delivery trucks must operate pumps to safely and efficiently deliver fuel to homes apartment buildings, and businesses. That is not unnecessary idling.

We strongly support Intro 561A's recognition of pumps used in fuel delivery as a legitimate use, and we urge the council to ensure the final language clearly protects drivers as when engine operation is necessary to complete a fuel delivery. NYSECC also supports the bill's exemption for required diesel particulate filter regeneration cycles. Drivers should not face an idling violation for operating a vehicle in compliance with environmental regulations.

We support the broader reforms in Intro 561A, including replacing percentage-based complainant awards with fixed amounts, establishing reasonable enforcement timelines, and ensuring that respondents receive the video and electronic evidence underlying a violation. These reforms will make the program more fair, reliable, and focused on genuine compliance rather than financial incentives. NYSECC also supports Intro 869 and its safeguards against the fraudulent evidence and other abuse of citizen complaint process.

Finally, NYSECC opposes Intro 11 at this time. The Council should first implement and evaluate the important reforms in Intro 561 before increasing penalties, particularly for the small businesses that make up our membership. Higher penalties should not come at a before a fair and reliable enforcement process. NYSECC urges the Council to advance Intros 561 and 869. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

Thank you, Mr. Lassitosa. We always appreciate working with NYSECC, uh, and, uh, appreciate your, you know, continuing, um, you know, involvement in this process. And if I had more time, I would speak about what our industry has— Uh, well, I, I, I would— so when I'm done, I'm, I'm going to ask questions of the panel and And so people might have an ability to get another word in.

So, and our final panelist on this panel.

Hello, my name is Max Resnick. Are we good on time? Cool. I am a Brooklyn resident and a participant in the Citizen Complaint Program. I am testifying asking that the council withdraw 561A and support Intro 48. I don't think that Intro 561A is resurrectable. There are too many loopholes and exceptions, and it does not support the air and environment here in New York City.

I'm also a City Parks Steward. I take care of street trees, and I recently finished my street tree pruning class as well. I love having extra tools in my toolkit to help New York City's environment. I started participating in this program in 2024, and I submit complaints on an average of 10 to 15 a month. Not super regularly, but it's not difficult.

When I'm walking from my home to and from the subway, when I'm visiting friends, eating out, you know, I'm able to see cars, trucks, and buses idling pretty regularly. And I live near Coney Island Avenue, a major hub of upcoming development. This summer, for example, lines of dump trucks and construction vehicles would line up a block away from an elementary school playground and idle for hours.

When I started filming them, those trucks stopped. That's why this program works. When they would see me walking around, these trucks would turn off almost immediately. We know that this program as it is, is effective at reducing idling, reducing particulate matter, and we want more New Yorkers to be equipped with those skills to be able to contribute to that program.

Intro 48 is a no-brainer. It expands language access and hopefully empowers more New Yorkers to be able to participate. I look forward to a future with cleaner air and feel proud to contribute to that work through this program.

Thanks. Thank you, Max. I appreciate you being here and being a participant in the program. And, you know, expanding your reach of service to pruning trees. We do appreciate that. I have some questions, but I know that my colleague Harvey Epstein has questions for this panel. I recognize Councilmember Epstein. Thank you, Chair. I want to thank the panel for being here.

Sorry, I don't remember your name, sir. It's Rocco Lesher. Rocco. Um, so I don't— I'd love to hear why you think these exemptions are going to help the environment by exempting more trucks from the, the law. Like, what, what environmental advantages do you see we're going to have by that? Well, first of all, there's no— You got to use the microphone.

Yeah. There is no way to, to affect the delivery without, without the truck running, okay? Because the engine operates the pump. So it's just as simple as that, okay? The regen process is part of what they do now. I'm just saying about the environmental benefits. I just really wanted to check what environmental benefits you think this bill will have.

I just don't think that it helps our industry whatsoever. I mean, we're already delivering a much cleaner project, which is what I was starting to say before about, you know, having biodiesel and renewable diesel blended with our heating oil, and we've reduced tons of emissions from New York City's air over the last 2 decades. Which is great.

So we're saying we want to reduce emissions in our air. And we keep doing it. We're going to higher blends. Right. But when you're saying this bill, you want to create more exemptions in the bill, how does that create cleaner air? I don't know that it does one way or the other. But all I can tell you is that there is no way to make a delivery without Using a pump without— so basically the current technology doesn't allow a system to operate, uh, the pump without the engine being on, and there's no system available now that allows that to happen?

No. And you're saying technology doesn't have a path forward on this? I don't, I don't design trucks. You don't design trucks? It's above my pay grade. That's right. So it's possible the technology is out there. It could be. And that building trucks can move towards that technology, and that may reduce the environmental consequences as well as the idling issue.

Absolutely. Because people are only— you're saying they're only idling now is because they have to because they want the pump to work. Right. So if there's a technology that was available that allowed them to not idle while the pump was working, they would— We would certainly use it. You'd certainly use it. So it doesn't seem like changing the law to allow more idling would make sense, except maybe allowing— figuring out their technology exists to allow the pump to work without idling.

That would be correct. Yeah, great. So I just wanted the other panelists— the other panelists seem to be not supportive of this bill. Am I going down— like, are we saying that the change in this law would hurt the environmental regulations, hurt the environment, increase particulate matters? Is that what I hear you all saying? You're nodding. You can maybe just articulate that in the mic because we need to have it on the record.

Well, I think the implementation would not allow the kind of improvement you could get from a proper bill, that the exemptions would undermine it, basically. So the exemptions in the bill could undermine the whole intent of the law? Correct. Right. And so it does seem like with the Chair's goal here is to try to make an industry viable, which we all want to do, we don't want to undermine this industry without undermining the environment at the same time.

So there's got to be some path, which is what I hear people talking about, of maybe changing the way the industry functions, but also without undermining the goals and the law. Do you want to— Yeah, go ahead. I'm sorry. Yeah, I just think with a number of the exceptions, as I mentioned in my testimony, I feel like they make the program inoperable.

It's more than just increasing idling or increasing pollution. I don't think complainants, you know, everyday New Yorkers who are filming videos of idling trucks, are going to be able to tell if they're doing diesel regeneration, or, uh, if their auxiliary battery-powered unit is working, or if they have a mechanical problem. I'm not even sure what that is.

Um, so, and I think DEP will similarly struggle. So I think it makes the program inoperable in, in addition to So I do also want to ask the panel, we've heard from written testimony from DEP that they are concerned about the volume of complaints that are coming in and the quality of some of those videos that are being sent in.

We'd love to hear from this panel about additional solutions that might be available to streamline that process. Obviously, the chair and people on the committee will have the ability to increase funding, but also what other solutions might be available to deal with the quality of the videos coming in. If anyone— Before the answer comes forward, I just want to tell Councilmember Epstein that, you know, we've got a 5-minute clock for councilmembers, which I didn't set, but I certainly want this answered.

I certainly want your question answered. Good. Thank you, Chair. I'll be done after this. You bet. Uh, I'm a casual participant in this program and have basically stumbled, uh, on ways to be able to submit videos. Most of my videos have been accepted, and I really appreciate the community of other people who are also submitting these videos, who provide guidance and coaching to make sure that the quality is good.

Nobody wants to be wasting DEP's time. We don't want to be submitting false claims. We want to be doing good work, and there's a community of people who have been doing this for years who are very generous with their time and are happy to share best practices and tips and tricks to make this work better. So making that more publicly available might be helpful?

Absolutely. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember, for some great questioning. And now I— Councilmember Velez, right? Yeah. And now I recognize Councilmember Velez for questions. Thank you so much. I just had a quick question for the professor. I'm sorry, I missed your first name. George. George. George, in your study, can you just briefly describe for the record the disparities of PM2.5 in environmental justice communities and more wealthier communities?

Yes, I have done studies, especially in the South Bronx, and we see much higher levels, especially diesel. I mean, basically, if you're in in the South Bronx and you're near one highway, if you move away from it, you're moving towards another highway. It's enveloped by highways all around it in every direction. Harlem's a lot like that. So there's major throughways and then there's congestion.

And congestion pricing is not helping them much. Although we have seen generally lower air pollution levels following the congestion pricing throughout the city with some hotspots. But anyway. So that— and the effects of them. One of my studies, we have one we're looking at right now with cardiovascular damage from local pollution on New Yorkers. It still continues.

We've documented it before, especially traffic pollution, cardiovascular, respiratory asthma. It's a real problem. Diesel particles are an antigen, so they not only have the toxic effects of fossil fuels with metals, transition metals that cause oxidative stress, inflammation, which underlies a lot of disease throughout the body. So it has systemic effects. So we're not just talking about— I mean, asthma is a very big problem, and I'm not dismissing it, but I'm saying it goes beyond that.

Yes. And every New Yorker, not just people who have respiratory problems, problems. We're all threatened by this, and, uh, there are disparities in the levels of exposures. And, and that's one of the reasons why I think, you know, when we're talking about climate but also health, that, uh, like, the city has great buying power, and they could start buying up these trucks and solving this problem, the solutions, and then creating a market that private people could then buy them And have battery-based operations perhaps.

Like, I own a Chevy Volt, but it's like 15 years old, runs like new because it's electric most of the time. And then occasionally, it's got a backup engine that once in a blue moon, I need it if I'm going to travel to the airport or something. And so, you can design trucks like that. And I think there are trucks like that where they have a battery pack, for around the town and then an engine that will occasionally back it up so there's no running out of power and plugging it in and waiting for it to charge up thing.

There's technology solutions and we should be driving those. Thank you. I couldn't agree with you more. It means that our city needs to use all the tools in the toolbox, including translating and allowing for documents to be submitted, particularly complaints to be submitted and languages other than English, which the administration has not solved because the instructions are all questions are required to be answered in English.

Just for the record, that is one thing we can certainly do, but we have— I agree with you wholeheartedly. Our city needs to use its market power, its enforcement power, and every other regulatory option to make sure that its communities are protected, and particularly environmental justice communities who have borne the brunt of infrastructure that the rest of the city also benefits from.

Thank you so much for your testimony.

This is a public health issue and an urgent one. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember. I'd like to thank this panel for its great addition to the discourse here, and we really appreciate it. We look forward to staying in touch. Any further information you want to transfer to the committee, you know how to do that. And so thank you all very much.

Thank you. You bet. Thanks for listening. Oh, sure thing. And before I call the next panel, I'm just going to embarrass my longtime friend Eric Goldstein of NRDC, who has graciously joined us. We go back a long way— friend, mentor, colleague— and Great to see you, Eric. Are you embarrassed yet, or should I keep going? That's enough.

That's enough. Okay, good.

And this panel, the first witness, a former member of the New York City Council, Elizabeth Crowley, for the Building Trades Employers Association. Is Liz in the room? Okay, and her colleague has also filled out a slip. Felice Farber. I think they're colleagues in the same organization. Is Felice Farber present? Okay. Maybe we— I guess Elizabeth Crimley is not, as she's late.

I don't know why they filled out a slip for her. Okay, well, whatever. I have David— I can't make out the last name— from the Interior Demolition Contractors Association. I'm here. Okay, great. As long as you got up there. Joseph Ferrara, Aggregate and Cement Trucking LLC. Melissa Barbour from the Mechanical Contractors Association of New York. So this will be what we call an industry panel.

And the last one, I mean, I don't— as you know, I don't set the panels, but Rocco got put in with the environmentalists, so he's got some environmental cred now. So there you go. And— You need one? Okay. Thank you. So we have testimony from the— from Ferrara. Do we have any other written testimony? Any other panel witnesses?

Okay. Felice has testimony. Okay. All right. And this time I'm going to go from my left to my right. So, sir, you're up. I— I know I called your name, but I don't know which one you are. So, um, um, so just, uh, sure, just, um, um, uh, you know, begin your good testimony with the sergeant's prompting and state your name for the record.

Good afternoon, Chairman Gennaro. My name is Joseph Ferrara, and I am an owner and president of Aggregate and Cement Trucking. My son and I own and operate this company. Prior to this, my family was in the ready-mix concrete business for Rahr Brothers Building Materials from 1969 through 2015. The— so our business involves delivering cement, which is a raw material, as opposed the concrete to concrete plants and construction sites.

So we go to the same locations every day, multiple deliveries, and we are just getting inundated with these idling violations. And my question to the enforcement community and the legislators is, this is— We're in favor of The goal of eliminating or minimizing unnecessary idling, we're all for. I just— I have 2 grandchildren. I'd love to see them live healthy, long lives.

But if the objective of this legislation is to minimize or eliminate unnecessary idling, most of our violations come from citizen complaints. We don't have an opportunity to cross-examine them, but they take a video and it's kind of like gotcha, and it's a money grab. So my suggestion is if a citizen is going to take a video, if they want to eliminate unnecessary idling, we have 18 truck drivers.

They make dozens of deliveries a day. I've instructed them on the law and you shouldn't idle if you're not pumping off. But have the citizen tell the driver, hey, do you know you can't do that? And if they say, fuck you, and they take a video of it, then— but if they stop, they've accomplished their purpose. Someone on the prior panel talked about how the drivers shut their trucks off when they see them.

But couldn't we make it a requirement if you really want to clean up the air? Instructor drivers. They may not— you know, that's the purpose of it. This has become a multimillion-dollar money grab. And it's not fair to businesses that pay taxes, employ union members. It's— I'm going to have to— you know, it was a 2-minute limit, and I wanted to give you a little latitude on that, which I did.

I mean, I was happy to do it. And I appreciate your question. You know, we don't answer questions, we ask the questions. But I think the, you know, the good people who are in the part of the anti-idling crusade, you know, you hear what they're saying about me and my bill. Mm-hmm. And so I'm trying to do everything I can to make it fair.

And if they were lauding me and telling me how much of a great guy I was, I think the fact that they're not is evidence of me and this committee and this council, you know, trying to bring this process Um, somehow make it fair and better and workable for everyone. I mean, we wouldn't be here today if I wasn't looking to make changes to the program.

Um, um, so I appreciate your, your, your, your being here today. We look forward to, uh, working with you. And, um, with that, I'm going to go on to the next witness, and members may have questions for you.

And okay, so that was— wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute. So that was Joseph Ferrara. And right, and you're who? David Atkins. Okay. I'm a councilman. Okay. Yeah, okay, yeah. That's you there. This is you on paper. Okay. All right. Fair enough. And so, okay, you're with the Interior Demolition Contractors Association. We appreciate you being here today.

Um, uh, wait for the sergeant's prompt and begin with your good testimony. Thank you. The Interior Demolition Contractors Association— Yes, talk right into the mic. Make sure the light is on. Okay. Okay, thank you. The Interior Demolition Contractors Association is a— A little louder, a little louder. Okay. Is a not-for-profit— Speak like a contractor. I'm an attorney.

It's not a— it's a not-for-profit. That's a mistake. That's a mistake. Wait, I'm a lawyer. What are we talking about? I meant lawyers on that side. Yeah. It's a not-for-profit trade association that represents represents unionized interior demolition contractors. Our members are generally family-owned small businesses. They perform interior demolition work within commercial buildings and carding work for commercial clients.

Our members provide middle-class jobs for our workers because they're union. Our members use certified clean idle trucks for all of our pickups. Our trucks are regulated by the New York City Business Integrity Commission Where it's mandated we purchase or upgrade our trucks. Those upgrades are extraordinarily expensive to our small businesses. As a point of reference, the Certified Clean Idle Program was first introduced in the state of California.

We thank everybody for their efforts with regard to updating the idling law. We agree with many of those efforts. We do need to raise some issues that are unique to our industry. When our members operate at a commercial building, They face particular hardships. First, we pick up the debris when the building owners allow us to. This is up to them, not up to us.

That is generally on off hours when there is little or no pedestrian traffic. The debris is loaded into containers. Second, we must wait for the loaded containers to come down to the loading dock or to the curb. Those containers use the building's elevators. We cannot continuously shut down our engines between loads. We just can't do it because the time— if you shut your truck down, it takes time to regenerate and get up to full power.

You just cannot do that. Please continue for a few moments. I was playing with you before. So we're asking for an exemption from— which is similar to what the state of California has for certified clean idle trucks, for when you're at a commercial building that you have an exemption for when you're doing what we do, which is interior work.

And we would say that as the State of California says, when you're near like a facility like a school, of course that should not— that exemption should not apply. And there are going to be multiple tickets going to be issued.

Okay, we're going to have to go to Felice, but I'm going to come back to you with a question about the certified clean idle. Remind me to ask you that. Okay, okay. And no stranger to this committee or to this council. I had your slip right here. Here it is. As if I need this slip to know who you are.

I've known you forever. And yeah, so thank you, Felice Farber, for being here on behalf of the Some Contract. Now, are you still working with Liz? Are you? You guys? So the Subcontractors Trade Association is a member of the Building, um, Building Trades— Building Trade Employers Association. They're an association of 24 different trade associations. Okay. Of which we're a member of them.

Oh, okay. So that's the connection. I got that. Okay. Uh, thank you for being here. Of course, nice to see you. And please commence with your good testimony when the sergeant prompts you to do so. Thank you. So the subcontractors— I'm Felice Farber, Executive Director of the Subcontractors Trade Association. We represent more than 350 union specialty trade contractors, including electrical, plumbing, sheet metal, demolition, concrete pumping, remediation, and many more.

Their crews and trucks are on job sites in every borough every day. We want cleaner air and less needless idling too. The Citizens' Air Complaint Program as it operates now is generating penalties without changing much on the street and is not addressing the problems in environmental justice communities. On a construction job, a running engine is often doing work.

It may be powering a pump, a liftgate, or an environmental decontamination unit that works— that keeps workers safe. It may be running equipment for street and utility work in the roadway. It may be finishing an emissions control cycle the law requires or keeping a driver safe in dangerous heat or cold while waiting to get onto a job site.

Our members are being ticketed in exactly these situations, even when the truck displays a valid exemption sticker. Timing makes it worse. Notices arrive many months after the fact, and hearings come a year later. By then, no one can piece together what happened at a single stop, and evidence that would clear a contractor is too often not considered, and opportunities to take corrective action against that that driver are not available.

Intro 561 takes steps to fix this. We support it with additional amendments which are outlined in our detailed written testimony provided, and then the specific recommendations that are put forth in the BTA's testimony that they'll be providing. We further ask the committee to hold on Intro 11A, raising the fines and escalating them across an entire company rather than by vehicle or driver. punishes small and mid-sized businesses before the process itself is fixed.

We urge you to fix the system first.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Farber. We, you know, certainly appreciate working with you and getting the benefit of your perspective. I'm going to have a question for you, too, I think, when we finish the panel. And— Melissa Barber. That's me. Hi, thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Gennaro, um, and Chair Council Member Epstein. I'm Melissa Barber, Assistant Director of the Mechanical Contractors Association of New York.

Our contractors install and service heating, cooling, refrigeration, and fire sprinkler systems across the 5 boroughs, employing members Steamfitters Local 638. We also share the council's goal of reducing unnecessarily— unnecessary idling, but the program right now as it works today is not meeting that goal. Instead, it's burying our small businesses in fines. Our members' trucks make many stops a day, mostly with their engines off.

When an engine is running, there's usually a reason. It might be powering a boom or liftgate, answering a no-heat call in extreme weather, or waiting in line to deliver to an active job site. Thank you. If violations are now arriving 6 to 12 months later, hearings can take 15 months or more, and a fine that shows up a year later does nothing to change what a driver does on the street.

It only punishes a company that cannot reconstruct one stop out of hundreds. Enforcement also isn't reaching the neighborhoods that need it most. DEP's own commissioner stated that complaints are concentrated in the Manhattan core, wealthier parts of Brooklyn, and western Queens. and that there's minimal attention to the areas that need it most. That's why we support Intro 561A, 562, and 869A with amendments and ask that Intro 11A be held.

As written, 11A would raise fines to as much as $3,000 and escalate them across an entire fleet. That penalizes a company's size rather than its idling. We've submitted detailed recommendations. We support the recommendations also developed by the BTEI and the SDA. Thank you. FDA for the record. We want a program that's accurate, timely, and fair, and we welcome a chance to work with you on it.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. I want to make sure that I have your written— this is you? This— oh, yeah, this is you. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. And then I have some— counsel is prompting me to ask Questions? What's the whole panel? Okay, this is to tout le monde, everybody, anybody. Okay, question one: Under what circumstances are your vehicles required by law to be equipped with a diesel particulate filter?

I mean, you know, like you don't have to. You know, I mean. Not everyone has to answer every question. Our entire fleet is required— Could you put on the thing? I'm not hearing you. My apologies. Our entire fleet is required to have it because of the fact that we are regulated by BIC and they require us to be certified clean idle.

So when we regenerate, what happens is a light comes on on the truck, the driver stops, Where he can, and it needs to be regeneration. Okay, for those who are not sort of facile with, um, um, with regeneration, that includes people who are, you know, watching online or whatever. People sit up, watch council hearings, I don't know, but, um, they do.

Um, if you could, uh, go through that technology a little bit. Regenerations 2. eliminate the buildup within the system, which is to— which requires it to be burned off. So that would— is required by the apparatus that's on the truck, which is— Is that like a trap oxidizer or something? Is it a similar technology? I'm not sure of that.

Okay. But the reality is that we at times do get tickets for regeneration. So there was an oath decision in which the Salvation Army had a truck that was regenerating, and it got a ticket. Regeneration is required to be undergone. If it's not, the truck itself could be destroyed. And it's as simple as that. We want them to stop, not immediately, but as soon as they can, in a reasonable place so that they undergo regeneration.

Thank you. And that is helpful for both the environment ultimately, as well as for everything with regard to this. And that's very important. Okay, let's come back to the original question. Thank you for that explanation. Same question. Under what circumstances are your vehicles required by law to be equipped with a diesel particulate filter, which is a little different technology than the one you just were talking about, right?

Absolutely. Okay, well then help me out. Help me out. Help me out. This was a mandate by the New York City Business Integrity Commission, and I believe it was part of a City Council law as well that required all these vehicles to be upgraded with their newest engines, I think were Tier 4 engines, and to have certified clean idle vehicles as the version of that.

Okay. All right. Mr. Ferrara, do you have anything to add to that? Well, in the concrete industry, DEP came out with the regulations or specs in that contract. So most public agencies have that to deliver materials to a job site. You have to have these. Right. And basically— If it's a city contract. If it's a city contract.

City, state, most contracts have those provisions. And a regen, basically it superheats the exhaust to burn the soot so the soot doesn't actually get into the atmosphere. Right. So it's like thermally destroyed. So when the truck is running, going back and forth, it's no problem. But when it's idle and it's making delivery to a job site, that's when it generates the need to regenerate.

So— So that you're not generating diesel particulate filters. Right. Okay. Second question. Yeah, ask questions. All right, okay. Second question, how could an observer determine whether a vehicle is engaging in a regeneration clean cycle for a diesel particulate filter? Are there visual signs, smells, et cetera? And is there any kind of like signage on the truck that indicates anything?

But that's just my addition to that. But the question is, how can an observer determine whether a vehicle is engaging in a regeneration clean cycle for a diesel particulate filter? Are there visual signs, smells, et cetera? How do you tell? That's where if the conversation was held between the driver and the citizen, there's a monitor inside the cab of the truck that shows the regeneration process. is in effect.

So— Right. But the— But it's inside the cab. Yeah, but the, you know, the advocates who were participating in this program don't think the regeneration thing should even exist, so they're not going to ask you about it. And so I'm just trying to be real here, you know. But in addition, if you had timely notice of the violation so that you could look it up, you could provide evidence showing, you know, documentation showing that the vehicle was— Going through that regeneration cycle.

Right. But if you get the thing 18 months later, you know, yeah, it's gone. And at oath, they disregard any information like that. At oath, they disregard what? Evidence that you were not idling or in a legitimate operation. So we have one example where one of our members, and this is not a diesel a clean idle vehicle, but they have evidence that the vehicle was in fact not running.

And they could tell by how the video— and that was not relevant because you had to bring the manual for the vehicle operation with you to show that if there were no rear lights on, that the vehicle wasn't idling. But the challenge is really The timeliness of getting the information so that you can mount a defense and take corrective action.

Because if someone is parked on Queens Boulevard, you know, scrolling through their phone, they shouldn't be idling, and you should be in a position to take corrective action, to notify your driver that that's not a permissible activity. Okay. Mr. Ferrara, it looks like you're about to— no, okay.

I recognize Councilmember Epstein for questions of this panel. Thank you, Chair. I want to thank this panel. Do people realistically think on this panel that a human being who is concerned about idling should knock on the— you actually think someone should knock on the window of the truck and say, hey, you're idling and that violates a law, can you turn off your car?

You think that is a realistic solution here? Just last week, got a citizen's complaint from a truck that was idling in March of 2025. It just came last Friday. And when I looked at the video, after the 3 minutes were up, the citizen went to the driver and was asking them questions. How many tons are you pumping off?

So if they could have that conversation and the objective is to Reduce or minimize unnecessary idling, they could have that. But if they— so, so I know we only have a couple minutes, so the answer is you think yes, you think it's a healthy thing for someone to go knock on the truck and say, hey, you're idling, can you stop?

That's what you think is the, the solution here? It's having a civil conversation. Sure, I understand that. But do you think the driver— Education solves all problems. Do you think, you think the driver would That would result in a civil conversation. If they, they, they, they, they have their video camera on. Yeah. My driver, yeah, was disrespectful in any way.

Yeah. That, that, that I would pay the fine. Let me ask you a question. How would they, how would they contact you if your driver was being uncivil? Like, what, what, what would be the goal? Like, you think they should just Send an email to you notifying you that the driver was being uncivil, or somehow contact the business connected to the driver?

They could, but— I mean, I'm just— let's be realistic. This is New York, right? I mean, we all want to be civil, we all want to be respectful, but I've, I've actually, in front of my building, you know, for the last, you know, decades I've been living there, said to someone, hey, you're idling in front of my building, it's right next to a school playground.

Do you mind stopping? And I've been cursed at more than one time for doing just that. At the same time, I've been civil to people who take their dog and put them on the swings and the playground equipment and say, hey, this is like, my kids play here, don't do that. And they are uncivil back. So like, I don't think we— our goal is to put people into difficult situations.

Our goal is to try to reduce particulates in the air, right? Yes. OK. So I just want to be clear, just to make sure that this regeneration— can that happen when the vehicle's actively being used, like driving around? Yes. So you can do regenerate— you don't have to idle to regenerate. You can regenerate while the vehicle is moving.

No, you have to stop. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. You have— when— talk right into it. OK. Of course. When that light goes on, you have to pull that— I didn't hear you well. Okay. When that light goes on— Right. The regeneration light, you're saying. Yes. You have to pull over within a very short period of time. Okay.

Stop. And that's when you do the regeneration. You're not driving when you're regenerating. So regeneration only happens when you're not moving, and that's the technology that exists today? Yes. And how long does that regeneration take? I'm not sure about that. Could you find out and get back to us about how long that regeneration takes? It's about 15 to 20 minutes.

So basically, whenever that happens, you're going to have to pull over wherever you are and regenerate for 15 to 20 minutes? Within a reasonable location. When that light goes on, the driver's told to pull over not immediately, but within a reasonable time period. Because you have to stop this vehicle, else it's going to destroy the vehicle. And so you pull over where you find a place which is an appropriate place to just stop and let it regenerate.

That's what you do. And I just want to— I know you mentioned the issue of, like, fines being centered in Manhattan and Brooklyn. You're saying that more of these should be happening in other parts of the city? I'm just saying the DEP's own testimony at the last hearing was that the fines were concentrated in those areas and not in the areas that could benefit from cleaner air.

So just so I'm clear, you're saying areas of Manhattan won't benefit by cleaner air? No, of course they will. But I do think that it's easy bait for a citizen to use the most densely populated areas to try to capitalize on the program. Right. And so with the densely populated areas, which have a lot of trucks and lot of humans are the ones who would have the higher particulate matter too because they have less trees.

But the DEP said it doesn't. Well, I mean, in my district, which is Manhattan, which is also a residential part of the city, also has a lot of high particulate matters, especially with the FDR that's in my district. We have a lot of truck traffic in my district. So we see a lot of pollution and we want to reduce those that behavior, right?

That makes sense. So creating more exceptions to idling, I don't think would incentivize— In my more complete testimony, I simply said that I thought that you should base fines on the areas where there's the most air pollution versus necessarily concentrating them in one area. All right. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember, for your good questioning of this panel. That will be all for this panel. Really appreciate the input that we got. I know Councilmember Repstein was asking about— he asked you something, right, to get back to him or whatever? I think this was answered by— Oh, fine. Anything you need from the staff of the committee, Harvey, we are at your disposal, of course.

Thank you. The next panel. Eric Goldstein, Natural Resources Defense Council. Last name Mendez, can't make out the first name. New York Lawyers for the Public Interest. Hello. Ryan, looks like Lukey, Loki, Lukey, okay. representing himself? Myself. Yes. Evan Kalish? What's that? He's the guy with the baby. With the what? With the baby. Oh, oh, oh, oh, okay.

Well, he's— so is that 2 witnesses? She's not signed up. Okay, okay. All right. And, um, Jonathan Gorin representing himself. Jonathan Gorin? Oh, okay. And Any prepared statements or whatever? You know, written statements? Okay. That's fine. Yeah, we're going to switch it again and go from my right to my left. And so it's my pleasure to recognize— Cut it out.

Good afternoon, Chair Gennaro and Commissioner— I'm supposed to say your name. Okay, just go ahead. I'm Eric Goldstein from the Natural Resources Defense Council. Thank you for your leadership on this and so many other environmental issues. The citizen complaint enforcement provision of the New York City Air Code was one of the most innovative environmental laws ever passed by the City Council and a good example of the council's national leadership on environmental issues.

Indeed, NRDC filed one of the earliest citizen complaint enforcement actions more than 30 years ago when we chased after express buses spewing black smoke along Madison Avenue and successfully were able to convince DEP to enforce action against them. NRDC supports Intros 11A, 48, 562, and 869A, all of which enhance the program's operations. But there is a need for additional reforms to the citizen enforcement program.

One challenge, uh, is that in recent years citizen activists have filed so many complaints that this single section of law has placed an enormous burden on DEP staff and hampered the agency from undertaking other environmental enforcement actions that may be equal to or even higher priorities for the Mondame administration. Second problem is that at least historically citizen complaint filings have not sufficiently targeted environmental justice communities where air pollution levels have been their highest.

And perhaps the biggest problem with the existing scheme is that it simply is not, in too many instances, had the desired effect of changing behavior and stopping pollution. For too many violators of this law, they continue to treat the statute and the fines simply as a cost of doing business. That's why one concept in Intro 561A that we strongly support would provide an incentive for vehicle operators to to install less polluting equipment, although we believe this provision needs further strengthening so that it will accomplish the objectives you are seeking to achieve.

Intro 561A attempts to address this— some of these issues, but needs additional work. Please finish your thoughts, because I gave you a hard time before. I will just say that while we do not support Intro 561A in its current form, we look forward to working with you to digest all of the good testimony you've heard today and to coming up with legislation that will enhance this very important program.

Thank you very much, Eric. Yeah, I mean, we have to hear it. We have to get input if we're going to, you know, get to where we need to be. And I appreciate your, you know, ongoing partnership on this and countless other occasions. So thank you again for being here. Ms. Mendez, right? Okay. Yes. Hi.

Good afternoon, Chair Gennaro and Councilmember Epstein. My name is Suhaly Mendez, and I'm the policy and legislative coordinator at New York Lawyers for the Public Interest, which I'll reference as NYLP from going forward. NYLP has 3 requests from the council today. That is to pass Intro 11 to strengthen penalties and enforcement against repeat violators, pass Intro 48 to expand language access and participation in the Citizens' Air Complaint Program, and reject the current iteration of Intro 561A because of its broad exemptions would undermine the enforcement and effectively weaken one of the city's most successful anti-pollution programs.

No. Works to advance environmental justice and clean air in communities that bear disproportionate burden of the transportation pollution. And as someone who was, who was born as well as raised in the Bronx, I've seen firsthand how vehicle emissions affect communities like mine, where residents live, work, and attend school near highways, truck routes, and bus depots. Through our advocacy and research on school bus pollution.

We have— oh, wow. Please continue. I have a soft spot for New York lawyers. Thank you. Thank you. We appreciate that. We've documented real harm caused by excessive idling. Illegal idling is not just a quality of life issue. It is a public health and environmental justice issue. And that is why NOPI supports Intro 11 and Intro 48.

Together, these these bills will strengthen enforcement, increase accountability, as well as expand access to communities that are often the most impacted by transportation-related air pollution. Yeah, I think I'm gonna have to— yeah, I mean, I got a soft spot, but it's not Jell-O, you know. I, I respect that. Um, I will summarize by saying we urge the council to strengthen, not weaken, New York City's anti-idling laws by passing Intros 11 and 48 and rejecting 561A.

Public health comes before polluter convenience, and environmental justice deserves stronger protections, not weaker ones. And I thank you for your time and consideration.

No, thank you very much. And, and, uh, and to both witnesses, the first 2, um, you know, you've been doing legislation for a long time, um, And you have the bill, looked at it, you don't like it. I mean, we're all ears in terms of like, how would you write it? I mean, you know how to do legal language.

I mean, we're welcome to anything. People— I mean, not anything, but I mean, we want to work collaboratively with the environmental community to get the best bill that we can get. And, you know, we have to do something with 561. We got it. Something has to happen because, like, the status quo is, you know, not really working in an optimum way.

And that's what we're trying to achieve. So to the extent that, you know, we can get some New York lawyers and, you know, NRDC brainpower into, you know, offer us language. It's just like, there's nothing wrong with that. And we want to hear from people that care about the environment, that care about, you know, pollution. And, you know, we're not snobs about getting input on this is how we would do it, you know, this is how New York lawyers would do it, this is how NRDC would do it, you know.

And we look forward to further discussions on how we can sort of forge that partnership. So we're a team right now. So that's it, you're conscripted. Sorry, you know. And Ryan, correct? Yes, sir. Sure. Now, if you can just get the microphone nice and close. How's that? Uh, you got to put the button on. How's that? Yep.

Wonderful.

Good afternoon, Chairman Gennaro and members of the committee. My name is Ryan Scott Loakey. I'm a former delivery driver with more than 17 years of firsthand experience in the operation and management of commercial motor vehicle fleets. Today I work as an environmental consultant. I help small businesses understand city, state, and federal environmental regulations, learn how to comply with these regulations, and how to resolve outstanding violations.

I am also an active and regular participant in the city's civilian air, noise, and sanitation enforcement programs. I have submitted and documented over 5,000 complaints in my experience. These experiences give me a unique perspective. I see firsthand how these enforcement programs affect the small businesses, commercial drivers, civilian enforcers, and the environment. Based on that experience, I oppose Intros 11A, 561A, and 561B. 562, and 869A.

I support Intros 48 and Resolution T2026-2662. I did want to speak about Intro 11A, but we're very limited on time. Yeah. So let me just focus on 561A and most importantly the regeneration arguments made by the prior panel. For starters, in 561A, the most problematic provision proposed is the proposed exemption for diesel vehicles undergoing diesel particulate filter regeneration.

Also, that's also known as a DPF regeneration. The statements of fact— or sorry, the misstatements of fact in the last panel are abhorrent. I assume the provision is well-intentioned, but it's simply unworkable in reality. With my extensive experience, over 17 years of firsthand experience, I can only estimate whether a diesel vehicle is undergoing regeneration while outside the vehicle at maybe a 70% accuracy rate, at least while observing it outside the vehicle.

The smaller and newer the vehicle, the more difficult that determination becomes. If someone with my level of experience cannot reliably identify regeneration from outside a vehicle, I have no idea how we could reasonably inspect an oath-hearing officer who may have little or no comparable experience with diesel engines to make that determination. I'm happy to answer questions on how the actual process of regeneration works.

But vehicles are absolutely able to regenerate in both an active and a passive method. They do not have to pull over in most cases to be able to regenerate. They are able to continue doing it while they drive. The statement that they have to pull over because there's a magical light or something like that is asinine. It is true that vehicles and diesel vehicles may have to have regeneration done at a particular time, but not in the manner that they described.

Yeah, you made that point. I appreciate you being here. I appreciate all of your years of experience and the experience that you bring to bear on this panel. With that, I'll call the next witness. Both witnesses. What's the baby's name? Oh, I promised I wasn't going to make a spectacle of it. Can I just keep her private for— Oh, no, of course.

Yeah, I just— You can meet her after. No, no, because yeah, then it'd be on the record, people would see it, you know, and whatever. Yeah, yeah, I get it. Yeah. Um, but she's a— you can start it now. Yeah. Um, she's a bit of a witness to, um, to the fact that the CACP has made a difference, at least where I live in Eastern Queens, where I'm probably among the only participants in the, in the program, whereas a few years ago Con Ed would be on all the time and If I was walking around the neighborhood before I knew about the program, be like, "Oh, I gotta cross the street to avoid you know these stinky fumes because I really don't like the stinky fumes.

I don't like the noise, and she doesn't like you know loud mechanical noises either. Now they're off, and you know if the Consolidated Edison Company can do this, you know if they can be resilient. I mean this one was her first time on the subway today. I think she's being very resilient. I don't understand why why so many companies here." can't modify their behavior accordingly, why they want us to adapt our laws to them as opposed to them adapting to, you know, the market of the, you know, the greatest city in the world.

But it really has made a difference, and we can walk right past them, and she's not bothered at all. I'm also a bit sensitive to noise, and so I wanted to bring something to your attention that I don't think anyone else will. I used to prosecute some noise hearings. I really do not like when ice cream trucks just sit at a corner and you can hear them for blocks away, and they're just on and on and on, and the city wouldn't do anything about it.

I prosecuted, you know, a modest number of these complaints, and I received a death threat in the mail for my efforts. And so, you know, I hear, oh, you should come up to the truck and tell us to turn off. You want to— I don't appreciate Address the, uh, you know, um, address the council, please. Yeah, so, you know, I don't think that's fair for anyone to have to experience.

And DEP is trying to outsource a lot more of their efforts to us, and that's what this would do with the specific timeline, saying, okay, well, your work is either going to go down the toilet or you're going to have to put your name out there and be exposed to this. And I really don't think that's fair to anybody.

Well, I certainly appreciate the personal testimony that you bring to bear as a resident, as a father, as someone who's trying to make a better world for his child. And your testimony is very impactful. And you have participated in the program, right? I have, and it bore dividends. I'm grateful for our walks that are quieter and cleaner.

I think every block should have that. It sounds like you live in Councilmember Lee's district? Correct. Back when I did the noise code in 2005, we came to a grand compromise on the ice cream trucks. They could only sound their bells when they're moving. When they stop, they have to shut them off. Kids have ice cream radar.

They know the truck is there. Right. I'm just saying, but if the— it is currently illegal. We like, we don't have to legislate that. Like, that's been done. Oh, no, no. I know what I was saying. So now it's on the enforcement side. Because like the city refused. In fact, my local city council office, they call me the Grinch because I actually did enforce it, which I'm perfectly fine with.

But as a result of that, you know, I got an anonymous death threat in the mail. From the Mrs. Softy guy? It was anonymous, so I'm not going to impugn anybody. But it's very likely the case because— What the heck? I can explain. All right. I mean, yeah. So that's a saga you should work out with Councilmember Lee, who was very responsive.

I'm sorry that that I'm sorry that that happened. That, that, that's, that's terrifying. That's terrifying. But we really appreciate— Much better now. If you— if we go to a party in Nassau County, again, that made a huge improvement. So both the noise— I mean, I don't participate in that anymore, but there's a little less of a need because an impact was had beforehand.

Good. Okay. But, um, but yeah, I, I don't like This would require us to do more and get less in return. And in tech terms, if you want to add a new term that's I'm sure never been used at a hearing here before, "enshitification," that's what would be happening. Put that on the list. So, in my view, I six one A is irreconcilable.

Irreconcilable for for a bunch of reasons. Okay. Thank you for your. Thank you.

So thank you for your passionate testimony, Jonathan Goran. Jonathan Goran. Yeah, just— good afternoon. My name is Jonathan Gorin. I live in New York and I have asthma, so this directly impacts me. I do too. I had something written up. However, I'm going to ditch that and address some of the claims I heard. Sure. Most prominently, that I heard that vehicles were receiving tickets when they were engaged in an active processing, like When the vehicle was pumping or using a crane, I heard that they were getting tickets.

I want to take the time to remind the committee what the law is right now and why that's not true. So reading directly from— reading directly from the law section, the code section 24-163, operation of a motor vehicle. A, no person shall cause or permit the engine of a motor vehicle other than a legally authorized motor vehicle to idle for longer than 3 minutes, dot dot dot, excuse me, except as provided as Subdivision F in the section while parking, then it defines, like, it gives some more details, dot dot dot, and then it gives exemptions.

The exemptions are unless the engine is used to operate a loading, unloading, or processing device, So your next question is, what's a processing device? Well, luckily, that's defined in the rules. Title— I believe Title— 15 RCMY 3901. Thank you. 15, Section 3901, Processing Device. For the purposes of Section 24-163 of the Admin Code, the term processing device shall mean: A— excuse me, 1, A device that accomplishes the function for which the vehicle or equipment was designed, other than transporting goods or people, via a mechanical connection to the engine, including but not limited to operating a lift, crane, pump, drill, hoist, or mixer.

I'm going to leave my testimony at that. Thank you very much. Thank you. You know, we are familiar with the law, but We appreciate you getting that in-depth knowledge of the law and calling out what you think needs to be called out. We certainly appreciate your patience and your willingness to be here to give your good testimony, and that goes for the entire panel.

I have no— I personally— Harvey, you got anything for this panel? I do, Jim, if that's okay. Yeah. Yeah. Good. Thanks. Yeah, so set it at 5 minutes. Eric, you mentioned that you were open to some changes to 561 to improve what, processing of these complaints, or? Well, one thing that we believe needs to be enhanced is the timing.

So you want to provide sufficient time Timing for when people get notified of them. Exactly. So yeah, I mean, there are a number of small fixes that can improve this, which is I think what most of us are after. Yeah, basically. So it sounds like we want businesses to know because that's how you change behavior. If you wait a year, the driver might be gone.

You want them to have quick notice of this, um, so they can try to change behavior but not change the underlying Uh, idling law, is that what I heard you saying? That certainly is one of the, the elements that we think should be addressed. Right. So does anybody disagree on this panel that we should notify the businesses sooner that there's a violation?

You can see, we can say it orally so we can— it's on the record. Yeah, they should be notified earlier. We all agree they should be notified earlier, which is great. So it sounds like We agree they should be notified earlier, and that there are existing exemptions within the law for when they're doing their work. Is that what I heard you say?

That is correct. So if they're actively doing something— regeneration obviously is a different conversation. Like, it sounds like you have really specific knowledge about how regeneration works, and what we heard from the last panel may not be exactly the way you understand it, right? Correct. Would you like me to expand on that? Yeah, could you please? So essentially, the last panel failed to mention the fact that there is a difference between active and passive regeneration.

Active is the actual activity when you would pull over and you would quite literally manually activate a regeneration cycle. On older trucks, it is true that some trucks, unfortunately, you do have to pull over and you will have to manually hit a button. When you do that, What it does is it superheats the DPF and essentially burns off all of the chemicals that have been stored inside of this diesel particulate filter.

On most of these newer vehicles, however, and by newer I mean pretty much anything after 2009, they also have the ability to do a passive regeneration. Okay. What that means is, is that as the vehicle is simply driving around at highway speeds or, you know, on the West Side Highway or anything else, as they're driving around, it is literally burning off the excess chemicals in the DPF filter.

I do want to note, when they actually go through the activity of doing an active regeneration, that regeneration is almost 30 times dirtier than a passive regeneration. At no point should anybody be doing an active regeneration in a heavily populated area. It's as simple as that. It's incredibly dirty. It's very dangerous for the health and humans in general, and it should not be done near populated areas.

It's actually so dangerous that if you read the DPS— Oh, I know. DPF filters for modern trucks, They specifically warn you, A, not to do it near populated areas, and they also warn you not to do it near anything combustible or flammable, specifically because of the high heats and the chemicals emitted. Mm-hmm. Um, I do also just want to note that there is a— this would create almost a situation where there would be an unrebuttable presumption.

All an industry respondent would have to claim is, is we're regenerating. And guess what? How do we go about disproving it? Most people, even with my experience, I can maybe get it to 70%. The average hearing officer or citizen complainant or anybody else who has had no experience with diesel trucks beyond, you know, filming or seeing them on the road, how are they ever going to determine that a vehicle is regenerating?

So you're saying it would just destroy the whole law itself if we could create an exemption for regeneration because All any defense would be is we're regenerating, and there's— it'd be impossible to disprove the regeneration. Exactly. And so that would result in more idling because people would just always use that defense. And I would also note that this benefits the biggest respondents the most.

And what I mean by that is large truck and large bus companies. So a smaller operation, almost always, like most of my clients, small businesses, usually if you have less than 10 trucks, it is very common to have gasoline Gasoline engines, simply because they're cheaper up front, cheaper to maintain over the long term, and the fuel is honestly cheaper.

Gasoline vehicles would not be able to endure themselves with this particular exemption, but guess who would? Large companies like Baldor, Academy Bus, and things like that that operate thousands of diesel engines. Got it. So it sounds like— I understand this, and thank you, Chair, for letting me ask a couple of questions here. Yeah, you got a little bit of time.

I think I'm good. I'll give you 15 seconds back. I'm not going to give you a hard time, Harvey. Just, you know, do what you got to do. Good. Okay.

Yeah, I really want to thank this panel for their, you know, very excellent testimony. And Ryan, didn't you meet with us and— Numerous times. Yeah, no, no, but it was, it was in the conference room with Hayden? Yes. Okay. Oh, that, that was you. Okay. Yeah, yeah, that was a good information exchange session. Very good. Yeah, we certainly did appreciate that.

And if I could, if I could say, just, Chairman, you did ask us in the very beginning, I do not believe 561A can be saved as currently written. Okay. I mean, that, like, that's your testimony. This is why I wanted to have the hearing to get testimony and to get what people, and, uh, you know, really, really think about this.

And so with that, I, I, you know, we have a long day. We have to get on to other panels. We appreciate everyone being here.

And, uh, uh, now we have the next panel, which I'm going to call, and then I'm going to have to take just like a 2-minute, um, recess while the panel gets itself together. Uh, we have, uh, Zach Miller from Truckee Association of New York. Larry Zogby of RDS Delivery Service Company. Pat Hyland of Metro Truck Association. And this is one slip of 2 people.

We have former Councilmember Liz Crowley, currently president of the Building Trades Employers Association, with Samuel somebody, who I'm sure knows who he is. And so— and I'll be back momentarily. This is not a recess. This is just— It's a recess. Oh, okay. Jim, do you want me to restart it? No, no, no. I want to hear every word of testimony.

Yeah. But thank you. Okay, do I have to do anything? Do I have to ask council to formally end the recess? No, I just have to go. Okay. Cheers. Liz. Yeah, my God. The place looks great. What's that? You said the place looks great. Yeah, I really did a lot with it, you know what I mean? I really did a lot with it, yeah.

I wanted to make sure we were sitting higher than everybody else, you know what I mean? So we're looking like down on people, you know? I've sat in that chair and it's just like, it's a little scary looking up here. You know, particularly me. You know, no one knows what I'm going to do. Oh, this is all on the record, of course.

Yeah, this is great. Okay. Okay. And so very happy to welcome back to the council former council member Liz Crowley. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Well, we're not— we're not— I'm, you know, I'm not— yeah. Oh, of course. Oh, I, I called the panel, so this is Samuel, right? Okay. All right, all right. And so, um, Sergeant, looks like Liz is ready to go, and so I'm gonna give her the privilege of, uh, going first.

And so, Liz, very, you know, super to see you again, and, uh, please proceed with your good testimony.

Uh, good afternoon. Chair Gennaro, uh, the members of the committee. I know Councilmember Harvey Epstein was here and the other— Yeah, he's talking to witnesses outside. He's further— And he'll be back interrogating them. And all the council members on the committee and the committee staff, thank you for the good work you do, your commitment to public service, the environment, and cleaner air.

And thank you for allowing me to testify today and this opportunity to speak. My name is Elizabeth Crowley, and I'm here today— I am the president of this and CEO of the Building Trades Employers Association. I have our director of member services here as well, Samuel Eludo. The BTA is a union contractor association. We're an umbrella association that covers over 24 separate associations, and together there's over 1,200 contractors. that we represent.

Many are small family-owned businesses, many are also MWBEs and emerging contractors. We share the council's commitment to cleaner air. We support the core reforms in Intro 561A as well as Intro 562 and proposed Intro 869A, but we cannot support Intro 11A as drafted. Our written testimony submitted today is more extensive and includes recommendations for each bill. Our union contractors are proud to be paying higher wages, and they are among the safest, and most are community-minded employees— employers, and the best in their class, best in the industry.

And we're proud of that. We're proud of the high standards our contractors set, not only for themselves, but their whole entire workforce. We live in your districts. Many of us are small businesses, as I said earlier, and we really care. Liz, please continue. Liz, please continue. You got the, you know, you get the, you know, former councilmember bonus.

Thank you. Thank you. With the cost of doing business in the city— My counsel told me not to say that. But after I appreciate this. I won't be too much longer, but with the cost of doing business in the city so high, our contractors are very conscientious about wasting resources when their trucks are running. And it's often because the engine is needed to do a job like running a liftgate, lighting the job site, powering a crane, a pump compressor, generator, The warning lights that protect a work zone, and even the decontamination showers that OSHA requires for those that are working on asbestos and lead-abated jobs.

These functions cannot always be shut off between cycles without creating safety risks. However, our contractors are often penalized for doing the work that is required of their job. Intro 561A's new process device definition is a good step, but it covers only equipment mechanically connected to the engine. We ask that the council— for the council to define operational idling to include traffic control devices, generators, decontamination units, and the pauses safe operation requires, and to presume that when it is operating, it is visible work underway.

Thank you. Drivers waiting to enter a job site in extreme cold or heat also need a safe cab. And 2561A lets school buses idle for up to 30 minutes below 40 degrees and/or at 80 or above. We believe our workers deserve a comparable exception. We know fundamentally the current enforcement process is really, we believe, unfair for our members.

The process encourages community vigilantes who put honest, hardworking union members in danger. The city bounty has turned enforcement into a business for a few high-volume complaints. And we also, you know, are here to continue to work with the committee. I was hoping that your colleague could sort of pick up on your testimony. Oh, yeah. Yeah, because I'm going to get in trouble.

In closing, thank you you again, Chair Gennaro and Councilmember Epstein and the committee. We'll let you take over there.

So I'm going to have to give, you know, I'm just saying, some of the environmental people I got to give a little more time. It's, you know, just, it's great to see you. It's great to see you. But thank you, Councilmember Epstein and Chair Gennaro. We're going to share recommendations. Yeah, could you state your name for the record, please?

Samuel Ludo, Director of Member Relations for the Building Trade Employers Association. I know Councilmember Epstein acknowledged that the process is currently flawed to give notice to our contractors, and that's a priority. But another priority is really understanding the oath mechanism to have that deliberation, right? There's been a discussion throughout this council hearing about what qualifies as idling.

And, and we think that there should be stronger definitions, clarifications, enforcements, uh, and also requirements for evidence because, you know, if our count— if our— if we get notice, um, there's still discrepancies about what should be considered, uh, operational idling. And, and, and we, you know, our members, 24 different associations, we have, you know, everything from decontamination units.

Mm-hmm. So, you know, when you're cleaning out asbestos, you need to have that kind of working, you know, engine running. But even, you know, our— one of our members, the demolition contractors, in order to take all that garbage, you have to do things like compress it, which necessarily isn't captured in these other discussions about what is considered operational idling, what is considered the regeneration process.

It's— My understanding is it's a little bit different for demolition contractors, or it's a little bit different for asbestos remediation. So, you know, the bus guys have their own thing going on. There's other things, but, you know, we're going to send very specific recommendations, which we think are, you know, we think there should be good, you know, environmental remediation and good environmental justice policies, but we also think that our members shouldn't be unfairly targeted by policies.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And, um, yeah, I appreciate the— BTEA, right? Yep. Yeah, BTEA, right. Okay. Thank you both.

And, uh, oh, here we go. Here we go. Here we go. How am I supposed to follow? Yeah. Yeah. Zach Miller. Zach Miller. Good afternoon, Chair Gennaro, uh, Council Member Epstein. My name is Zach Miller. Don't break the thing. I think I already did. I'm Vice President of Government Affairs for the Trucking Association of New York. We submitted detailed written comments.

I'll highlight our priorities. Our industry does not condone unnecessary— Eileen Taney did not oppose the Citizens Air Complaint Program when it was first enacted, but it has gone off the rails, becoming a profitable cottage industry for individuals while businesses face stacked citations, delayed notice, barriers to challenge evidence that undermines confidence in enforcement and the ability to change behavior.

Tandy strongly supports Intro 561A. It recognizes necessary equipment operation, including refrigerated units and loading and unloading devices. Exempts require diesel particulate filter regeneration, which a report can be generated by the vehicle's ECM to prove if it was in regen or if it was not in Regen. And in addition to that, we support Intro 562. Rental leasing companies should not bear responsibility for conduct they cannot control.

Transfer of liability must be simple, affordable, and operational before penalties rise. We support Intro 869A's protections against fraudulent evidence and complaint misconduct. We oppose Intro 11A's penalty increase at this time. Advance the reforms first, restore accountability and especially due process, evaluate the results before increasing penalties. We look forward to working with the council and the DEP on improvements, and I look forward to your questions.

Thank you, Zach. I appreciate it.

And Mr. Zogby, a pleasure to see you again. Thank you very much. My name— thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Larry Zogby, the CEO of RDS Delivery Service. We handle time-critical medical deliveries for hospitals and laboratories, including specimens, medication, and essential supplies. We also delivered thousands of food boxes to New Yorkers facing food insecurity.

I've served 5 years as the president of the New York State Messenger Courier Association. I'm also involved with the Trucking Association of New York, the Queens Chamber of Commerce, the Long Island City Partnership, Executives Association of New York, and Entrepreneurs Organization of New York City. I speak only for RDS, but these concerns go beyond myself, my business, my community. 30 selected idling summonses from 2020 through 2025, over $32,000 in fines and penalties.

Hearings were scheduled 500, 700, and 962 days after the violation. That's more than 2.5 years later. Idling fines start at $350, go to $600 for repeat offense, and can reach upwards to $2,000. My question: How can a business correct violations promptly when hearings take years and penalties grow so dramatically? We're asking for four practical changes: mail notices within 30 to 45 days showing the mailing date; schedule hearings within 90 days with advance reminders; don't increase fines for repeat violations until a business has been notified for the first one; provide a defined 60-minute Zoom hearing.

Hearing window. We're not asking to eliminate enforcement. We're asking for a fair opportunity to comply. When a hearing takes 962 days and penalties can grow from $350 to $2,000, something's wrong within the process. Enforcement should correct behavior, not simply accumulate penalties. RDS strongly opposes Intro 11 and supports Intros 561, 562, and proposed Intro 863. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. And, uh, Mr. Tsai, we have a question for you with regard to— I, I think everyone needs to, um, understand this. Um, so a business like yours, you were talking about, you know, you get a, um, fines are, you know, uh, uh, you know, violations are put into the pipeline. And, um, you don't know about any of them.

And so, so you end up getting first, second, first violation, second violation, third violation before you even know you've had a first. Could you talk a little bit about that? Somebody's putting thumbs down to this. I would ask the audience not, um, yeah, I, I, I, I'm, you know, Mr. Zogby has— What's that? Oh, okay. Counsel said you can Put your thumbs up and down all you want.

As long as it's silent, it's fine. Okay, so I'm encouraging people. Having the inability— So just talk to me about that. We get a fine 500, 700, 962 days later, 2.5 years. How do we protect ourselves from that? And then we're getting multiple fines on vehicles, and the driver could be gone already. We can't even enforce action on a particular driver.

That's why I gave a 4-step program. If we get a violation, We want to pay for it, but send it out within 30 to 45 days. Right now, it's more than 2 years. Schedule a reminder within— you know, schedule hearings within 90 days. Let us comply in a format that makes sense. But right now, we're spending tens of thousands of dollars because of the due process, not because we don't want to comply.

So that's the— Right. That's the wrinkle. And it's— I'm grateful that you're having this hearing. We're trying to make a situation that's not working very well for anybody better. Yeah, we are seeing some behaviors change or whatever, but we can't be having this years-long process. And during this— so when you So what happens is you would be notified of a bunch of violations at one time saying that this— so you got a first violation, second violation, third violation, and you never knew you even got the first one.

That's correct. And the second violation, third violation accrue penalties, and you have to deal with We can't even reconstruct the penalty and the driver's not even there. Driver could be gone. There's turnover. Driver could stay for a year, year and a half. We're not getting these violations for over 1 year, 2 years. 500, 700, EBIT 962 days after the violation.

And now certainly you train your staff, you know, to, to do whatever you want them to do, like regarding idling, but In terms of calling a driver to task because they were idling or whatever, by the time you get the violation, it could be that there's turnover, the person's not there anymore. That's correct. Right. So in terms of trying to correct staff behavior, this is another reason why this lapse in processing is It's the due process.

If we make a mistake, we're more than happy to right the— we want to comply. But how do you comply when it's 2 and a half years later? Okay, I think Zach wants to get in on this. So I will formally ask Zach if you can expound. Okay, yeah, Harvey's going to get you too. Yeah, so absolutely.

Yeah, is evidence, right, like we talked about in the last panel about Sussane, um, their defenses. Sergeant, could we get like a better microphone? It looks like we got a microphone that's like on the fritz. Companies don't maintain those records for 2 years. So by the time a company will get the summons, they are not— they could have been having a legitimate reason to idle, but they no longer have the evidence of that.

That's why we need to get the due process Right. And we also need access to the videos right away. If you look at the red light camera program, that's a program that works incredibly well. The respondent is notified properly, they are able to access the video, and they're able to determine if it is worth contesting, or if they are guilty and pay the penalty and change their behavior.

We do not have that opportunity in this program, and that's what Larry was talking about. That is what all of TANI's membership has been saying for years and years and years. It is a due process problem.

Okay. Yeah, I'm good from my end. I recognize Councilmember Rapstein for questions. Thank you, Chair. No, thanks for, like, hanging out and being here. No, sure, happy to. This is an interesting issue that we all got to solve together. So it sounds like everyone agrees that OATH is our— OATH is a problem, right? Is that what we hear everyone saying?

OATH isn't notifying you quickly enough. OATH is not prosecuting these cases quickly enough. So you don't even know to maintain information if you don't even know until 6 months later that there was a problem. Is that what everyone's saying? Absolutely. Yes. So one, it sounds like figuring out a way to get notification to go out quickly. 2 is to get access to that video evidence quickly and to make a decision whether you just want to plead guilty and move on or not plead guilty because you think it's not a true violation.

What does Oath say when you flag these issues for them? They don't. We can't get a hold. There's no numbers. There's no answer. Well, there's a commissioner. She's the former DCWP commissioner. She now runs OATH. She's, you know, a person who meets with people. Can I, can I make it— and you are a lawyer— can you, would you be willing to spend some time with one of our members as they adjudicate a hearing to OATH so you see exactly what that process, or I should say lack thereof, looks like?

Yeah, I'm happy to. And I've actually appeared in front of OATH on behalf You know, I've— I was a legal services lawyer, so I had a very different job, but I would appear in front of OATH when tenants were trying to get landlords to do things, and OATH wasn't prosecuting those cases. But I'm happy to follow up with one of your members to hear what's happening at OATH.

I think there's a lot of issues that we're grappling with that could be fixed at OATH's level that I think would help this problem. Thank you. And the other one, and I'm sorry to jump in, Zach, is that they're doubling, tripling, quadrupling the fines before we even know something happened. So when it's written, if there's no existing violation, it's written as a first violation unless there's an adjudication and a fine.

So it's only if it's being written again that, you know, they could have 4 or 5 that are pending. But you already have to have a violation to be considered as a repeat offender, right? Yes. So if they're writing 5 violations and there's no history of violations, They're all written as first violations. You have a fleet, you have one car, they're in Wall Street, they get a violation, we never get it.

Same car is in Wall Street, gets a second, gets a third violation, we don't know. We can't take action. You're saying because once a fleet gets a violation, that's a repeat offender, you're saying? Or the car gets violations, a repeat offender? The same car gets a repeat offense, we never know about it. But, but if there's a violation that you've been adjudicated already, that's only when you get repeat.

Um, go ahead. Right, but sometimes the notifications don't come, and so you're basically— Liz, can we just— okay, this information's not getting on the record, right? But sometimes what happens is, are those wires— receive the summons at all, but it's in the oath system, so you are found guilty by non-appearance. All of a sudden you are a repeat offender even though you have never So there's 2 issues.

One is violations happening. 2 is not knowing what's happening. And 3 is not getting these systems processed quickly enough. That's some— I think there's some shared ground there that we could all collectively, if the chair is open to it, to work on. Because I think we want these— we want you to know, we want you to educate the drivers, we want this to move quickly, and we want to make sure that these don't happen and that businesses who are trying to do the right thing Don't get repeat fines if they're— if they're— if this is not an appropriate idling violation.

Yeah, I really do appreciate that. And the last point I do want to make is about 562, because it is a huge problem for the rental and leasing companies as well, for them to have to go back years, try to track down who was operating that vehicle at the time. You know, the companies who they partner with are the ones who keep the records in It doesn't go— the rent and leasing companies who don't operate the equipment don't have those records.

The transfer of liability, as it does exist in most other enforcement programs in New York City, is another important part of the due process. All right, I appreciate that. There's one last thing, and you nailed all of them.

When we do show up to a Zoom— Larry, let me, let me ask you a question. Do you, do you, you know, I, I'd like you to, you know, expound on what the, the councilman was talking to you about? I mean, he's supposed to be asked a question before he said every— He confirmed everything, all those points.

He said exactly, get the, get the notices out quickly, 30 to 45 days. He confirmed some scheduled hearing within 90. He understood and confirmed about the stacking of the fines, and we didn't get it. And I was just stating one more thing: when our team does go to a hearing, they could spend 3/4 of a day waiting So there's no— you're not giving it— so those hearings, you're not giving a time?

And that was my 4th point, was to provide a defined 60-minute Zoom hearing so we could show up and not waste our whole team's day. Okay. Uh, I want to— I would just— rubbing you a little bit, Larry, because this is, this is not kind of like a grab-the-mic kind of like forum here, you know. But I'm the first time here.

No, second. Because we— anyway, really appreciate your insight and what's going on. And everybody on this panel, great to see you, Liz. And we appreciate the value added from this panel. The next panel is going to look at it a little differently. So I think— Thank you. Thank you. You bet. Okay. Yeah, sure. No, thank you, Harvey.

Great job. Okay, the next panel, Hayden Brockett representing himself, Rafael Kroll-Zaidi, I'm not sure. Huh? I got it? Okay, good. Okay. Alicia Raymond, looks like. Kevin McCabe. McGee. Oh, McGee. Oh, McGee. I'm sorry. I have a friend Kevin McCabe. So, former Chief of Staff of the Council. And so— Okay. Thank you all very much for being here.

Last panel went from this way to that way. This panel, we're going to go from Hayden north. All right, great. That's north, right? It's north. I wouldn't know. I forget which— I get turned around down here. No, yeah, yeah, that's north.

All right, uh, good afternoon. My name is Hayden Brockett, and I join with over 30 environmental and good government groups, as well as 2 committees on Manhattan Community Board 7, which I serve, to oppose Intro 561A. The Citizens Air Complaint Program make no mistake, is working well. It is stopping pollution all across our city. There is coverage that tracks pollution, and we cannot go backwards on clean air.

But unfortunately, that is exactly what this council is poised to do. I want to talk about what would happen if the suite of bills up for today passes. I'm just going to jump in for a second. I'll give you time at the end, but it's just, you know, these are not being presented as like final, we want to pass some bills.

These are all works in progress. So it's like, these are all— we're hearing them because they're not done. We, you know, they're not where we want them to be. It's the hearing. I hear you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. There have been some edits and amendments that have been made that unfortunately make the— make it worse. And I don't think that's a secret that there are problems.

I think that— I think that's fine testimony, but it's just like we're not You know, like, we're not angling to pass these bills tomorrow. Okay, that's good to know. Yeah, thank you. Um, if Intro 48 were passed, um, to open up the Citizens Air Complaint Program to the 2.5 million New Yorkers who don't speak English, um, that would be good.

They've been locked out of the program since the Adams administration, and it sounds good, but unfortunately Intro 561A slams that same door shut with, uh, dangerous new loopholes that effectively legalize all diesel engine idling, all school bus idling for half the year, and it requires the DEP throw out— now it sounds like 230,000 pending complaints, and going forward, throw out many other complaints because they can't meet that deadline.

You may as well not have a program, and it's terrible for our air. And to add insult to that very real and life-threatening injury, those 2.5 million New Yorkers who got their first shot at participation Um, the, this council would say— Yeah, just, just, no, just, just, just keep going. You don't get the same portion of the fines that has been on the books for the last 55 years because Intro 561A is now cutting citizen awards just as you get to participate.

And I think that sends a terrible message to those New Yorkers, and the bill cannot be resurrected. I do want to talk about Intro 11A. I think it sounds good that it raises fines for corporate polluters, but unfortunately it It's going to undermine compliance because all but the biggest violators will skip out on those fines. Today, the stats show nearly 40% of idling violators ignore their tickets, which, let's be clear, run from $350 to $600.

They just don't pay. And collection attempts are unfortunately not successful. So there's a $3,000 fine in Intro 11A, and that message unfortunately does not send compliance. It's too high. The message is that it's all for show, and I think in fact you're going to have less compliance if the fines are too high, and that's bad for our air.

So I think if this bill passes, we're all going to need to start wearing gas masks again. We cannot go backwards on clean air, and I think the council unfortunately can't be playing politics with our health. Uh, yeah, is there any way we can get the microphone out the feedback? I mean, it, you know, Pardon? Oh, oh, oh, oh, yeah.

Oh. Too close to each other? Oh, I see what you're saying. Oh, okay. All right. All right. Um, yeah, so let's let the rest of the panel testify and we'll, uh, you know. One last thing. I didn't mean to— I'm happy to answer any questions you might have about the repeat violations issue. Oh, thank you. Thank you.

And please proceed with your good testimony. Say your name for the record and we'll commence.

Hi there, my name is Alicia del Carmen Caballero and I participate in the program. I support Intro 48. Translating the portal would help people like my mom whose first language is not English and would expand protection of our air quality to communities that are not being sufficiently covered and protected. Your ability to protect your community should never depend on the language that you speak.

However, it is shameful that just as we are opening up this program to immigrant communities, Intro 561A would effectively shut it down through the back door. It would do that in 2 ways. The first is the 60-day requirement would force DEP to throw out violations that it can't process in 60 days. It's currently taking around 12 months to process those violations.

This means that a year's worth of pollution violations would be tossed in the bin and in effect no new violations would ever be able to be processed in the future because DEP just currently isn't staffed to meet that kind of timeline. Polluters would get a free pass and we would lose our ability to protect our air quality going forward.

Pollution doesn't become less harmful just because a violation sat in somebody's inbox for too long. Second thing is diesel regeneration exemption would allow idling when a truck is burning Turning off soot. But there is no way for me or the DEP reviewer to confirm whether that truck was actually doing that. So the result is that anytime an idling truck gets a violation, they can just say, I was doing diesel regeneration.

There would be no way to disprove it. So it's a get-out-of-jail-free card. So again, polluters would get a pass and we would lose this important mechanism to enforce our clean air laws. So these are backdoor ways of dismantling enforcement. One lets the clock excuse pollution. The other creates a loophole that residents cannot challenge. Both of my parents were truck drivers, long-haul truck drivers.

They also deserve clean air. Everybody in this room does, whether you're an environmentalist or from the industry. So my ask is to, um, please pass Intro 48 and reject Intro 561A wholly. I don't think it's resurrectable. I think the one thing that needs to change is better staffing for the DEP to get through these violations more quickly.

And please don't bring— invite immigrant communities into this program only to strip it of its power to protect them. Thank you.

Thank you. We certainly wish that— now my mic's not working. Oh, okay. I'm back. Certainly would have been nice to have DEP here today because we had questions along the lines of that of the first two witnesses that we would have, you know, asked them that because we don't we don't staff DEP. And so yeah, let me go to the next two witnesses.

But you know, thank you for your very good testimony. We appreciate it. And hey, you know, if you think it's not resurrectable, that's what we want to hear. I mean, it's just like, you know, I'm a big boy. We can, you know, I can take it. And so, yes. And hang on, hang on. Okay. Raphael Kroll. Zaidi.

I wanted to say it again, like, correctly, you know. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Red light and speed cameras were kind of a watershed moment for traffic enforcement in New York City. No longer could vehicle operators, unless they got particularly unlucky, count on breaking the law without consequence, which is still the case for most moving violations and administrative infractions of all kinds.

Idling enforcement which uses the eyes, ears, and phones of citizens throughout the city instead of stationary cameras, brought a roughly comparable level of enforcement to vehicular air pollution. As with the robot cameras, not for every block, intersection, or hour of the day, but enough to make operators think twice and not break the law in the first place.

The response? Greater city revenue, greater compliance, and also some pushback. Sound familiar? The New York Post reported back in 2024 that the resulting vehicle plate defacement by scofflaws was soaring and costing the city $200 million a year in uncollected tolls and tickets. Did council start seriously entertaining a bill to legalize ghost plates or restrict the use of ticketing cameras?

Of course not. But private car drivers worried about tickets, myself included, don't have the lobbyists that the trucking and bus industries do. So now those industries are complaining that they don't like the fines they're getting for breaking the law and that they'd like to Go back to the good old days when getting an idling ticket was the equivalent of getting struck by lightning.

The question should not be, why is there so much enforcement in these particular areas? But why isn't there better enforcement in other areas where public health and safety are on the line? I'd like to address summons delays and transfer of liability. DEP has the ability already, as long as they have a backlog, to batch equipment leasing companies for priority reviews. so that those fines can be passed along, and also to send non-summons heads-up letters to the named respondents as soon as new citizen complaints come in, along with access to the video evidence.

I agree with Zach Miller 100% on that. It's basically about flipping a switch in a computer. Let's tell DEP to do it tomorrow. 561, 562, and 869 would be destructive. 11A would act as cover. In this context, in combination with 561A, that would be like saying we're going to double the speed camera fines, Oh, and also we're going to remove 95% of speed cameras.

DEP already has the authority to increase fines reasonably. Only Intro 48 would improve the program. I volunteered training air complaint program participants in the South Bronx, so I've seen that firsthand. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your good testimony. And you were talking about how DEP now has the ability to do what? tomorrow? I was trying to follow along. Could you just go over that again? There are a couple of things, Chair. One is that they can adjust the fine schedule without legislative change. Another is that there are a variety of solutions that can be pursued as stopgaps to ensure reasonable notification times for respondents.

That would include sending a heads-up letter to the named respondent in a complaint, along with access to the video. As soon as that comes in, that can be auto-generated. Maybe, you know, they could save on the bulk first-class mailing by doing it only to fleets that haven't received penalties before, but why not do everyone? It's a small— it's a drop in the bucket compared to, you know, the overall income.

Right. Finally, I was, you know, trying to keep the interests of equipment leasing companies in mind. where, um, DEP already batches, uh, certain hearings for priority— certain complaints for priority review, batches priority hearings. For example, for Con Ed, you know, that might happen in a month or 2, as opposed to 900 days for other people. What I'm saying is that they know who a lot of the equipment leasing companies are, that they have a particular interest in passing along fines.

There's nothing stopping them from having a filter in place to prioritize those for review. As another, uh, way to address some of the problems from the ongoing backlog.

Well, I certainly appreciate that excellent testimony. And this is why we're having this hearing, and thank you for your valued addition to it. And Kevin McGee, right? Yes, thank you. Okay, sure. I'm a participant in this program. I have a day job. I do this in some spare time. Last time I testified about 941, you were fascinated about my interest in doing this because I walk 12 miles a day.

It's something that I was already doing before I— How many miles a day? 12 miles a day. Wow. I was already doing it. You were fascinated before when I testified about 941. Councilmember Velez already cited the figure, 2,400 deaths a year from air pollution in New York City. Illegal idling contributes to that. It's very much preventable. And I believe, as a participant in this program, that the citizen complaint program works.

This law was practically unenforced for almost 4 decades, has finally some teeth to it with this program. Oh, yeah, could you speak a little louder or closer to the mic? As participants, we've watched major fleets change their behavior, including ConEd, Amazon, Verizon. We do not see them idling nearly as much as we used to, because this enforcement changes behavior.

But air pollution has a particularly cruel feature. Its consequences are indirect, and its victims are easy to overlook. A child in an under-resourced neighborhood has an asthma attack. Someone develops lung cancer. Older New Yorker dies of stroke or heart disease earlier than they would have otherwise. And we rarely see that connection because, unfortunately, it just makes it easier for for elected officials to fail to protect them and to ignore it without consequence.

But these are not abstract statistics. These are real people and real lives. And I apologize for the sort of grim analogy here, but if a gunman walked into a school and exacted a quota every year wiping out a classroom, we would not accept that as a minor policy tradeoff. We would not accept that as a bargaining chip in regular political horse trading.

So the victims of pollution deserve no less urgency simply because their suffering is less visible. So I would urge you to reject 561A in its entirety. I do not think it's redeemable. But support Intro 48 to bring this program to the communities that need it the most. And to use Councilmember Aviles' analogy, this would not put the program 10 toes down.

It would put it 6 feet Thank you.

I want to— whoa, something going on with the sound here. But I want to thank this panel for the great value added it's brought to today's proceedings and the sincerity with which all the testimony was presented. It's truly heartfelt, not just a mind thing. We really appreciate you being here. We look forward to being in touch with you as we carry on, um, with dealing with all these bills.

And so I appreciate it, and now I'm going to call the next panel. How many more witnesses do we have? How many on Zoom? We have Zoom? Oh, wow. We're going to be here a long time, folks. Next panel is Patrick Condren. Um, he represents, I don't know, something— oh, oh, oh, Bus for NYC Coalition. Okay, thank you.

Uh, please come forward. Uh, Glenn, uh, looks like Every Bus Association of New York State. Henry Smith, Long Island City Partnership. Nicholas Day, representing Edge Auto. I'm not sure. That's right. Okay. Anyone else on this panel? I guess one person. What's that? Nicholas Day. Nicholas Day? Oh, okay, that's you. Henry Smith? Henry Smith? Why don't we put in someone for Henry Smith?

Because we got to get going. Ernest Weld. Ernest Weld. Okay. He's going to be using my mic. Ernest, we're putting you in with an industry panel. Oh, I— well, most people representing industry kind of indicated on their slip. Oh, and we're joined by Sierra Towns, the other counsel to the committee. And so— oh, okay, I didn't see her.

And now, last panel we went— no, we started that. Okay, so we're going to start to my right with Ernest, and then we're going to head south. My name is Ernest Weldy. Oh, you got to do the microphone. All right.

Yeah, my name is Ernest Weldy, and I'm speaking in opposition to Intros 11, 561, 562, and 869, and in favor of 48. I'll focus on 561. It is unrecoverable. Over the past 5 years, there have been about 250 traffic-related fatalities per year for a total of 1,264. There have been about 400 homicides by gun per year for a total of 1,990.

Over that same time period, according to the Department of Health, And today's testimony, there have been approximately 2,400 deaths due to poor air quality every year for a total of 12,000 people, plus countless other health issues. The Department of Health attributes these to, to just 2 air pollutants, ozone and PM2.5. The largest contributor in New York City of these pollutants is idling vehicles.

In fact, idling is the largest single source of illegal air pollution in New York City. Just to put this in context, if there If there were 2,400 murders by gun in New York City every year, the governor would likely call in the National Guard and it would be the singular focus of City Council. But what does City Council do when confronted with 2,400 deaths per year?

They call a hearing to minimize the best program that is actually reducing that staggering death toll. You have heard over and over today how effective this program is in reducing illegal idling in New York. In fact, it's really the only street-level environmental law that is enforced. There have been virtually zero tickets for plastic bags, straw on demands, open doors during AC season.

You guys are great at passing laws, but the city is awful at enforcing them. Intro 561 violates the state constitution, Article 1, Section 19. It's short but straightforward. Each person shall have a right to clean air and water and a healthful environment. This bill, if passed, would clearly violate this provision of the state constitution. There's been no analysis as what this will do to the air quality. 30 minutes of idling in front of a school for small children who are among the most affected by poor air quality, unlimited diesel idling for regeneration.

If this bill is passed, it will definitely decrease the quality of New York City's air quality. You must not violate your duty to protect our environment. It's incredible with all the environmental issues facing the city We're focused on rolling back protections for New Yorkers. This is a polluter-friendly bill. It would give billion-dollar corporations a major break. It would be sad takeaway if the takeaway here was that City Council is protecting polluters by harming New Yorkers.

This doesn't make the program better. We need to change the program in some ways, but not this. Don't disincentivize reporters by lowering the citizen share. Please vote no on 1157. 562, 869, and yes, on 48. And I'm curious if you could talk about why you think the program isn't working, as you said earlier. Yeah, uh, we ask the questions, but thank you.

Uh, hang on, Nicholas. Okay, yeah, thank you, and, uh, thanks for giving us the time to be heard today. My name is Nicholas Day. I'm the co-CEO of EdTech Auto Rental. We're an independent employee-owned vehicle rental company. We employ approximately 60 people here in New York, and we've been in business— whoop— we've been in business here for 20 years.

Yeah, I don't know what we do now. It's just— so those things don't plug into anything, the mics? Testing, testing. Yeah, okay. This year alone, Edge has received more than 175 idling summonses Totaling over $80,000. We've recovered about $20,000 from our customers, leaving our company to absorb approximately $60,000 of penalties. The problem is we didn't idle the vehicles, our customers did.

We weren't driving them. They're not our employees. We're not operating the vehicles. We had no ability to prevent these violations, yet we're the ones being penalized. Making matters worse, as we've heard earlier today, Summons routinely arrive 6 months to more than a year after the alleged violation, long after the rental has ended and our customer has disappeared.

Many of our trucks must run their engines, as we've heard earlier today, to operate equipment including lift gates and refrigerating systems. That's not unnecessary idling. That's doing the work the vehicles were designed to perform. We're asking the council to take 3 important steps. First, pass Introduction 562, allowing liability to transfer from rental companies to the actual renters.

Second, adopt the procedural protections in 561, including timely notices and recognition of legitimate engine-required operations. And third, do not increase the penalties under 11 until these fundamental problems are corrected. EDGE has invested millions of dollars in clean vehicles. We want to be part of the solution, but environmental enforcement should punish the party responsible for the violation, not the business that happens to own the vehicle.

We respectfully ask the council to fix the system.

Thank you. Thank you very much. You've painted a portrait of a system that is not working the way it should, and, um, so that's why we're here today, and we value your your, um, your, you know, on-the-ground understanding of what this all means to businesses. You bet. Uh, Glenn Avery, uh, Bus Association of New York State. Yes, thank you, Chair Gennaro.

Uh, yeah, I'm Glenn Avery. I'm president of the Bus Association of New York. Uh, we're also known as BANI, and we've been around as an organization since 1938, and we're proud to advocate on behalf of private bus operators and the public, the riding public that they serve. BANI is opposed to the inclusion of motor coaches under the anti-idling restrictions under the Citizens' Air Complaint Program.

Unlike the buses operated by our members, public transit buses are not subject to enforcement under the Citizens' Air Complaint Program. Uh, they use the same equipment. They have the same compliance difficulties, uh, that our members have. So the net result is that private operators who have far fewer buses on New York City streets, uh, than public transit are the only target of enforcement against buses.

This is revenue generation, not sound environmental policy. Modern motor coaches are designed with a main diesel engine that only provides for the propulsion of the vehicle, but also powers safety, the HVA system, environmental, electrical, and other systems that are necessary for the safe operation of the vehicle, the health and well-being of passengers, and the protection of the environment.

Until technology develops to the point where that fundamental design can be changed, compliance with the 3-minute rule can be very difficult. We are not advocates for unlimited or unnecessary idling. To the contrary, our members, they don't want to waste fuel. They don't condone that. So I would like to just kind of jump off my script if I could.

Yeah, sure. To address A specific request that you made that we, you know, we talk about specifics about 11. We are opposed to Intro 11A. The increasing of fines is of little additional deterrence value. The fines are already at a level where motorcoach operators are choosing to avoid New York City. May I continue? I just said— Sure.

Why don't we just finish the panel and I I'm formulating a question for you. Thank you.

Sure. Um, Patrick, right? Patrick, right? Thank you, Patrick. Uh, yeah, just state your name for the record. Yeah, I am Patrick Condren. I'm the administrator of the Bus for NYC Coalition, which was formed in 2018 to address issues in my industry, which I'm lifelong in, in the bus industry and a member of BANE and a board member.

At that time in 2018, congestion pricing was an issue. And unfortunately, many people do not be exempt in the area, but all buses, intercity commuter and our operators are exempt. We're part of the public and private position and transportation providing public transportation in New York City. I was one of the owners of the franchise bus companies back in the day.

I work with the guys today. So having said that, a bus is the most environmentally efficient passenger vehicle on the streets of New York. Regarding oversight of the Citizens' Air Complaint Group, we support changes in this program, as Mr. Everly just pointed out. And it's a reminder that bus lines, rail lines, airlines are passenger-carrying, not cargo. The issue today is New York City policy includes buses as part of the public system, just like the MTA, because all the MTA buses were routes in all of Queens and Brooklyn where I was.

And there's 170 miles of bus lanes, because all public ride the bus lanes, and they're not exempt. It's just we use them. Trucks don't use them, cars don't use them. Everybody at this panel earlier today referred to cars and trucks. It's our position that just like congestion pricing, just like parking, ICBPS, and numerous other city rules, that private buses, just like public buses, should be administratively exempt from the actual fines.

Today, there's millions of dollars and thousands of tickets being issued to private bus companies. As Glenn pointed out, don't even want to come into New York City anymore. So the 3-minute rule is untenable. The federal guideline is 15 minutes. For a bus to idle if they had to. And we believe that at this point in time, people should be reminded that 55 people on a bus is the most environmentally sound vehicle on the streets of New York, and they're included with and should be treated the same as publicly owned buses.

Thank you.

Before I pose questions to this panel, if I could call Josh up for a second. I have to just come up to the dais. I just have to talk to you. Just come up to the front here. Thank you. I've got one more for you. What's that? I've got one more for you. No, no, no, it was just I need a candy bar.

It's a sugar thing. So, and Mr. Every, right, you— I want to ask you about your testimony. You were just on the cusp of telling me something that you I think I should know, and I want to ask you what that is. Yeah, just addressing the specifics of 561, if I'm correct, I believe it expands the definition of processing device, and it also exempts systems that, quote, control the environment of temperature-sensitive cargo.

I would ask that you consider that human beings be considered temperature-sensitive cargo. To put human beings in a bus that's over 100 degrees because it's been sitting in the hot sun where the windows can't come down and we can't, you know, the driver can't turn the air conditioning on for an appropriate amount of time. That's, that's— Yeah, because like we're doing that for school buses and stuff.

Right. Same thing on the cold side. Okay, let me just hang out. Let me just talk to council for a second. Yeah, I just wanted to clarify. a point with her regarding Patrick's testimony, but she made that clear to me. And I want to thank this panel for all the value added that you've provided to it. Yeah, the whole bus thing, how we handled it.

And so thank you. And we look forward to being in touch with everybody on this panel on how we can proceed along lines of excellence. Sounds like something a politician would say, but that's actually— it's what I mean. Okay. Thank you all very much. Appreciate it. Thank you. We're happy to follow up. Thank you. Thank you.

Next panel looks like Dietmar something. Hang on, go ahead. Okay. Dietmar Dietring or Okay, I got you. Good. George P A K E L L or something. Okay. What's this? Okay. Michael McPherson. McFadden representing himself. Oh, he had to leave. Okay. This is Michael McFadden. This is in now? That's a new person. Okay. Timothy, uh, David, um, uh, looks like the last name Spinner, I think.

First name begins with an I. So how many people will that make it? What's that? Oh, sure. Oh, Eileen, you're saying. Okay. Who am I calling? Oh, okay. So we have everybody, right? 4 people? Yeah, so we— pardon, we have to, you know, pass around the mic so we get good sound quality. And yeah, the last panel I started this side, so this panel I'm gonna start on this side.

And so Please state your name for the record and begin with your testimony. We'll get— you know, it's— we have a lot more witnesses, so we're gonna— I'm gonna have to be more strict on the 2-minute thing. I apologize. Please.

Hello, good afternoon. Excuse me. Chair members, my name is Timothy David. And I am a resident of Hell's Kitchen and have longtime asthma. I am here today to speak in opposition to proposed 5561A because it would weaken one of New York City's most successful air quality enforcement programs. I have cross some things out. Just from hearing everyone— Sure.

I really do appreciate everyone's testimony and as well as their input. And I duly understand both sides. And I'm speaking for myself on behalf of my spouse, who is a member of the New York Clean Air Collective. And for every day, for many hours, listening and observing all the things that they go through, I do wish at the end of the day everyone will be as healthy and well.

And that's all what I think we all wish for every individual. And thank you very much again for your time. Well, thank you. I mean, for kind of, for, you know, that this is I think your testimony was kind of like a mission statement for, I think, everybody in this room. We're coming from different perspectives, but we want to have as safe and environmentally friendly and pollution-free New York City as we possibly can, given the fact that the 8.5 million people that live here and the God knows how many people who are here during every weekday that come into Manhattan to work.

It's, it's, it's a challenge to, you know, get everything right, but it's always nice to come back and touch home plate. And I think that's what you did for us here today, and I appreciate that. Okay, you bet.

Best to your wife. Eileen. Good afternoon. My name is Eileen Spinner, and I'm here to support the Citizens' Air Complaint Program. Yeah, if you speak a little closer to the mic, that'd be great. I'm here to support the Citizens' Air Complaint Program, which is working very, very well. I have asthma, and the nearly 50 years that nobody bothered to enforce the anti-idling laws on the books probably didn't help with that.

The city's anti-idling laws have only really been enforced in the past 7 years, and only because citizens have stepped up to do this important work. I am testifying against the very dangerous Intro 561A. At least 25 different environmental and civic groups oppose this bill because it's nothing less than a corporate giveaway by the City Council to polluters.

It also opens up a dangerous loophole for diesel regeneration, which is an extremely dirty process, especially especially in our city. There's a reason it's already illegal to regenerate while idling. Keep it that way. To be clear, we must expand access to this program to all New Yorkers, including the 2.5 million who don't speak English as a first language.

Please conclude, Your Honor. In fact, while I strongly support Intro 48, it isn't really necessary because the mayor could fix his predecessor's misguided policy today. I also support raising fines, but again, Intro 11 doesn't need to exist at all because the mayor's administration has the power under the law to raise fines already. We cannot go backwards on clean air.

In fact, I am very troubled that this hearing is even happening today. Who is supporting Intro 561A? This bill has zero co-sponsors. The council staff amended this bill in response to criticism, and the amendments made it worse. As drafted, Intro 561 will effectively legalize diesel engine idling and give $100 million to polluting corporations. If there's a battle of wills between the council and the mayor, I say stop playing politics with our health.

I implore you not to pass 561A. Let's not turn the clock back on clean air and good health.

Thank you. Thank you very much for your compelling testimony. Uh, next witness. Hello, Mr. Chairman. Hi, just, uh, oh, just, I have to talk to counsel on the sidebar. Where'd he go? If you only knew what we were just talking about, you know. Should I put this on the record? Just so— no? Okay. Yeah. Yeah. And so, uh, it was— yeah.

Um, please just, uh, uh, talk right into the mic and proceed with, uh, state your name for the record and, uh, proceed with your testimony. My name is George Pakenham. And I'm a filmmaker and a producer of the documentary film Idle Threat: Man on a Mission. And I'm a board member on the governor's— governor emeritus of the New York Clean Air Collective.

I'm 76 years old, and 20 years ago I became aware of the pesky problem of air pollution caused by needless engine idling and have been fighting the fight ever since. The trucking and bus companies have their arguments in support of Bill 561-A, but I think they're after higher profits and less government oversight. I oppose Bill 561-A because it threatens to destroy all the good work that the New York Clean Air Collective has done fighting air pollution in this fair city.

I contend that the Clean Air Citizens' Air Complaint Program fights for better public health, and that, that is the core argument here, not profits or government oversight. I suggest that any council members who are curious about the facts and figures behind engine idling as a public health issue, please visit the Environmental Defense Fund website and look at the study called Idling Gets You Nowhere.

Thank you. It's a comprehensive research document. And if you need a more practical approach to this problem, I have a suggestion. When the meeting concludes, go outside on Broadway, find an idling bus, take a deep breath, and afterwards you should be— it should be clear to you that Bill 561A should not pass city council vote in its current state and become law.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you very much. I appreciate you being here and being patient and giving us the benefit of your views. And hang on, who is it? Didmar? Didmar? Okay. Yeah, I just have a confession to make. I'm having Like a sugar episode, and so I have to eat a candy bar as I'm listening to your testimony.

But yeah, I'm so I apologize. But it's if I'm going to be you know continue sitting upright, I have your health first. What's that? Your health first. Cheers. Thank you for the time.

My name is Dietmar Detering. I'm a Queens resident and an active citizen air complaint reporter. The City Council should be proud of what the Citizen Air Complaint Program has accomplished. For decades, commercial trucks and buses routinely idled on our streets with little enforcement. Today, many fleets have changed their behavior. New Yorkers can already see, hear, and breathe the difference.

Enforcement is increasingly reaching the fleets that have not yet adapted. Instead of complying, however, some are seeking relief from the Council. Entries 561, 562, and 869 would provide that relief for polluters and move us in the wrong direction. They would weaken enforcement and discourage citizen participation just when the program is beginning to realize its potential. Entry 11 is not the solution either.

Aggressive penalties raise the stakes for drivers and complainants, encouraging confrontation and nonpayment. A reasonable inflation adjustment would be preferable. I support Intro 48's expansion of language access, but accessibility also requires timely feedback and training. Thousands of New Yorkers have registered for this program. How many gave up because DEP took over a year to tell them their complaints were defective?

We need more successful citizen reporters, not fewer. Broader participation will encourage greater compliance, leaving fewer violations for anyone to report. Above all, DEP needs the resources and direction to process complaints within the existing 45-day period. Respondents should learn about violations promptly while they can change. their behavior. The council should let this successful program mature rather than undermine it halfway through transforming New York City's idling culture.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Yeah, we're— well, I'm certainly, you know, learning a lot at this hearing about what DEP could and should do to get rid of its backlog. And I'm just very happy that so many people came out to give us the benefit of their views. And, you know, I might eat a candy bar during a hearing, but I'm not on my phone.

You know, I listen to every word, and I'm very grateful to the staff, both in the audience and on the dais here, who are processing every word that is spoken. I never passed a bad environmental law. And after 18 years of chairing this committee, you know, we've had a lot of hard challenges. This is a very hard one.

And— but everybody can do more, and we just have to figure out whether— because it's just— we're all jammed up. People getting notices. It just— anyway, I'm carrying on, but it just— The purpose of what I'm saying is that I, you know, I'm attesting that we will work with all of you to try to get, you know, the best result we possibly can.

What we have right now is not working the way it could. And so we need to do better. I think everybody agrees on that. And so— I think we all agree. Let's go out there and do it. And this council and this panel helped us down that road. I appreciate it. Thank you very much. I did not buy candy bars for everyone.

I'm sorry. Is that Pablo? Hey, man. I didn't forget you, Cadillac. It's a person, but his name is Cadillac. It's a long story.

I need the next panel. Okay. David. Dominguez, I believe, representing himself. Uh, Vlad, uh, K-U-C-H-E-R. Yeah, um, more letters. It's hard to make out, but Vlad. Uh, Justin Bernstein. Good handwriting. Sarah O'Brien, even better. Mike Streeter, I say B+ with the handwriting. You want to take these? Oh, feel that sugar. Come on. Which way do— how did we start last time?

We should skip. All right, we're going to start this and go north. Yeah. So we got one operating mic. Yeah, just got to make sure the light is on. All right, yes, please.

Thank you, uh, Chair Gennaro. Uh, my name is Mike Streeter. I'm a founding member of the New York Clean Air Collective, but I'm speaking on my own behalf. I, I submit idling complaints. Uh, let me just start off by saying, uh, Intro 48, good, please pass, it's long overdue. Intro 561A, unfixable. Um, and Intro 11A, uh, not necessary in my Regarding an earlier question from Mr.

Epstein and to the NISEC representative, it's shocking to me that some industry reps like NISEC here are not aware that fuel pump vehicles are already exempt from idling restrictions when they are operating the pumps. DEP will reject any complaint for a vacuum truck, fuel truck, food oil truck, etc., if there is even a possibility that work requiring the engine is taking place, period, end of story.

And to the, the rep from Interior Demo Contractors Association, most compacting trucks wait until they have enough bins to start compacting continuously. That's how they avoid tickets. We see it all the time, and their operators can do that. Also, there's no such thing as an exemption sticker that is being ignored, as someone brought up. The stickers that DEP issues merely reflect the existing exemptions that a truck's equipment already enjoys under the law.

And then regarding aggregate cement, I live near 3rd Ave and DeGraw in Brooklyn, which is where Thomas Green Playground is. Last year, aggregate cement trucks were there nearly every day, with one and sometimes 2 big loud trucks idling for hours on end. People live there, people work there, and kids play there. The idling was incessant, and I'm shocked to hear anyone try to defend that.

There's no reason for trucks of that type to be idling that long away from the work site. And, and guess what? They, they caught on and they suddenly were able to shut off. Uh, on that note, I— No, go ahead. Yeah, I wanted to talk about misinformation. Yeah, but I gotta, I gotta like, you know, we got tons of witnesses left, and they got to get on with their lives.

So I got to be at least close to the 2-minute thing. Sure. Yeah, I mean, that was the gist of my discussion, is misinformation. There is a lot of misinformation out there. Thanks.

Thank you very much. I appreciate your good testimony and your patience for waiting to deliver it. Okay. All right. Yes, sir. Good afternoon, everyone. I just want to introduce myself. My name is Justin Bernstein. I'm a participant of the Idling Program. I was born and raised in Brooklyn. As a Brooklyn native, I've always noticed there was a problem with trucks and buses idling, especially in the city.

I always thought it was just part of life being in the big city. My story is probably going to be a little bit different because I was homeless for quite some time in the Lower Manhattan area. I saw firsthand how there would be buses and trucks of all sizes idling nonstop. My name is stop. You could not walk down Canal Street without seeing a fleet of coach-sized buses idling.

There was really nothing you could do about it before. There has always been a law against idling, but it was not enforced. This is the first of many examples that made me want to take action when I discovered the idling program. Once this program begun, it did not take long before I noticed change. I saw firsthand how this program changed the driving habits of a lot of drivers.

Companies were being held accountable, and through that accountability, change was being achieved. I am proud to say I've helped in this process and the opportunity the city gave every citizen to do what they can do. I am honored to work with all the good people involved to make this a positive change in this city. I am just one New Yorker, and a lot of people besides myself have put in a ton of work into this project, and it would be soul-crushing for all of our hard work to be possibly tossed out.

I believe there are tools available to make this program more efficient Thank you. And easier for all parties involved. Just being able to participate in this program helped me tremendously when there was no other opportunities. I say no to 561 as we already have a lot of stipulations with refrigeration units, liftgates, buses picking up and dropping off active processing devices, and it uses all these excuses as trucks I see use these liftgates They turn them on and off to avoid— to reset, basically reset the timer, reset the clock, so you would have to start your 3 minutes over again.

All these are already being used to abuse the system. I've seen this happen in the field. Once drivers are aware they're able to cheat the system, from what I've seen, they will cheat the system.

Thank you very much for your, you know, compelling testimony and personal history and life story. We're grateful to have you here today. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Vlad Kucheravy, and I'm a participant of the Citizens' Air Complaint Program. My concern for air quality started from a very young age since the Coney Island wastewater treatment plant is right next to where I grew up and emits the smell of fecal matter every time the weather is nice outside.

Imagine my enthusiasm when I discovered that I can be part of a program that seeks to reduce pollution and improve the quality of life for my neighborhood while getting rewarded for it. At Brooklyn College, I enrolled in a public health class where I learned that public health is primarily the responsibility of government, but a successful public health enterprise must involve all sectors of the community.

And this is why I'm here today, to testify against proposals such as Intro 561A that undermine community efforts for the benefit of out-of-reach polluting corporate entities and advocates for proposals like Intro 48 that extend opportunities to reduce pollution to New Yorkers in all boroughs. Adopting the proposed Intro 5618 is detrimental. Negligent companies would be given a pass at the expense of our neighborhoods.

They complain that fines aren't fair, but in my experience, what is unfair is these companies and their employees coming into our streets from their out-of-state headquarters and releasing air pollutants as they complete their work quotas. The money that 5618 will be saving these entities is not likely to be used to ameliorate their negligent practices, hence will not benefit our communities in any way.

The revenue that participants are rewarded as a result of the program is circulated back into our local economy, as it should. In the face of grim public health statistics on air pollution, the program has brought great benefits to our city. One of these is empowering of concerned citizens from all boroughs to seek fairness. Intro 48 serves this purpose.

As someone from a multicultural neighborhood, I can attest that those whose English is not their strong language are often the most exposed to environmental hazards and the hardest working. They deserve the opportunity to advocate for themselves. Please don't undermine this program with Intro 561A and instead look towards supporting the health and livelihoods of our communities by considering Intro 48.

I would like to end by saying that unlike polluting entities that are profiting from our neighborhoods, that are advocating for this environmental program are working towards improving the livelihoods of all New Yorkers, since we believe that everyone that works hard to keep this city running deserves clean air, even the employees of corporate polluters, even those in favor of 5618, and especially their families.

So vote no for 5618 and yes for 48. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you for— Yes, please commence with— state your name and commence with your testimony. Hello, my name is Sarah O'Brien. I'm 24 years old, a native New Yorker raised in Queens, your district actually. Grew up in NYCHA, went to public school my whole life. I still live here and intend to stay here in this great city. And being that I'm a proud New Yorker and believe I have a lot to live for, I try to take good care of my health within my means, you know, like exercise, eat eat well, manage stress.

I don't drink and I certainly do not smoke. And despite that, being that I live in this city, I'm at risk of lung cancer. Why is it that 20% of lung cancer patients in this city have never smoked a cigarette in their life? This is why I'm ashamed to see Intro 561A. Why would anyone propose such a bill that puts this amazing program at risk?

A citizen-led program that has generated over 350,000 complaints. A program that has generated over $145 million in fines, and above all, protected public health. Public health for every New Yorker from all walks of life. I was 5 years old in 2007, and I remember how much worse it was then before the program, going to school in Queens.

And still, children of this city have to go to school and brace the exhaust from delivery trucks, construction vehicles, and their own school buses that sit idle for hours on end. Thank you. Their fragile lungs cannot handle that. Why should they? Because a truck or bus driver wants to take a nap, eat lunch, charge their phone, or run the heat?

In New York City, children brace the cold to walk to school, bundled up in their puffers, and these grown men and women, they can't do the same? Like, these grown women— sorry. No, take your time. These grown men and women who operate these vehicles can't do the same to stay warm and not pollute the air that we share.

We need more people submitting complaints. My mom, she speaks Arabic as her first language and wanted to participate in the program, but because the program is only available in English, she can't. I mean, like, um, from the DEP's testimony earlier, that's a joke that they say that they offer instructions in other languages, because that's not the same as translating the portal.

Right. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Yeah, you know, it's— you're— yes, the program is working, but in some aspects it's not. And, you know, the current iteration of it is certainly not where we want to land. But I appreciate, you know, the input of everyone on this panel. I've learned so many things that So, this is an iterative process.

And so, I appreciate everyone's good testimony and, you know, being here, sharing your testimony, personal stories. It really helps. And I thank you for your patience for being here. But I got to move on to the next panel. Thank you. Thank you. She comes with the blouse and everything, and it's, you know— oh shoot, the thing is on.

Turn it off. Oh, okay. The next panel: Louis Politano, best handwriting so far, representing himself. Dylan Stack, even better. We're on a run. We're we're we're we're killing it now. Ah, Wanfang Wu. Right up there. Gregory Gonzalez, B-. Uh, Oren Galchen? I don't even know how to say it myself. Yeah, Oren Galchen. This is kind of like pass/fail.

Which way? Oh, I'd like to welcome Sierra. She is, uh, Sierra Townsend. She was in the audience, now she's here, and the co-counsel to this committee. Um, what did I do last time? Which way did I go? I started there. You started on that. I started there. Okay, now I'm, I'm going to start This side. I can never remember, like, where I started or didn't start.

Hello, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Dylan Stack. I'm the vice president of the New York Clean Air Collective, and I'm a New York City resident. I think the current count is 25 civic groups in New York City oppose Intro 561A, and I regretfully say that I believe it is unsalvageable. as a piece of legislation. This bill would not do anything to improve the environment or the air quality of New York City.

This bill is a corporate giveaway. Amazon paid $9 million, as we saw in the news this year, because of their incessant idling that hasn't stopped. If we have 561 passed with its provisions about regeneration and processing devices and everything else in that piece legislation that is going to be debunked in the written testimony of this hearing, that is going to cause millions and millions of fines that these corporations should be paying to be gone forever.

Because this is about the air quality. As we heard from Councilmember Aviles, 2,400 kids a year die from air pollution. This is something that we all care about deeply. And I think New York City should be a leader in clean air. We do not need to go You're looking at the ultimate leader in New York City clean air.

I talked about what I did years ago, and I'm still doing, where in one fell swoop I cobbled together a thing that created the equivalent of every car, truck, and bus being taken off the road forever. So I'm not a slouch when it comes to clean air. Mr. Chairman— And I'll, I'll give you your time back. Thank you.

You've been the committee chairman of this committee for 18 years, the Environmental Committee in the greatest city in the world, a leading city. I think that we can be the shining example to the rest of the world about preserving the citizen air complaint program. We can pass Intro 48. We can help environmental justice neighborhoods, the residents there submit the complaints in their own language.

Well, that would be up to the, you know, to the people who are putting in the violations who aren't going to those neighborhoods as much as they go to other neighborhoods. So that's for you to talk about with your, with your other people participating in this good program. Where were the people out in the, you know, communities of color and like the, you know, EJ communities?

This is like a Manhattan and like Brooklyn thing. But anyway, now I'm testifying, and so I don't want to testify. You're here to testify. Thank you for your comments, Mr. Chair. Yeah. I believe the city can lead. The city can expand the program. I don't think we should go back. The truck industry, I very much appreciate that they have been very successful over the years.

They can hire lobbyists to come here and testify on their behalf. I don't think the lobbyists fully understand the technology in these trucks. That's why Intro 561A is so detrimental. It talks about regeneration when they can regenerate while they're driving. All these claims, like I mentioned, will be thoroughly debunked in the written testimony. So I would ask you, Mr.

Chairman, I would ask members of the council, I'd ask the speaker to reconsider. Why are we going back with Intro 561? This would do nothing to help the environment. Well, you know, this is what, you know, this is what reconsideration looks like. You know, reconsideration is a hearing. And so, I mean, I'm not happy with where— this is why we, you know, I felt that after the, you know, last amendments were made, I thought that we could certainly do better, which is why we're here today.

You know, I didn't have to be here. I wanted to be here. I wanted to hear from everyone so that I could make it better. And And, you know, no one wants to make it better more than you. So I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm not going to fight with anybody else. It was just his turn, you know? He looked like he could take it, too. He looks like a nice guy. So I just— yes. Good afternoon. My name is Oren Galchin. I grew up in Oklahoma. I'm the son of a meteorologist. who researched climate change for many years. I'm here to speak against Intro 561A.

Unsalvageable. And what I wonder, coming from Oklahoma, which is the exact opposite, in one of the best and most progressive cities in the world, why are we discussing this bill? A bill clearly sponsored by big corporations, and it's written as a poison pill for Intro 11, because Intro 11, no matter how good or bad or how the fines in won't be enforceable if Intro 561 is passed.

And I would like to address another elephant in the room, something we all know about, that some people are more concerned that the people actually are fighting every day to keep our air clean are making too much money. What do I say to all this? First of all, it's not me, and second of all, I hope more people make even more money fighting for our air.

There is no barrier to entry in our IDLE enforcement. The people most actively involved, seem to be the only ones going on TV, doing town halls, and keeping active social media to alert and try and get other people to join. Would we be saying the same thing if there was a similar way to enforce crime tips? How about tax evasion?

Actually, we have a— actually, we do pay people to enforce that, and I'm sure we all want people to get paid more to enforce that. How about the red light cameras, as someone says, and the speeding cameras? Do they make too much money? Should we end them? These are all successful programs that have survived the test of time.

And let's not forget, with idling enforcement, 30% of the work goes unpaid. I think I heard 40%, since 40% of the tickets aren't even paid. The remainder that does get paid, the city keeps 75% of it. That's more money for schools, parks, and to close our city's deficits. Idling enforcement has become such a successful program because of the incredible appeal of people that are committed to it.

They're up at 6, they go out till midnight, they work weekends, they have jobs. It can be 20 degrees outside, snow, rain, they keep going. One thing I'll add, they're so lucky that they even got their faces and names printed in the New York Post.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Yeah, spirited. I like that. Yeah. Uh, uh, no, we can't— no, we can't do the clap thing. No, it's just the sergeant's old. Yeah, he's supposed to do this. Yes, yes, sir. Yeah, good afternoon. My name is Wan Fang Wu. I oppose all of the bills except for Intro 48, which expands access.

I believe Intro 11 is going to destroy small businesses with unbearable fines. Intro 561 will stop participation. I don't think it's salvageable right now. It It takes the DEP, as we all are aware, one year to issue a ticket, which is bad for everybody. That backlog is finally starting to taper off as more citizens are helping out with the prosecutions by prosecuting themselves.

Because currently, if the DEP takes no action for 45 days, we can prosecute the complaint ourselves. And I issued mine within 30 days. days when DEP gives me the green light. However, 561 stops this in 2 ways. First, it makes it so that if you self-prosecute, the extra $25, it's going to basically disincentivize this. We have to show up for the OATH hearings and participate.

Interesting. And we don't know when OATH is going to call us on the day of the hearing. So that makes it no longer worthwhile. There's also a 30-day term to issue this if you go the self-prosecution route. However, it can take the DEP up to 2 months to process this. They say that they don't have proper printer access for some special forms.

So, 561 removes this pressure release valve that addresses a lot of the problems, such as this big backlog. I also want to comment on Intro 562's transfer of liability. I think that's a big loophole because if we let Amazon and other big companies try to pass this on to their last-mile contractors, those contractors and outfits, they can just ignore the ticket, close up shop, and then like start a new company and just continue idling, whereas Thank you for your time.

Sure. And if I could prevail upon you, Josh, once this— Josh is my legislative director. He's the guy that gave me the candy bar. As if that matters. But yeah, you know, you made a lot of really good points in your testimony. You know, Josh, after this panel is complete, Mr. Wu, right? Yes. Okay. If you could, you know, meet with my legislative director out in the hall and just give him, you know, like a further download on the points that you made, you know, because yours was a very compelling testimony, and I want to make sure we get every drop of nectar sort of out of it.

And so, and Josh, you got a notebook or whatever? Are you gonna type? Whatever, you guys will figure it out. But so just, you guys set up shop in the hallway, there are desks out there, and just, you know, whatever. Just want to make sure we have, you know, everything that you said, like, really enshrined. And so thank you.

Yes.

Hello. Hello, my name is Gregory Gonzalez. And I'm here in opposition of 561A. Intro 561A aims to diminish and destroy the Citizens Air Complaint Program, which has been one of New Yorkers' most effective tools in combating unnecessary truck and bus idling. 561A hinders the DEP's ability to pursue air complaints and reduces incentives for citizens to take part in the air complaint program at a time when I believe we really need more participation.

For me, a concerning part of 561A is that it opens a loophole for diesel vehicles to avoid fines and idle indefinitely. Diesel vehicles are some of the worst polluters in New York City. And I've seen that firsthand. I've driven diesel engine trucks, and I've operated heavy equipment before. I've laid asphalt. I'm not a person who works in a corporate office of a bus company or trucking I know what it's like to have to work next to large diesel vehicles all day.

I know that the exhaust tears up your lungs, and that when you come home at the end of the day, you have a headache and a sore throat. Getting trucks to stop idling is not only good for New Yorkers, but it's especially good for the people who are operating the trucks, the buses, and the heavy equipment that are polluting the air.

Idling is unnecessary and it hurts New Yorkers. I would like to speak on what I have personally observed on the streets of New York. I've watched the Citizens Air Complaint Program work. When you submit complaints through the Citizens Air Complaint Program, companies actually take notice. We are starting to see companies change their fleet vehicles from combustion engines to electric vehicles.

The armored truck companies Ferrari Express, Loomis, Malka, Met, have been some of the worst polluters in Manhattan, especially in the Diamond District. And I would— and I have— I would observe them idling in Midtown for hours in the same spots over and over again, day after day. After receiving complaints, they've begun to change their vehicles to electric vehicles.

There's now a notable difference in the air quality in these— in these areas.

Thank you. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Yes. Hello. Hello. Okay. My name is Louis Paolitano. I've been an active participant of the Citizens Air Complaint Program since April 2022 and have submitted nearly 4,000 complaints. I'm present today to testify against the provisions outlined in Intro 561A. First, the diesel engine regeneration exemption will create a loophole rendering the anti-idling law Hamstrung.

I learned earlier that the problem is the average person and the DEP reviewer has no idea the truck is in regeneration mode. I suppose a solution to that problem would be to have an exterior indicator letting someone outside the truck or someone reviewing the video let them know that the truck's in regeneration mode. Second, the 60-day expiration of pending violations will allow polluters to avoid accountability.

Because the DEP is understaffed and the OATH is understaffed, this deadline will delete tens of thousands of complaints and wipe out millions in city revenue. If you're going to impose a 60-day expiration, you're going to have to hire more people in DEP and OATH. And last, forcing everyday citizens to become legal prosecutors to defend clear video evidence will create barriers for low-income environmental justice neighborhoods.

I live and reside in Southeastern Queens, which is home to several environmental justice neighborhoods. I actually operate in Jamaica, just south adjacent to your district. Right. South of Hillside, down Liberty to 110th Street to 180th Street. If this passes, it's going to make my job very difficult to then do a lot of the work I've done. I've made impact in many different areas.

I can cite very specific locations where they don't run their engines anymore. If I don't make up— keep up my appearances, right, it's going to reverse. Um, the CACP is successfully curbing pollution and holds polluters accountable at no cost to the taxpayer. Okay, I urge this committee to protect public health and vote no on 561A.

Thank you very much. for your, uh, for your good testimony. And, uh, also you're a local guy too, so I, I appreciate that. Um, and so I thank you very much to this panel. I, I appreciate it. Uh, it's good going back and forth with you. I'm not gonna do that again, but, you know, but yeah, yeah, it's, uh, I sense that.

And so, uh— 15 years of protectors. Oh, thank you, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And Mr. Wu, you're going to meet with Josh, and that'll be great. And I'm going to call the next panel. They can, you know, get themselves together, and then I'm going to have to take another, you know, 2-minute break for me. Irina Goman, Larry G.

Lee, Grant looks like Bram, I think. Peter O'Hara. Duke Lee. D-U-C first name, last name L-E. Okay. Just get comfy and I'll be right back. Okay, sorry about that. Thank you. Did it get colder in here? Yes. It did, right? We have a yes and a no on that. Oh, it's freezing, yeah. Sergeants, did they just turn up the air conditioner or something?

I'm getting cold. What's that? Less people. Well, get more people. No, can you adjust the thermostat or whatever? Okay, yeah, because I'm old, I'm cold. Okay, okay, yeah, I'm not the only one. Okay, okay, which way did I start last time? Okay, we're going to start this way and go that way. Oh, you got to get the microphone.

Is the light on? Testing, 1, 2, 3. Yep, I think we're good.

Good afternoon, council members. I want to thank each one of you for everything that you guys do for New York City, both Seen and unseen. Okay. Each one of you have my deepest respect. As a lifelong New Yorker, I am here today to urge you to reject Intro 561A. This bill does not fix, reform, or improve the program.

Instead, it will dismantle it. It provides truck owners with loopholes that will allow them to idle with impunity. I want to focus on 2 specific items. First, diesel regeneration. Unfortunately, diesel regeneration cannot be seen, not by the person filming it, not by the DEP inspector, and not by the hearing officer. The moment this bill passes, every diesel truck, every bus driver in New York will have a permanent An unverifiable excuse to idle.

Every idling ticket becomes unprovable. Second, the 60-day clock. DEP has 60 days to make it happen, or else they could walk away from the complaint. This deadline is not ambition. It will prove to be impossible and untenable. With this bill, tens and thousands of valid complaints filed in good faith will be expired unreviewed. The 60-day clock does not speed up enforcement; it guarantees that nearly every complaint expires unresolved, and violators will walk away scot-free.

And finally, I want to speak directly to the main sponsor of. this bill, Chairman Gennaro. Your record is not in question here. It is this reason that this moment matters. Continue. You've authored 50 laws to protect citizens of this great city. You wrote Tobacco 21, raising the age of the tobacco e-cig buyers. New England Journal of Medicine said this saved countless lives.

You accomplished this by standing up to a powerful industry, an industry that insisted that life as usual and that the status quo was okay. At the end of the day, you were right and they were wrong. What we ask in terms— excuse me— in terms of this program This is the first tool that truly held the biggest polluters accountable.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are asking you to do it again. Don't cave in to big corporations, the trucking companies, the lobbyists, and their respective unions. We ask you to stay the course. Do what's right, as you have done before. Withdraw this bill and save lives again. Thank you.

Oh, thank you very much. I, I, I, I do appreciate that. I just need a— I, I know we have to move it along, but, but you mentioned Tobacco 21. I started Tobacco 21 in 2000— Mm-hmm. And it took us, uh, 8 years to get it done. Uh, by 2013, when I was term-limited out the first time, right at the end, we, we got it in and we got it passed.

Um, and the reason why it took 8 years to, uh, get it passed, because it was adamantly opposed. Raising the age to buy cigarettes It was adamantly opposed by the American Lung Association and the American Cancer Society. They testified vehemently against it, saying that raising the age would make tobacco more taboo and therefore more alluring for people to have because it was like forbidden.

'Cause no one else had done it, so we had no data to work off. And so I worked with those organizations and no one would go for it because like, you know, these big health entities were against the bill. And I said, look, well, let's just try it for like a year or 2 and then if the data comes back bad and smoking goes up, we'll sunset the bill, you know.

And they didn't even want to go for that. And so, and then so we, you know, we got it passed over their opposition. And then like the data started like pouring in, you know, teen smoking rates plummeted. And then every jurisdiction in the country went to school on us on that it really was a good idea to do that.

In 2000— no, 2020 it became— passed in 2013, became national policy, you know, federal policy in 2020. And the only shame is that the fact that had we done it 8 years earlier, so many more lives would have been saved. Yale recently did a study saying that over the next X number of years, it would save like another 500,000 lives.

And so that was a good bill. If I may, just one sentence. Yeah, sure. Diesel fumes are the tobacco of New York City streets today. Profound, profound. So, uh, thank you for that. Let me just have a sidebar with counsel for a second before I go to the next witness. I just—that's why I have a counsel. Sometimes I have to be counseled, you know.

So thank you. Please, next witness.

Good afternoon. My name is Irina Gorman, and I live with my children uptown. I'm here because I know firsthand how the Citizen Air Complaint Program is making the air quality better in Upper. Manhattan. My family and I noticed that fewer trucks and buses idle than they used to. We cannot go backwards on clean air in the city.

We have come too far. Unfortunately, if this package of bills passes, I fear that New York's air will get dirtier. I'm especially troubled by Intro 561A. Thank you. This bill will prohibit the DEP from issuing violations more than days after a citizen complaint is submitted, and it gives New Yorkers who are full-time workers, full-time caregivers, or disabled only 14 days to file a complaint.

This is a terrible idea. Imagine if building owners could create unsafe fire or ventilation situations, and then the DOB was barred from issuing citations if they found out too late, even if they had Bulletproof video evidence. Allow me to speak about Intro 48. As you may be able to tell, English is not my first language. I am fortunate to be extremely comfortable in English, but many New Yorkers who were born abroad are not.

Intro 48 corrects the unfair policy that kept those New Yorkers from having full access to the air complaint program. These New Yorkers will now. will not be able to report idling trucks and buses, drywall dust, and some other construction violations. Language access is a necessary step in improving the air complaint program. The rest of this bill will make this program more confusing and out of reach for everyday New Yorkers.

The program should be fairer and more efficient. Let's be clear, the council cannot pass Intro 561A, which will make pollution worse in this city. The chair talked about the balance, but you can't have a balance that includes more dirty air. Just the last note that I think that nothing changes behavior quite as effectively as a fine that hits your wallet.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Yes, sir. Oh, by the way, hey, hang on. So these alarms that have been going off, See, my phone can't ring, but alarms will go off, so I have to— and it went off twice. I'm supposed to take a pill. It's a sublingual pill. Pill, anyone? No? Okay. You good? Yes, sir.

Good. I don't know, maybe they want one. Let me make sure my timer is off. Hang on. Because I don't know if I shut it off last time. I did something, but it might ring again. I don't really know where the damn— Oh, come on. Here we go. Nope. It's off. I apologize. Please.

Thank you. Good afternoon, all. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on Intros 561A, 11, and general oversight. My name is Grant, and I'm a citizen complainant. Um, a few of the specific concerns. One is, um, around the 60 days, which I think has been brought up before, but DEP is currently well beyond the 60-day timeline and is almost up to a year.

And so I think the bill as written currently, um, could be construed to wind up throwing out a bunch of complaints from the past year or more. Um, I think that the goal of, as has been discussed in the hearing previously, of speeding up processing and issuing notices of violation in a more timely manner is noble, but, and is well-intentioned, but that forcing a timeline on DEP and forcing them to toss complaints if that timeline is not hit, I think would need some type of continuity.

Like, how do we get from our current backlog to that steady state. One other comment I'll provide is around the definition of the processing device, which has gotten a lot of discussion around certain vehicles needing to run the engine as to dispense fuel or compact or whatnot, which is that the definition as is written right now is fairly expansive. expansive and contemplates these various situations where if the vehicle is using a mechanical connection to perform work, that is allowed.

And I think Oath and Oath Appeals has considered these situations. I think one concern around broadening the definition to include electrical equipment that's necessary for work is that it's very broad and could mean almost anything. Like if someone is charging their phone to get a text from their boss, well, their boss is a necessary part of their work, their phone's a necessary part of their work.

So I think you could see complaints or summonses dismissed for that reason, which I think is probably not intended. Just finish your thought. I think that's it.

I think that's probably not what the committee is intending to do is You know, allow Eileen to charge people's phones. And, and, uh, um, here's what I'm gonna do. Well, let me just talk to the counsel of the committee first, because she's the one that's gonna have to do it. Okay. I'm going to do this. Many people have testified that once the 60-day window at DEP is up, like all these violations get thrown out.

You know, that is an interpretation of that section, but that is not the intent of the section. And so, we'll be more clear that that is not going to be the manifestation of that section. So, I just wanted to, you know, put that on the record, that while people are interpreting it that way, that's not the intent.

And the way— and But it's helpful to hear from people who are— who have that interpretation. That only, you know, makes it clear to me that that has to be made more clear, that that is not going to be the result of that section. And, you know, a lot of things are gonna get changed. And so— So I just— I would have liked it better if she had done that, you know what I mean?

But she's not supposed to, so it's just like, I had to do it, you know? So anyway, but there you have it. So, you know, just the fact that so many people are interpreting it that way makes it, you know, all the more clear that it has to be clarified so that's not what people take away from it.

That wasn't bad. I did it. Okay. I did it. Yes, sir.

Good afternoon. My name is Duke. I moved to New York a few years ago, and I personally witnessed the success of the Citizen Air Complaint Program. The program empowers everyday New Yorkers to hold major corporations like Amazon, Verizon, and Con Edison accountable for illegal idling, and it gives citizens a voice in protecting our air quality. Unfortunately, Intro 561A threatens this progress.

First, the proposed diesel regeneration exemption could create a loophole that's extremely difficult to verify. Second, the 60-day window you you just mentioned. Thank you. The third one, reducing incentives would discourage participation and weaken enforcement. Instead, we should help DEP process complaints more efficiently, not making citizen enforcement more difficult. I'm also concerned about Intro 11, which would increase idling penalty to as much as $7,500.

While I support strong enforcement against repeat offenders, such penalties could be financially devastating for small businesses and independent contractors. We need strong enforcement, but we also need fairness and proportionality. The real problem is illegal idling, not the citizens who report it. I respectfully urge the council to reconsider both bills and preserve the effectiveness of the citizen air complaint program.

Thanks for your time.

Thank you. Thank you. You've waited a long time to say that, and I appreciate the input. And, you know, it's duly noted and greatly appreciated. So I want to thank this panel very much, and we're going to call the next panel. Next panel looks like Ting Ting, first name Wang, maybe? I'm not sure. Mm-mm. Haxel Rios, with handwriting so crisp it looks like it was typed.

First name P-E-D-E-R, Wessel. Robin Warren. Adam Tomlinson. Okay. All right. Okay. Last— you know what? I started this side last time, but the microphone's already there, so just start in this way and we'll work that way. All right. Just state your name for the record and proceed. Sure.

Hello, my name is Ting Ting Wong. I am a resident of Bed-Stuy and a former participant in the Air Complaint Program. Thank you, Chairman Gennaro, for your considerable patience and attention today. Hey, this is— I get paid to be here. You don't, you know? Yeah. But still, we— I mean, I really appreciate you taking the time. to hear everyone's testimony and your dedication to protecting clean air.

Thank you. I first learned about the air complaint program when I was a substitute teacher in New York City public schools. Students spend a lot of time outdoors, and the difference in air quality on a playground is noticeable when a large truck, especially one that is idling, is nearby. More than 15 years ago, the City Council wisely restricted idling near schools to 1 minute.

The council specifically cited school buses whose emissions are especially harmful because of exemptions under New York State law dating back to the 1990s. Unfortunately, Intro 561A would effectively exempt school buses from enforcement in many circumstances on the grounds that they need to run their engines to maintain heating or cooling for the very students whose health they are putting at risk.

Second. DEP standards for evidence are already demanding, and in practice they are much stricter than the law itself. Videos submitted by first-time participants are often rejected, as are submissions from experienced participants when there is any doubt or deficiency. This happened to me, and it's why I don't really participate in the program anymore. DEP provides little guidance, and I was fortunate that other participants volunteered their Time to help me get over the learning curve.

Enforcement in one neighborhood also helps discourage idling in others. DEP needs more resources to work through its backlog of complaints. Respondents should receive summonses more quickly, or at least receive warning notices with links to the videos in question. This is only fair. We have already heard several proposals for accomplishing this without changing the law. Um, I urge council to reject 561A and focus on improving the program for more participation.

Thank you very much. We appreciate you being here and your patience. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. My name is Robin Warren. I am a New York City resident and a mother of 2 school-aged children. I'm here to respectfully urge you to reject Intro 561A. It is deeply exhausting to watch the steady erosion of common-sense protections that keep our communities safe.

Around the country, we are seeing bedrock environmental laws weakened, vital scientific research sidelined, and basic public safety measures scaled back. Today, this council faces a defining choice to replicate that pattern of erosion or to use its power to preserve what keeps us safe. Our family discovered the Citizens' Air Complaint Program through the New York Times out of sheer desperation.

As my husband, a naturalized U.S. citizen from Kolkata, India, and I struggled to manage our young daughter's acute asthma, we know firsthand firsthand that this program works. For decades, anti-idling laws went unenforced. The Citizens' Air Complaint Program changed everything, empowering everyday citizens to hold commercial polluters accountable. The city's own data shows that New York idlers waste over $28 million in fuel every single year.

While commercial fleets make up just 6% of our traffic, they generate over half of our dangerous tailpipe pollution. This program is the only real shield our neighborhoods have. Intro 561A breaks what is working. It creates an unverifiable loophole that lets diesel trucks idle indefinitely. While slapping an unworkable 60-day deadline on a backlogged agency. This opens the door for the city to dismiss 170,000 pending violations and lets commercial polluters off scot-free.

It really doesn't. We've been through that.

Thank you. Thank you. The corporate— No, no, no, your time is, you know, like, your time is completed. Next witness. Thank you for listening, sir. You bet. Can I take this, please? Yes. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, committee counsel, thank you for the time this afternoon to discuss this bill. I contest Bill 561A. On my way into work every day, I walk past schools, museums, buildings, parks, Same trucks every day.

Half an hour earlier, same truck. Half an hour later, same truck. High-capacity engines, diesel running. You know, I'm the sort of guy, as you can imagine, I will knock on the window and let them know. And I don't mind the response that I get. They will turn it off, smile. I walk 10 paces on, and they smile and turn it back on.

Or they'll move slightly. just to make sure, nor chastised me. Like, I'm trying to be a representative member of my community, I'm thinking about the children, the elderly, and the vulnerable, and these guys, they just think it's a joke. It's not a joke. So I really appreciate some of the reporting that our community has done, the movements that have happened to press on these people that don't take this environment seriously.

You know, they know exactly what they're doing. They shouldn't be doing it, and they do it anyway. We walked by 2 cars down on the way here that we're doing outside the park here. It's 65 degrees. It's beautiful. Open the window, please. You can smell the exhaust as you walk by. You know, these are children, elderly people, people with health conditions.

They simply want to go about their lives and they can't. They can't have that wonderful environment that we expect for them. I find this especially infuriating because I'm, you know, my wife and I are expecting in February, and I feel it's my obligation to come here and say we need to lean on them harder. And I don't feel the bill really extends the impact.

I think it restricts the impact. But there has been some really good feedback, and thank you so much for your clarification on that we won't be going, you know, we won't be 6 months and chopping off, because I think that should be held. Right. Anyway, I think it's a great program. It should be amplified rather than restricted.

Thank you for your time today and to help us motivate drivers to do the right thing.

Yeah. Well, you know, thank you for being here and, you know, congratulations to you and your wife. Thank you very much. And what's that? Oh, his name is on the paper. Yeah, I got dyslexic handwriting, so that's an F minus. Adam Thomas. No, no, no. What's your name? Adam Thomas. Adam. Adam. Yes, it's Adam. Yeah, there you go.

And if you want to see, you know, SUVs idling, you should go to City Hall parking lot and see all the SUVs for, like, the deputy mayors that are sitting there idling and idling and idling and idling. Wouldn't it be a good choice to amplify the program to include those vehicles? I'm just saying it's something that I encounter.

I think that's a note, an idea. Yeah, I know. I knock on the windows. I knock on the windows. In fact, you do. Yeah, if it's not a cop. If it's a cop, then I'm not going to knock on the window. And, but, uh, uh, thank you so much for, for, for being here today. Sir. Thank you.

My name is Peter Wessel. Thank you for your time. Uh, thank everyone here for being patient. I had planned a different testimony, but, uh, I want to react to some of the things I've heard over the last 4 hours at this point. I keep hearing that we're saying status quo is not going to work. And someone was asking before, well, what is broken?

And the response back was something along the lines of, we ask the questions. I don't know what's broken. Clearly, there's too much idling happening. I think we can all agree to that. I heard when I listened to the respondents from the trucking and the busing industry, they clearly want to have notifications much faster. I couldn't agree anymore.

And I think there's opportunities to improve that. I don't think DEP is here today, but maybe the feedback can be provided. I work in tech, and at least to my knowledge, there are other agencies in the city already taking proactive action to notify participants of programs if something is wrong. I've seen that they do it in the housing, that like if something has been complained about a housing lord, you can get a notification before they do an audit on it.

I think all the information is needed for DEP to give fast, rapid, accurate information to a respondent is in the claim that's been made by a citizen. You have the truck, you have the license plate, you have the point of where it's been observed, you have the time, the video files are there, you can go to the portal, you can click it in.

I get that's hard for a respondent to do. All that information is there. You could send an auto message out to those who've opted in to say, hey, do you want an e-notification? We'll send you an email, maybe an SMS, whatever you want to do. You can get an opted-in message that's like on the day Someone here was wearing a mask saying delivery on the day, RDS.

This would be the same thing. You get your message delivered on the day, no reminder needed. Here's the information. If you haven't opted in, I could imagine a world where we say we don't know your email, we don't know your phone number, but we have your address because it's on your truck. Send them a message in the mail.

Hey, we received this information. If you want to know more, go in. Then the timeline is gone. It's no longer a year and a half until I found out. You can take the cure. I actually think, frankly speaking, with the information at hand, if you just look at the amount of tickets that are happening, if you're an operator of a fleet, just ask your staff always to turn the engine off when they get to the destination.

You'll have nothing in the mail, no SMSs coming. I thank you for your time.

Thank you. Yeah, based on what I've heard today, I think that we certainly need more tech in the ultimate outcome of what happens here. And, you know, this whole thing is like very analog. And so, you know, tech is required. You know, I wish I could wave a magic wand and give DEP more staff. I can't do that.

You know, the mayor sets the staffing level for DEP. And, you know, it's just— and I was saying the fact that, you know, some of the testimony is repetitive. You know, everyone has their own like little slant on it that, you know, gives me better insight into which way we should go. And this panel was very good in that regard, and I appreciate you being here and your patience in waiting to testify.

Thank you all very much. Thank you. Okay. Adam? I'm just saying James is a good name. You know, just you know. Oh, okay.

I I uh yeah I I yeah okay um um Aaron Jacobs is the next panel Jonathan um um Robidoux Robidoux. Eric Eisenberg. Seth Eisenberg. Josh Bisker. With very brash handwriting. Nice looking. Thank you. Yeah. You know? Check it out. Don't you think? Yeah, it's nice. Like a flourish to it, you know? What? Okay. All right, so we're gonna, um, yeah, we're gonna, uh, uh, start on Josh's side over here.

Hello, thank you for being here. I'm dedicating my testimony to my beloved neighbor, Miss Pam Bino, who is permanently disabled from the asthma that she developed after moving here from Barbados. My name is Josh Bisker. I'm a former delivery driver along longtime participant in the Citizens' Air Complaint Program and a born New Yorker who has had asthma since childhood.

I have the expertise to comment on today's bills, and their stakes are deeply personal. Intro 561A will effectively destroy the Citizens' Air Complaint Program. It will protect corporate polluters with legal loopholes, hamper city agencies from holding them accountable, disincentivize public participation, and possibly retroactively void a vast number of outstanding I studied behavioral economics. Yeah, we did the void complaints thing.

I know, I know, I know. I'm sticking to my— Okay. I studied behavioral economics in urban planning at Hunter College. So I understand that the current air complaint program ingeniously pairs up 2 financial incentive mechanisms. Penalties for idling get corporations to stop polluting. Rewards from those penalties get members of the public to contribute complaints. 561A throws a wrench into both mechanisms.

It effectively rewards polluters for having polluted so much that they gummed up the system and punishes citizens for having participated so avidly. The lesson is that more polluting wins more allowances for polluting, yet more participation is a waste of the public's time and effort. 561A encourages polluting and ruptures the public's trust in our government. All future city programs asking the public to participate in oversight will suffer.

Suffer. And in the meantime, the city possibly forfeits tens of millions of dollars in corporate environmental fees. I once felt hopeless about the FedEx trucks that idled on my block every day, spewing out toxic fumes on tourist dupes. Then the idling program empowered me to fight back. I've seen the difference every day for years— better air for my neighborhood, better health for my neighbors, and a chance to sit outside with Miss Pam.

Now, Intro 561 and its Fellows 11, 562, 869 promise to end all of that. Put these bills to bed. I'm really grateful for your interest in ending air pollution by improving the idling program, but I'm here to tell you that only 48 of today's docket will do so. Please kill these bills— this bill and its cousins forever.

Thank you for your compelling testimony. Appreciate it. Thank you. You bet. Next witness. Okay. Yeah, good afternoon. My name is Dr. Seth Eisenberg, and I've spent many years on the front lines working for New York City Department of Health clinics. I'm here today again to voice my strong opposition to Intro 561A, and I also thank the many other doctors such as those of the New York Clinicians for Climate Action who are likewise voicing their strong opposition.

As a medical doctor for over 30 years, I'm concerned about the adverse health effects of idling exhaust, and I really admire how the Citizens Air Complaint Program has been reducing idling. Vehicle idling releases a concentrated mix of toxic pollutants, including fine particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and even volatile organic compounds. Nitrogen oxides and particulate matter severely irritate the airways, causing increased rates of asthma, emphysema, and lung cancer.

The fine particles easily cross into the bloodstream, promoting arterial plaque buildup and directly triggering heart attacks and strokes. Sustained exposure to idling fumes are associated with faster brain aging and increased risks of dementia and Parkinson's disease, as well as depression and anxiety. anxiety. Even exposure during early childhood is linked to brain inflammation with reduced cognitive function, lower memory and IQ scores, and behavioral issues.

Idling air pollution contributes to insulin resistance, increasing the risk of developing diabetes and obesity. Idling fumes lower fertility, even by damaging sperm DNA and reducing ovarian reserves. And in my opinion, worst of all, even in pregnancy, idling exhaust increases the risk of miscarriage and highly problematic premature birth. Now, every big company with trucks in New York City is currently aware of the Citizens' Air Complaint Program, and many are taking action to reduce idling.

For example, as you've heard, Amazon has been the 3rd worst idling violator with over 12,000 tickets. Please summarize. Sure. I started recording idling violations 6 months ago, and not a single one of them is an Amazon vehicle, and I give all the credit to the AIR complaint program. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you for your good work, doctor.

Appreciate that. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Eric Eisenberg, a local attorney. This is not a hard problem. There is no problem, not a legislative one anyway. Anyways, and Intro 561A is unresurrectably, unfixably broken, as explained in detail by dozens of local and national organizations. It can't be fixed with off-the-cuff statements of intent. Its literal, unambiguous language is the problem. The status quo is working extremely well.

DEP just needs more resources to process complaints and process system quickly. The program generates net revenue for the city. There is no net cost to fund it properly and speed up issuance of summons and notice. We have raised this issue at every environmental budget hearing, yet DEP's idling unit still needs more workers. You can do it today, Chairman Gennaro.

I can't. Again, every time— I mean, I can't give DEP more staff. Do you think you and Mamdani are not going to agree that To give them more resources? I don't talk to Mayor Mamdani. And so, you know, directly— He talks with Donald Trump, so— Yeah, I'm just saying, you know, we're the legislature, the executive is the executive.

And when the executive, you know, we have the preliminary budget, then we say we need more DEP workers, and then they do the exec budget. And then it's very hard to get them to put more personnel in. And so we try, but at the end of the day, we negotiate and we get what we get. We don't— we control the legislative side, but the executive side and, you know, preempting mayoral, you know, authority, we just don't have.

And you as an attorney, I'm sure know that. Well, maybe I'm naive, but I believe in you. Okay, thank you. The program itself itself, the citizen air complaint program works brilliantly. It is a false narrative propagated by Eric Adams' corrupt administration that the citizen complaint program is not well geographically targeted. We have charts and maps showing an amazing, near-perfect correlation between where the most pollution is and where the most reported violations occur.

We will provide this data in our written testimony. As to Mr. Zogby's claim, DEP doesn't issue repeat violations until the prior violations have been adjudicated. Any defaults can be easily reopened. There are claims floating around that the engine is necessary to run generators and lift gates and refrigeration units, but generators don't use engine power. They create their own power.

And actually using the engine to run lift gates and refrigeration units already provides an absolute defense. Certified Clean Idle is not clean. Even in California, you can't run those engines near residential areas. Um, and as a board member of the New York Clean Air Collective, I am proud of the standards that those submitting complaints have held themselves to.

Hundreds of thousands of complaints issued, and the current administration did not identify a single instance of misconduct, uh, in their, their paper. Um, there's no problem that needs solving. Um, I think we're in agreement.

I'm gonna ask you to— I mean, I know I took up some of your time, but I think I've— I think— okay. Finish it. I'm on my last paragraph. Okay. I think we are in agreement that the current 561 is unworkable and its recent amendments have only made it worse. Will you commit that should you not do the correct thing and withdraw this harmful bill, that the public get to weigh in on your amendments at a further hearing?

Um, we ask the questions. I don't answer questions. I take testimony. That's it. You, you ask the questions, you kill the New Yorkers. Thank you. Yeah, it's like we don't answer questions. That's— no committee council chair would ever do that. But thank you.

Next witness. Okay. Hi, my name is Jonathan Robidoux. I'm here to to speak against Intro 561A. I have 3 young daughters. My oldest daughter Clementine has asthma. This is one of her albuterol inhalers. As an asthma sufferer yourself, Chair, I'm sure you— Yeah, I got my inhaler with me. She needs this inhaler every day to get through either field hockey practice or dance class.

I can't describe how horrified and helpless it makes you feel to have your child tell you that they can't breathe or that it hurts to breathe. An estimated 60,000 children attending New York City public schools have active asthma that may require an inhaler. You wouldn't believe how hard it was to get Aetna to cover this thing. I spent a lot of time on the phone with them to get this covered.

That means there are over 100,000 parents in the city today worrying about how their child is going to breathe and how they are going to pay for it. Every day in the city, I find trucks idling in excess of 3 minutes for no reason, and I report them. Everybody knows that vehicle emissions contribute to childhood asthma. These trucks are choking our children with their fumes, and the Citizens Idling Complaint Program gives us a way to fight back and make a positive difference.

Intro 561-A will take that away and tell all those parents that they and their children don't matter. It cynically discourages and punishes participation in the idling program. just as Intro 48 hopes to foster it. Intro 48 would help expand the program to environmental justice communities. In my view, for these reasons, and because of the various loopholes 561 creates, I believe that it is unsalvageable.

I just wanted to also make clear that, like he said too, nobody is getting, like, a repeat offense before a first offense is adjudicated. That's not actually— True. So, you know, if you have a situation where, you know, the person, like, you know, the violation happens, and then the thing gets sent to the wrong address, and then it's sort of like a default thing, the person then doesn't show up.

I guess what I mean is, if I'm— I'm just saying that there are, you know, there are occasions where that does happen. And they can reopen it and, you know, readjudicate it. But I just wanted to make really just clear, like, if I went out there now and I got the same truck, like, 3 times before on my way to the subway, right, like, was moving down the block, when DEP would issue— got around to those, issued those 3 summons from today, they would all be first offenses.

It would not be like 1, 2, 3, right? I just wanted to— No, that's a fair point. Yeah, fair point for sure. If you don't mind, can I share something with you that my own daughter that has asthma or whatever, she had difficulty. I have one, so I have the ability to take the big breath or whatever.

But you know these little tube things that you— Yeah. And so then they can just draw it in slowly and it's a lot easier for kids to do that. I know. It doesn't cost a lot of money. She gets it on her tongue. You know what I mean? You get— it's this little— yeah, you hook that thing into the tube.

Yeah. And then she's at the other end of it. Yeah. And then she just kind of like breathe normally, and you get like, you know, it goes like deep into the lungs. Because if she just— she's just gonna get it like up here. I know, she's still like kind of getting used to it. Right, right. I would recommend this tube thing, you know.

And so any pulmonologist would know that. Thank you. I appreciate it. No, yeah, it worked a lot. You know, it worked really well for my daughter. Hope you don't mind. I just thought I'd mention it. Of course. Thank you.

Please. I'm a teacher. I don't have to be that loud, but I'll use the mic. Good afternoon. My name is Aaron Jacobs. I've been a New York City public school teacher for the past 16 years, and I live in Manhattan. I teach 9th grade in the Bronx near Fordham. My school's neighborhood is hit very hard by heavy traffic all the time, and a huge number of my students suffer with asthma, and they're They miss school a lot throughout the year because of that.

My classroom sits on the 2nd floor, right on the front lines. Too often, my students smell toxic exhaust in the room, and on these hot days, we're stuck between sweating or breathing in fumes with the windows open. Air pollution, as you know, kills over 3,200 New Yorkers every year. For 50 years, city agencies failed to enforce anti-idling laws.

The Citizen Air Complaint Program is the only something that finally worked. I know it works because where I live, uh, on 36th between 5th and Madison, there is way less idlers than there were 3 years ago when I started doing this. It's difficult to find them at this point, to be honest. It used to be like all the time.

Good. Yeah, it's great. It actually works. Um, so the program is doing its job. I testified today in strong opposition to Intro 561A, uh, sponsored by Councilmember Gennaro, which relates to regulating engine idling in citizen complaint enforcement. This intro threatens to wipe out all of our progress and give a massive free pass to corporate polluters. Intro 561A legalizes diesel regeneration idling, a dirty practice that DEP and OATH have already ruled is illegal and unnecessary.

It also cuts pay for everyday New Yorkers doing enforcement work, replacing the 50-year-old 25% award with a flat fee, which honestly kind of kills a lot of the incentive for some people, I would think. It squeezes everyday people reporting pollution the same way delivery apps squeeze gig workers. In my 16 years of teaching, I have always taught my students to question everything.

So I ask the council today, who actually benefits from Intro 561A? It's definitely not my students. So the problem is pollution, not the people reporting it. Please reject Intro 561A and instead pass Intro 48. Second. sponsored by Councilmember Aviles, which translates the Citizen Air Complaint Program into designated citywide languages. Intro 48 opens up the program to non-English speakers so every New Yorker can help clean air.

Thank you.

Uh, thank you all. This was good. And so I really appreciate everyone's input. And, um, you know, and we go forward from here. And I'm a different guy from when I started this hearing. So thank you for all the input. Appreciate that. Thank you as well. Next panel. Okay. All right. Yeah, this is the last in-person panel that I'm going to call now.

What's that? Oh, oh, that was— that was it? Okay. And so, you know, we're going to go to remote, you know, Zoom Testimony or whatever, but if there's anyone— isn't that formal language for me to say? I can just say it in my own words. Okay. Yeah, so if anyone here, you know, present, um, wants to testify before we go to, um, remote testimony, then, you know, now would be the time to come forward, talk to the sergeant indicating, you know, that you want to testify.

Um, Seeing none, we're going to move over to— oh, okay. Now she's giving me what I have to say. We will now turn to remote testimony. Once your name is called, meaning the people remote, a member of our staff will unmute you and the sergeant-at-arms will give you the go-ahead to begin. Please wait for the sergeant to announce that you may begin before delivering your testimony.

If you don't do that, the first part of your testimony is going to be muted. And so, um, that's it. And so now we're gonna start, and I guess I have to call the witnesses, right? Okay. Um, Alia Somro. Oh, from LCV, of course. Alia, where are you? Oh. Who says please commence? Me, right? May begin. Maybe Aliyah is not there.

We can always come back to her.

Oh, okay. Can y'all hear me now? Yes, yes. Thanks. Good afternoon. My name is Aliyah Sumro, and I'm the Deputy Director for Near New York City policy at the New York League of Conservation Voters. Thank you, Chair Gennaro, and members of the committee for the opportunity to testify today. We're submitting longer written comments. So every day, thousands of drivers idle their trucks and cars, harming public health and increasing greenhouse gas emissions.

Vehicle idling has detrimental cumulative health impacts, especially on environmental justice neighborhoods throughout the city, given the fact that many of these neighborhoods are located near peaker plants, highways, Last mile warehouses and other industrial facilities. The Citizens Air Complaint Program can be a useful tool to combat vehicle idling and improve air quality. To improve the program so that the benefits are shared equitably, NYLCV recommends that the submittal process and the interface are more accessible and user-friendly.

More resources are devoted to DEP and OATH for staffing to process these complaints. In a more efficient manner, and the city ramp up enforcement and collections of idling infractions. Additionally, we underscore the importance of working towards comprehensive solutions beyond this program, including but not limited to rolling out more neighborhood delivery and loading zones to avoid double and triple parking, utilizing more electric cargo delivery bikes, implementing marine freight delivery such as the Blue Highways program, And electrifying our school bus fleet.

The City Council passed a law several years ago, and we really need to ensure that law is implemented. And YLCV has the following thoughts on the bills being heard today. We support the passage of Intro 48 to make the program more accessible and equitable. We also support Intro 11A, and we urge the city to increase idling enforcement and accountability.

And with that said, We don't think that Intro 561A is in the right place. For instance, we think that allowing school buses to idle for up to 30 minutes is not right. It's a little excessive. Time has expired. Yeah, we'd be happy to work with the council and other stakeholders to improve the program and get it in the right place.

Thank you, Alia, as always. Talk soon. Right. Bye-bye.

Michael McFadden. You may begin. We're gonna jump down one. Nandini Ashta Kanesha. You may begin. Yeah.

Good afternoon, Chair Gennaro and members of the committee. My name is Nandini Kanheja. I'm a first-year engineering student at Purdue University and a former research intern at CUNY's Advanced Science Research Center Community Sensor Lab. I grew up in Queens and Long Island, and where ice cream trucks parked outside parks for hours with their engines running, and I was glad to hear an earlier witness describe raising a family in Eastern Queens with ice cream trucks idling nearby.

This summer, I took preliminary measurements of air quality at a young child's breathing height beside operating ice cream trucks. Over 7 visits in Manhattan, my portable sensor tracked volatile organic compounds. At every visit, the highest reading was 24 to 183% above the visit's typical reading. Neighborhood averages smooth out spikes this short, but a child at the serving window breathes them.

I share the goal of Intro 11, but higher penalties alone concern me. 3 violations in 3 years could cost a vendor $5,000 to $12,000, about the cost of converting a light load truck, one that would have about 16 kilowatt-hours of power required, and the truck would still run on that fuel. Intro 561 recognizes battery power as a possible remedy through its cure option, but it also writes the processing device exemption that's existed in many other bills of this nature into this code.

So many ice cream trucks may never be cited at all. I estimate that converting one truck avoids about $1,000 to $30,000 a year in health damages, and under a load-tiered rebate, vendors recover their share in 3 to 6.5 years. As part of today's oversight, I ask the committee to ask DEP how many citizen idling complaints involve ice cream trucks.

When the committee takes up Intro 635, please amend it to fund compliance and support a 25-truck pilot that measures air quality where children breathe. I will follow up with written testimony and some supporting calculations. Thank you, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you so much. That was very, very concise and compelling testimony. I appreciate it. You know, we know that you're available for follow-up, and we appreciate that. Thank you very much for your testimony. Thank you. Okay, next witness is Hunter Severini. You may begin.

Greetings, my name is Hunter Severini, and I'm here to express my strong support for Intros 11 and 48, as well as my strongest possible objections to Intros 561, 562, and 869. The need for Intro 11 is obvious because there's still far too much vehicle idling throughout the city under the current penalties, making it clear that they need to be increased.

Intro 48 is equally necessary. More than 20% of the city's population is foreign-born, and requiring the DEP to provide translation on its website would undoubtedly improve public participation, particularly outer boroughs, which remain unrepresented— underrepresented in idling complaints. Website translation is also relatively straightforward to implement these days, making it difficult to argue that this would impose an unreasonable burden on the DEP.

Intros 561, 562, and 869, on the other hand, appear to offer virtually no meaningful public benefits. Intro 562 would likely reduce the rate of payment by transferring liability from rental companies, which consistently pay their violations, to their customers, who may be much more likely to ignore them. The current system works, and an idling ticket should not be treated differently from a parking ticket simply because some trucking companies would prefer it that way.

Intro 869 is another unnecessary bill because citizen noise complaints have largely ceased to be a significant issue. While a code of conduct raises serious constitutional concerns if it restricts the protected speech of citizens. By far the worst bill is Intro 561, and I believe it should be completely discarded. Its apparent objectives are to reduce the DP's workload, create opportunities for unscrupulous lawyers to exploit loopholes in the city's air protection laws, and make it easier for commercial vehicles to pollute without facing consequences.

Despite being introduced by Chairman Gennaro, document metadata indicates that the bill was authored by Lisa Alley. a lawyer at the DEP. The DEP's job is to enforce the law, not weaken it through legislation. And I find the circumstances surrounding Intro 561 deeply concerning. The agency's apparent involvement in drafting legislation that could undermine its own enforcement responsibilities warrants serious scrutiny.

Unlike other enforcement agencies, the DEP still does not maintain a database of prior offenses searchable by— Your time has expired. May I continue a little longer, or is that enough? Thank you for your testimony. Okay, thank you.

Next witness is Douglas Anderson. Good morning, or good afternoon I should say. Seems like morning since we started so early. I am Doug Anderson, President of Anderson Coach and Travel in Greenville, Pennsylvania, and past Chairman of the American Bus Association, and I want to oppose number 11 and support 561. Motor coaches are part of the solution, not the problem.

One motor coach gets dozens of cars, less traffic, fewer emissions, and less parking demand. Federal safety rules often require idling for air brakes, accessibility lifts, passenger climates, and no driver should have to choose between city fines and federal safety Passenger safety and comfort is paramount in the charter bus industry. The fine and compliant process is unreasonable. As you've heard earlier, the time between getting fines or getting occurrences and actually getting notification of the occurrences sometimes is up to 2 years.

We suggest— I suggest allocating a portion of the fine money to the DEP for staffing so that they could be much more efficient on this. the economic impact of diminished motorcoach tour into the New York City limits. We donate $12.7 billion in economic impact to the New York City area, 59,200 jobs, and $5.9 billion in visitor spending every year.

We want to be partners. We ask the committee to Hold the introduction number 11 until the compliance process is fixed. Enforce equality on public and private fleets. Write federal safety exemptions clearly into the code and designate legal coach staging and layover spaces. Motor coaches bring people to New York City safely and efficiently. Let's help. Keep doing that.

Time has expired. Thank you, Mr. Anderson. I really appreciate your testimony.

So who am I calling? What's going on here? What do we say? Chris Hartman. Call Chris Hartman. Just say both names. Yeah, okay. I'm calling someone's name and I'm calling another name, but they're both the same. I don't really understand it. So I'm calling Michael McFadden. and Chris Hartman. Maybe it's a thing where one is using the other Zoom address or something.

I don't know. Um, but Michael McFadden, Chris Hartman, happy to hear your good testimony. You may begin. Good afternoon. Uh, I was in chambers waiting to testify but had to leave.

Um, I missed a good portion of the testimony after I left. I am strongly opposed to 561. A, it's, uh, in my opinion, seeking to gut the citizen idling program. I don't want anybody to lose sight of the fact that what we're really just trying to do is to have people turn off their engines when they're not needed.

It's that simple. No one receives a violation if their engine is on for any necessary purpose, which we've heard some of. There's been a lot of misleading testimony about people being given violations, uh, when they had some legitimate reason. That simply does not occur. Uh, I wanted to talk about transfer of liability. Uh, that to me, that's another, um, non-issue.

Red light cameras, speed cameras, and these violations, which to me are the same— they're camera violations documented by camera— all issued Based upon license plate, and that should remain the same. Um, the DEP is really the source of the frustrations from so many people here. They're simply not performing their tasks as they should. And OATH is also falling greatly behind, but the DEP is the real bottleneck.

I've had tremendous frustration as a citizen trying to make things better for all, all of our New Yorkers breathing, and I'm constantly frustrated with the DEP's unwillingness to actually do this task as they, they should, and as they actually required to do. They're now stifling Your time has expired.

Thank you very much for your good testimony. Uh, next witness is Callie Hoyt. You may begin. Callie Hoyt. You may begin. All right, so then I'm present. Let's skip down. Sarah Craig. Sarah Craig. You may begin, Sarah.

Good afternoon. My name is Sarah Craig, and I am a senior attorney with Conservation Law Foundation. Foundation's Clean Air and Water team. I am honored to speak on behalf of CLF and its members in opposing proposed Intro 561A. Conservation Law Foundation is a member-supported nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting New England's environment. CLF has engaged in an anti-idling campaign focused on reducing unnecessary idling and the harmful public health and environmental impacts.

Impacts from vehicle exhaust pollution. As part of that campaign, we have litigated Clean Air Act cases to stop unnecessary idling by several bus companies serving both New England and New York, including Academy Express. CLF's case against Academy went to trial earlier this year in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, and that court found Academy liable for a pattern and practice practice of violating the Massachusetts anti-idling law and the Clean Air Act.

Consistent with the testimony on regeneration we heard earlier today, the court found that the process of stationary regeneration is especially polluting, and employee testimony and evidence produced in our idling cases has also shown that stationary regeneration creates extremely hot exhaust gases, uh, Extremely hot exhaust gases and should be performed away from people. The evidence in our idling cases has consistently shown it is possible for bus companies to perform regeneration while a vehicle is driving, and the court in the Academy case ultimately found that stationary regeneration performed outside of maintenance yards and at random stops along bus routes is neither necessary necessary nor acceptable.

The proposed Bill 561A would effectively create a diesel regeneration exemption that encourages drivers to engage in this harmful and especially polluting activity along— Your time has expired. New York City streets. Thank you for your good testimony. I appreciate it.

Before I call our next witness, can I just see the sergeant for a second? Okay. Next witness, Jason Chernow. You may begin. You may begin.

On behalf of the National Limousine Association, the Chauffeur Transportation Association of New Jersey, my name is Jason Charnow. As I mentioned, we are here in opposition of introduction of number 11. I serve on the board of directors for both the NLA and the Chauffeur Transportation Association of New Jersey. Let me begin by making one thing clear. Motorcoach limousine operators support New Jersey— New York City's clean air goals.

We all have a responsibility to reduce emissions and protect the environment. However, we believe the city must distinguish between unnecessary wasteful idling and legitimate operational needs. We respectfully ask that motorcoach and limousine industry associations also be included in developing policies and enforcement practices that balance emissions reductions with passenger safety and the practical realities of our industry. There are several areas of concern with current enforcement initiatives, the enforcement tactics, and proposed increase in penalties.

As you've heard from others today, passenger safety is a major concern. Many of our passengers who rely on our services are senior citizens, school-aged children. They are also the core population Regulations of our that our companies serve, and they deserve safe, reliable, and comfortable transportation. We have serious concerns about the professional drivers who are caught in the middle also.

They expect to balance passenger safety compliance with idling regulations, company operating policies, vehicle maintenance requirements, the regeneration cycles that are required by modern diesel engines. These responsibilities do not align neatly with the current way the rules are being enforced. Our members consistently report receiving violations when DOP enforcement officers and participants in the citizen error complaint program do not fully understand the circumstances requiring a vehicle to idle.

A vehicle may need to maintain a safe and comfortable interior temperature for its passengers, or a driver may be preparing to load and unload passengers. These circumstances deserve to be considered before a violation is issued. We have heard from member companies that they instruct drivers— Your time has expired. Thank you, Chairman and Board. I will submit my testimony via email as well.

Thank you so much. I appreciate that. Next witness, Mario DeRocha Jr. Oh, DeRocha. I don't know. You may begin. Okay. Next witness is Anthony Griffith. You may begin.

Um, good afternoon, Chairman and the council. My name is Anthony Griffith. I am a transportation consultant, and I've been a bus operator for over 40 years. The thing that no one is talking about is the zero idling law, which does not allow any idling at all, which makes it impossible for you to safely operate your vehicle. There is just no way around it.

We need to build up air pressure. We need to do a lot of things for passenger safety that's not being taken into consideration. I've fought many of these idling tickets at court, and they do not care about passenger safety. It's not built into their As they say, it's not part of what the law talks about. As a bus operator and a trainer, I've trained over 5,000 bus operators, and one of the main things that I do is make sure that they follow federal, state, and 19A laws that make sure that they take care of the things that they need to do before attempting to move their vehicle.

Vehicles will not move with low air. So there are a lot of things that are not being taken into consideration when you go to the idling court, and the citizens have no clue. And one of the things— I'm going to say this real quick— one of the things I'm offering is to put city council members, DEP members, OATH staff, and any other person that wants to understand truly what it takes to operate a vehicle— I will bring a vehicle and myself as a qualified driver to personally educate you on what it's going to take.

Thank you. Uh, uh, thank you. And, uh, do we have, um, uh, can we have this witness's information that we could reach out to? And we— I also sent you— I sent you the written testimony and— Oh, good. I sent all of that information and, uh, Yes. Okay, thank you so much. I appreciate it. You're welcome.

Okay, uh, next witness is Jack Kaufman. You may begin. Okay, appears to be not present. Okay, next witness is Christopher Gower-Eckey. You may begin. Good afternoon, Chair Gennaro. Nice.

Thank you for taking the time. This has been a long meeting. I've already sent in my written testimony. So after sitting through this hearing today, let me just briefly say we support Intro 561A. We support Intro 562. We're completely against Intro 11A until this program is straightened out. I'm in the trucking industry. We operate around 2,000 trucks in the metro area.

We do not operate those trucks except for 12 service trucks. Mm-hmm. We need Intro 562, and I've attended probably hundreds of oath hearings. Here's the big problem here. These complaints that are written by the citizen generally are written to the correct offender. The name is on the truck with the DOT number. However, the DEP kicks it to HUB.

So then we have to identify the customer and Get it to the customer. We cannot just bill them because this is not a red light camera ticket. This is intended for the lessee, which is a 7— 6 to 7-year term for them to handle. If they pay it, they pay it. If they do the hearing or they miss the hearing, then we have to extend it even longer because it goes into default.

As for Intro 561A, all I hear about is DPF regeneration. DEPF regeneration. Chairman Gennaro, I've been in this business for 30 years. You have my information. I'll show you how it works when it works, but I'll tell you right now, leave it out of the bill. It doesn't affect us either way. It's not going to be a defense we're going to use.

We're looking for due process. I have 3 violations on my desk right here that happened in July of 2025. And the hearing is middle of November. So 60 days— Your time's expired. —is not an issue. Well, thank you. And we do hear you on that. And so we appreciate you staying with us long enough to give us the benefit of your views.

They certainly will be— thoughtfully considered, and we appreciate you bringing them to us. Thank you so much.

Next witness is Brian Mancuso, or Mancuso, Brian Mancuso. You may begin. Okay. Not present right now. Uh, Bertha Bauer, next witness. You may begin. You may begin. I don't think she's present. Okay. Oh. Next witness, Oliver Graff. Is it the Oliver Graff that I know? You may begin. Someone used to work at the council named Oliver Graff.

I don't know if it's him. The next witness, James, the only name given, from Teamsters Local 817. You may begin. Not present. Next witness. Patrick Kane. You may begin. Fullington Auto.

Good afternoon. Thank you for your time today. My name is Patrick Kane. I'm the senior safety director for Fullington Bus Company. I just wanted to point out a few things. We are in opposition of 11A as the operator of a commercial motor vehicle fleet servicing tourism as well as inner city commuters. This code poses yet another burden on a high— already highly regulated industry.

From a driver standpoint, we've seen additional stresses. Driving a large commercial vehicle in congested city environments can be a very stressful undertaking. Drivers now report additional stress created by needing to watch the clock. Drivers also expressed the feeling of needing to rush the passenger loading, unloading, and baggage handling processes. We would also like to point out that the typical time needed to safely operate an ADA lift and secure a wheelchair is between 10 to 15 minutes.

The vehicle must be running for that process to take place. Secondly, we've seen an increase in passenger complaints regarding cabin temperatures. With the heat of summer, and as you know, we are now working into the winter season, In order for the operator to use the HVAC system, the engine must be running, and this will also affect the heating system, including the windshield defrosters.

Lastly, there is additional operating cost with fuel, tolls, licensing, insurances, permits, maintenance costs continuing to rise. They're always already very thin margins with our additional 6 $6,000 in idling fines, yet the unknown costs in the 12 to 18 month citation processing times, these routes may simply become economically not viable. Should the route become non-viable, this code will have exactly the opposite effect as intended.

A single motorcoach has the potential to eliminate between 50, 50+ vehicles from the traffic generated into the city every day. Your time has expired. Thank you for your time. Yeah, uh, thank you very much, Patrick.

Next witness is Anne Diebel. You may begin. Uh, hello, good afternoon. My name is Anne Diebel and I'm a private investigator in Brooklyn. I'm opposed to 561A. I've filed fewer than half a dozen complaints through the citizen complaint program. Although I have experience in using public records, gathering evidence, and so on, I still found the program difficult and confusing, so I decided to leave the complaints to others.

But I have followed the program since then and have noticed its effects where I live. When I used to walk with my daughter next to the local elementary school, PS 307, there were lines of dump trucks for days on end, on the entire time, for work on the Con Ed substation and the Navy Yard and for local condo excavation.

These days, if you so much as point a phone at them, they'll shut off. And in fact, I've noticed they've turned— they're often turned off from the get-go, even when the weather is bad. The drivers in the same line now dress for the weather and use the site flaggers and WhatsApp groups to call up the trucks one by one instead of inching forward.

This is clearly the direct impact of the program, not just better air, but better operational efficiency. It sounds like the program's biggest problem for all parties is processing time. Other cities like San Bernardino and Reno, as well as departments within NYC like Landmarks Preservation and HPD, rapidly send respondents warnings without asserting that an actual violation has occurred.

There's no reason DEP can't be set up the same way. Thank you. Thank you very much for your for your good testimony.

Okay, next witness, Brian Gatins looks like. Brian Gatins, you may begin. Okay, not present. Who do we have next? Molly Stark Ragsdale. You may begin. Okay, next witness, Courtney Villani. You may begin. Present. Thomas Bailey. Thomas Bailey. Thomas Bailey. You may begin.

Good afternoon. Thank you, Chairman Gennaro. Appreciate you holding this hearing and taking the time to really hear our views. I was born in New York City. And I currently live in Midtown East. I'm here to express my concerns with 561. My support for the Citizens Air Complaint Program comes down to quality of life and keeping New York City a great place to live.

I have great respect for truckers and utility workers and understand that driving in New York is not easy, let alone a large truck. I also understand these guys are trying to run a business. But too often I see giant trucks idling while workers are simply eating a pizza or on their phones while in the truck during a perfectly nice sunny day.

The truck industry representatives have mentioned liftgates and refrigeration units, but each citizen complaint currently must prove to DEP that a liftgate is not in use or a refrigeration unit is independently closed. To conclude, my suggestion here is to improve the program as follows. DEP needs more technology investment as well as more staff members to better, better handle the high number of violations in a timely manner.

One additional suggestion is that the city could provide more public street signage indicating that idling is against the law in high-density areas. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Mr. Bailey. I appreciate your testimony.

Next witness, Andrew Lynch. You may begin.

Good afternoon, Chair Gennaro, members of the committee. I'm Andrew Lynch, Executive Vice President of Hampton Jitney. I fully support eliminating unnecessary idling. And I also fully support cleaner air for New York City. I'm going to focus on one area of Intro 561A to help with future iterations. Building on what the previous gentleman, the bus driver trainer, was saying, 561A defines terminal point as, quote, the planned stops including the beginning or end of a bus route.

Read plainly, that is every scheduled bus stop in New York City. And at a terminal point, idling is not limited to 3 minutes, it is prohibited outright. Anytime it is above 40 degrees, not 1 second. Now, due to our air-operated systems, emissions equipment, wheelchair lifts, everything you've heard today, there is no way for our vehicles to comply with zero idling at a stop. 3 minutes is also an issue, but not my point right now.

And this is not what terminal point has previously meant. The existing law describes a terminal point as whether or not enclosed. Language that only makes sense if the drafters were talking about a structure. The terminal point provision was written for a finite known set of places. As written, 561A makes it thousands. Think about what that does to enforcement.

Make every one of those stops a zero-second idling violation, attach a reward to reporting it, and you have not built the deterrent you want because there is no way for us to be compliant. Instead, you've built another high-volume citizen complaint program that will exacerbate the criminal oath due process issues we already have. So do not let Terminal Point become every bus stop in the city.

Keep it to what it has always meant: the terminal, the depot, the layover. I see that 561A gives school buses 30 minutes of heating and air conditioning to maintain passenger comfort, and we support that. I'll note that it gives a private motor coach carrying those same children on a field trip absolutely nothing, and that does not make sense.

Your own code already treats buses differently depending on which bus it is. Your time has expired. It can be drawn correctly. I have written testimony submitted and be happy to have a further conversation with the committee. Uh, Mr. Lynch, thank you very much for your testimony. That was something I was not aware of, and So, um, you've brought some good value added to this proceeding, and I appreciate you for that.

Thank you. Thank you.

Next witness, Michelle Pedalicki. You may begin.

Thank you, Chairman. Imagine this: a motor coach drops off 45 students in New York City on an 86-degree day. Hours later, the bus is unbearably hot. Unable to idle long enough to cool it, the driver instead drives the empty 45-foot motorcoach around the city with the air conditioning running. More traffic, more emissions, all to comply with an environmental law.

Now imagine this: a motorcoach needs to complete a regen cycle to reduce emissions that started while the bus was in motion, but New York City's idling restrictions scares the driver into to not allowing it to complete and turns the bus off mid-process. The bus derates and cannot be driven home. It must be towed and replaced with a motorcoach dispatched to pick up the passengers, albeit late.

Imagine this: a $1,000 idling summons arrives 10 months after an alleged violation. The driver has completed hundreds of trips since, camera footage has been overwritten, and the company has virtually no way to defend it. And imagine this: a group returns from a parade on a hot day. The driver followed New York City's idling restrictions and didn't run the bus.

The result: a threat of a 1-star Google review criticizing the company for, and I quote, not even caring enough to cool down the bus for the passengers. These aren't hypothetical scenarios. Every single one of them has happened to my company. I'm Michelle Peteliski, I'm president of Panorama Tours, a family-owned, woman-owned, second-generation motorcoach company serving New York City for over 30 years.

I'm also the incoming chair for the Greater Northeast Motorcoach Association and an executive board member for the United Motorcoach Association. Our industry cares deeply about the environment. We're not here asking for permission to pollute. We're asking to recognize that there is a difference between unnecessary idling and operational idling. I urge this committee to exclude private motor coaches from Intro 11A and the citizens' broader citizen idling enforcement program.

At a minimum, we need reasonable enforcement timeliness, safeguards against abuse, and fair opportunities to— Time has expired. Thank you. I've written more technological stuff in my written testimony. Thank you very much. I'm available for anything else. We really appreciate that. Thank you.

Next witness, Alice. Alice Mock. You may begin. Not present. Jim Whalen, Teamsters. You may begin.

Good afternoon. I'm Jim Whalen. I'm here on behalf of Teamsters Local 817, the crew that keeps New York City film and TV industry moving. When you spot a production crew parked on a New York City street, you might see a bunch of trucks and trailers, but you're actually looking at a mobile factory generating a lot of money for our city and providing good union-paying jobs.

It's a manufacturing plant on wheels with a massive logistics footprint. It rolls into neighborhoods overnight, sets up assembly lines for lights, camera, and action, and crafts a final piece of Cinemagic art. So we are lucky and privileged to use New York City as our studio backlot. Our trucks are packed with specialized equipment. Like any factory, we need large commercial vehicles to transport equipment and, and provide power for film sets, which brings us to a big hurdle.

New York City's Strict anti-idling laws. If you can imagine a regular brick-and-mortar factory that had to shut down every 3 minutes, it just wouldn't work. In my opinion, this law lacks due process and transparency. There is no immediate notification, sometimes between 6 to 9 months before we see a summons. With this, it's impossible to gather evidence for a defense. 3rd, we are seeing deceptive bounty hunter tactics like filming exempt vehicles while hiding the fact that the liftgate is in use.

Plus, the law seems to violate equal protection by shielding city and state-owned vehicles that are usually exempts. Fine— fines usually affect the local small trucking companies that service our industry as well as major studios that produce film and TV shows. Our employers are frustrated And have attempted to shift these fines onto our hardworking members of Teamsters Local 817.

We fully understand the health and environmental perks of cutting emission, but these rigid rules also take a physical toll on our drivers during extreme weather. New York winters are freezing and summers are scorching, and yet running an engine for heat or AC isn't an allowed exception for drivers in our industry who spend. Spend hours in stationary cabs waiting for the day to end.

It's tough. The law forces a brutal choice to endure unsafe cabin conditions or face steep fines. This is about— Thank you. Your time has expired. Uh, of operating commercial vehicles in our busy city. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Whalen. Thank you. I really appreciate you and all the Teamsters and all you do. Thank you. Okay, next witness, Louis Dubuque.

You may begin.

Good afternoon, Chair Gennaro and members of the committee. My name is Lou Dubuque and I'm representing the New York City chapter of the National Waste and Recycling Association. Our industry supports improving air quality quality and reducing unnecessary emissions. However, we have serious concerns about how the city's idling laws are being enforced. Let me give you 3 examples.

First, our members are receiving idling tickets while actively collecting garbage simply because the compactor blade isn't moving. Does the city really want operators running their compactor blade every 3 minutes, whether, whether necessary or not, just to avoid a ticket? This absolutely makes no sense. Second, our members have received tickets during diesel particulate filter regeneration, a necessary process that actually reduces emissions.

Some have been told to drive back to the yards to complete regeneration, then return to their routes. How does driving additional miles across the city improve air quality? Finally, a member received a ticket while waiting for a car and bicycle The driver was operating safely and was penalized for it. We appreciate the intro of 561A, that it addresses diesel regeneration and the citizen complaint process.

However, the legislation needs to go further. We urge the council to explicitly protect vehicles throughout the active collection process, required regeneration cycles, and temporary stops necessary for public safety. Thank you. Our members should not have to choose between complying with idling regulations, operating their equipment properly, and protecting public safety. We support cleaner air, but enforcement needs to reflect how our industry actually operates.

We will be submitting more detailed written testimony. Thank you for your time today. Thank you very much. That was very, you know, compelling testimony about what your industry industry has gone through, and it is a welcome addition to all of the information that we have received today. Thank you, Chair. You bet. Thank you. Best to you.

Next witness is Christian Fama. Let me begin. I'm going to say not present. Next witness, Patrick Thomas Schnell.

Uh, good afternoon, Chairman Gennaro. My name is Patrick Schnell, and I used to start out, start out my testimonies by stating that I'm a board-certified pediatrician and list the adverse health impact of traffic-related air pollution But I've learned over time that hardly anyone cares about the impact of air pollution on human health. In fact, Intro 561 is prime evidence for the fact that whoever drafted it is entirely uninterested in the protection of human health, let alone the environment.

To those who will be harmed if this bill passes, it does not matter whether ignorance, negligence, carelessness, or corruption are the key drivers behind this bill. What matters And what is clear already today is that significant harm will be done. What is also clear is that this bill will be a stain on the City Council and tarnish its legacy for a very long time to come.

It is really quite simple. To stop idling in New York City, we need to do the following. Number one, increase fines for idling. Just adjusting the $350 for inflation would actually result in a $550 fine today. Number 2, become serious about enforcement. Number 3, stop rewarding idling by giving those companies which pollute the most a discount for outstanding fines.

Number 4, speed up the issuing of summonses for idling. We've made that point many years ago, so have the truckers, and I don't understand why the city cannot get this done. Number 5, educate oath hearing officers about relevant basic facts Surrounding idling so that respondents' lies will not result in inappropriate dismissals. Number six, simplify the program as much as possible to make it easier for new people to join and to report idlers.

Intro 561 a proposes to discard violations which have not been processed within sixty days. No, that's not true. We've been through that. Keep going. But I had to go by what I had when I came up with my. testimony. There is no time limit to the damage air pollution causes to human health, and there should be none for violating anti-idling laws meant to protect human health.

Further, to discard valid idling complaints is fiscally irresponsible. Your time has expired. Workers who develop asthma, heart attacks, strokes, cancer. Thank you. You interrupted. Hey, we don't take, you know, you know, Yeah, like, can't shout from the gallery, you know? Can't do it. Okay, next witness, Christine Berthet. You may begin. Thank you. Chair, and for staying so long to hearing all of us and the council.

I admire your thank you.

I am the co-founder of Check Peds, a 20-year-old organization dedicated to pedestrian safety. We strongly oppose 561A and Intro 11, and for us it's personal. Our neighborhood has the third worst. air quality in New York City. There are hundreds of buses and now construction trucks in our neighborhood. Our children and senior health are at risk every day. 10 years ago, no one was helping us.

Not DEP, not NYPD, not DOT. The Citizen Enforcement Program changed all of that and saved our health by their dedication and hard work. Now idling is a thing of the past. We breathe easier, and it's really an extraordinary success. I will tell you that as the program is successful, there will be less and less summonses, and less rewards will be distributed.

So the program is going to adjust itself to the down, and we should not dismiss dismantle the present system just because some bus and truck companies, and not all by the way, cannot manage their driver or invest in proper technology. That is not what I call a balanced solution. If you care about the people in the city, and I know you do, don't dare break what is working.

We depend on it to breathe. Thank you.

Thank you very much for staying so long and being patient and We appreciate your testimony. Thank you. Okay, next witness, Rachel Optenaker. You may begin.

Hi, my name is Rachel Optenaker, and first I want to say thank you for this opportunity to testify. I am speaking in opposition of Intro 561 and in favor of 48. Since the citizen idling program has been enforced, I've noticed a significant decrease decrease in idling vehicles in my neighborhood. New Yorkers deserve clean air. Children deserve to play in parks without the toxic fumes from trucks poisoning their lungs.

As a singer, the health of my lungs directly impacts my career. The musical theater industry is an integral part to this city's heartbeat, and the health of its performers matter. While I'm not someone who regularly files these reports, I've seen the Citizens Complaint Program make a dramatic difference to a law that was otherwise rarely enforced. I am urging to put the health of New Yorkers first by not disincentivizing this program.

Thank you for your many hours of time today and consideration on this matter. Thank you very much. We appreciate your patience in waiting to testify.

Last witness, apparently. D, the letter D, Suture, if I'm saying that right. You may begin. Yes, and sorry, just getting home from work.

Uh, David Suter here. I just want to vote my support for Intro 11. Um, very against 561. I don't think anything can really be saved there. There is a lot of agreement with the busing industry and the trucking industry regarding, uh, due process. Smarter people can talk about how to automate, how to get them notices early. But I also hear a lot of concerns from the industry that I think are a result from bad contracts from Edge.

I'm sorry, rewrite your contracts so they include, just like you've included for red light fines, they include idling fines. Easy peasy. Other things, you know, let's encourage the program. Let's get people changed, smaller companies, to the newer fridge trucks. They don't have to be on. Use some of those funds from that. And, you know, frankly, a lot of the funds, as far as I know, Councilmember— Chair, sorry— it all goes to kind of the city general fund.

Why can't we recapture a little bit of that to go back to DEP to get them the person power to make this program thrive? You championed clean water. Keep championing clean air. Don't let these bus companies who don't want to do work and put their workers in jeopardy because they don't install generators in the winter. Off the hook, and frankly, that's why we see FedEx, UPS—they don't idle anymore.

The other ones they do because they don't like their workers, and that's all. Okay, thank you very much for for for your for your testimony. We appreciate it.

Okay, the next witness, Chris Hartman. Sergeant, you want to prompt him to start? You may begin, Chris. Okay, it doesn't seem like he's there. I'm going to take the paper now. Okay. If we inadvertently missed anyone who registered to testify today and has yet to be called, please use this— oh, pardon? Okay, so we got a we got a raised hand here.

Is this what's his name? Hartman. Chris Hartman. You may begin. Seems like there are tech issues. Yeah, Mr. Hartman, we're ready to hear your testimony. Maybe I have a sound issue with you. Can I go? Okay, great, great to have you. Uh, I can't hear anything. Oh, I guess I'll just start speaking. Sure. Thank you, uh, for taking the time, Mr.

Gennaro, if you can hear me. Yes, I don't know what to say. Yeah, yeah, no, a lot of the companies, you know, they idle on the roads. They really shouldn't be doing it. It's— you have no idea how many children walk by and and breathe these emissions. So I think the law is doing a great job. And, you know, a bus company— a bus could just be sitting there waiting for, you know, say, a Broadway show to end.

They could be there for 30 minutes. People are taking selfies. They're just late to arrive. They're lost. Meanwhile, the bus is idling the whole time. So, I mean, it's ridiculous to— it's ridiculous what I've seen out looking for these these violators. Same thing with the garbage truck industry. They could go into the building, they take the elevator down, it could take forever to get the garbage out.

Meanwhile, the truck's idling the whole time. So it's ridiculous. They need to cut the engine. It's better for everybody. They've started doing so. Action Environmental, I've noticed, has been off lately. Academy has been off lately. But we still gotta get the word out. And I know it takes a long time for them to get the fine, but, you know, that's just city bureaucracy, government bureaucracy.

That's not a law change. That's the, you know, bureaucratic hurdle. So I think we're, you know, the law is good as is, and the, you know, it's working. I've seen it work. Every year it's getting better and better. So it's just amazing to see. Thank you very much, Mr. Hartman. I don't think you can hear me, but you know my voice will be on the record, and I'm glad you got an opportunity to testify.

And it was. I'm not Hartman; I'm Chatterjee. Yeah, you're who? Chatterjee. Oh, I'm I'm sorry. I guess we didn't. Yeah, his hand is also up, but I don't know if he wants to talk. Oh, oh, okay. It seems like. Yeah, we have many people as Chris Hartman, but so I don't know. I don't know what that's about.

I used his link. I used his link. Oh, use his link. Okay. Well, thank you very much for your testimony. You're welcome.

Is there another? Okay. Okay. Yeah. Okay. If we have inadvertently missed anyone who registered to testify today and is yet to be called, please use the Zoom raise hand function if you are testifying. and you will be called in the order that your hand has been raised. If you are testifying in person, please come to the dais.

Seeing and hearing none— what? One second. Okay. We're holding for a moment. Okay. Wait. So no one's trying to get in. But D. Suter already testified. Yes. Yeah, so then no. Okay. Council is a tech wizard. No one's trying to get in. Seeing none, I will now close the hearing. Thank you to the members of the administration.

I won't thank the members of the administration who weren't here, and the members of the public who have joined us today. This hearing is adjourned. Thank you to all. Yeah.