FISP Cycle 10
FISP Cycle 10 Rules
Since the enactment of FISP in 1980 (Local Law 10), CTA Architects P.C. has prepared and filed the required examination reports for our clients.
The Facade Inspection Safety Program (FISP) – previously known as Local Law 11 – relates to buildings in New York City. It requires that owners of buildings with six or more stories above grade have their exterior walls and appurtenances inspected periodically – as set forth by the commissioner – but at least once every five years.
In the first six inspection cycles, from 1980 to 2007, the DOB required all buildings to file their facade inspection reports in the same two-year window. To reduce the inspection, filing, and processing load, the DOB began staggering the filing deadlines starting with the last (7th cycle) in 2010.
Buildings are grouped according to the last digit of their block number. For the 9th Cycle of inspections:
Block numbers ending in 4, 5, 6, or 9:
Reports must be filed between February 21, 2025 and February 21, 2027.Block numbers ending in 0, 7, or 8:
Reports must be filed between February 21, 2026 and February 21, 2028.Block numbers ending in 1, 2, or 3:
Reports must be filed between February 21, 2027 and February 21, 2029.
A Qualified Exterior Wall Inspector (QEWI), who must be a licensed Registered Architect or Professional Engineer, must conduct this inspection and submit an acceptable Report to the New York City Department of Buildings (DOB) summarizing the building’s conditions.
QEWI will rate as follows:
Safe: The façade has no problems and is in good condition
Safe with a Repair and Maintenance Program (SWARMP): The façade is safe, but requires repairs/maintenance.
Unsafe: The façade has problems/defects that pose a threat to safety.
If unsafe conditions are found during an inspection, owners must file the report as “Unsafe” and immediately install public safety measures, such as a sidewall shed, construction fence, etc. Unsafe conditions must be corrected within 90 days and an amended report filed with the Department of Building with 15 days of completing the repairs. In total, repairs must be corrected and an amended report filed within 105 days of the initial filing or appropriate extensions need to filed to provide time to complete the work.
Q&A with the dob:
Q: Are there any proposed changes to the law anticipated similar to what occurred between Cycle 8 and 9, such as the requirement to perform one up close inspection per 60 LF of public right-of-way, and the required probes for cavity wall buildings?
A: There are currently no proposed changes to 1RCNY §103-04. However, we’d like to make sure that everyone is familiar with our latest amended rule (effective date 11/12/21). The Rule can be found here: §103-04.
Q: Can we file subsequent 9th cycle FISP Reports in the 10th Cycle, specifically the B & C sub cycles that do not open till later.
A: Yes, you can file 9th cycle Subsequent and Amended reports after 2/21/25, however Initial 9th cycle report can’t be filed.
Q: If the Owner has missed filing their FISP Cycle 9 report, is there any mechanism to file their report after 21 February 2025? For example: if an owner missed filing their sub-cycle 9C, do they have to wait until 21 February 2027 to file their Cycle 10 report?
A: No, they don’t, please refer to 1RCNY §103-04 (c)(4)(v)(C) of the latest amended rule as mentioned above.
Q: What is the latest on using drones for facade inspections?
A: The lawful operation of drones is not within the jurisdiction of the DOB. Having said that, we will accept images obtained by the drones as part of the FISP report. Please note that these images and the accompanying inspection performed via drone do not replace the close-up inspection requirement per 1RCNY 103-04 (2)(iv).
Q: In Cycle 10, for building elevations that do not face street or public right-of-way, are there additional observational or physical examination requirements that need to be performed?
A: As per 1RCNY 103-04 (1) all exterior walls “except for those parts of any exterior wall that are less than twelve inches (305 millimeters) from the exterior wall of an adjacent building” must be inspected. Also, as per 1RCNY 103-04 (c)(2)(iv) If the building does not front a public right-of-way, physical examinations are to be performed at a representative sample of the façade elevations with a minimum of one examination per building. These requirements weren’t changed since 11/12/21.
Q: Arguably, removing face brick provides the best means of assessing wall ties and shelf angles in cavity walls, as required for FISP. There are non-destructive (or less destructive) alternative methods of assessing wall ties. It would be a boon to QEWIs, and to property owners, to fully understand which methods the DOB finds acceptable to satisfy code requirements. QEWIs are reluctant to recommend a method to Owners that could ultimately lead to a rejected FISP report (and more money to Owners who then have to redo the assessment).
A: As per 1RCNY 103-04 (c)(2)(v) “The QEWI must ensure that the number and size of the probes are sufficient to report the presence, condition, and spacing of wall ties.” DOB will accept non-destructive alternatives to traditional probes as long as the method chosen allows the QEWI to confirm the “presence, condition, and spacing of wall ties” as well as providing cavity wall probe photos as required by 1RCNY 103-04 (c)(3)(iii) (M).
Q: How would the department prefer the description of a building’s lot dimensions with an irregular shape - for example, an L-shaped lot?
A: Please make a reference to the plot plan where we can see shape and dimensions of the lot.
Q: Is there any scenario where a previously cited SWARMP condition that has surpassed its repair by date may remain as so - for an example, a project is underway and due to the scale and complexity of the project the condition has not been accessed at the time of reporting?
A: If the repair is not completed by the SWARMP completion date, but the QEWI determines the conditions have not progressed to unsafe, a subsequent report may be filed to change the SWARMP completion date, however if there are any conditions that have progressed to unsafe, a subsequent unsafe report must be filed. And as always: any conditions reported as SWARMP in the previous cycle and unrepaired or requiring repair in the current cycle must be classified as unsafe.
Q: Conversely is there any scenario where a previously cited SWARMP condition from a previous cycle prepared by others status can be downgraded to SAFE by the current QEWI having inspected the condition (visually or close-up)?
A: No, repair must be conducted to change the status of the defect. Any conditions reported as SWARMP in the previous cycle and unrepaired or requiring repair in the current cycle must be classified as unsafe.
Q: FISP repair projects that are scheduled to start due to Unsafe or SWARMP conditions can be held up by the neighbor not allowing access for sidewalk sheds or roof access. This is commonly due to legal issues. Can there be a drop-down menu option to alert the FISP Unit of this? In other words, the client and QEWI have done everything they can do correctly, but the neighbor wants a long legal battle. How does the QEWI alert you to this situation and what can the Client do to minimize further violations and fees?
A: Your concerns can be e-mailed to Facades@buildings.nyc.gov, however DOB will not intervene in disputes over access agreements unless imminently hazardous conditions threaten public safety.
Q: Where a building has portions that are less than 6-1/2 stories, exactly what close-up inspections are required. For example, a building with two (2) street facades, where one is more than 6-1/2 stories, and the other is less. To avoid an issue, I have been doing close-up inspections at both, but can no close-up inspections be performed at the section less than 6-1/2 stories?
A: Yes, close-up inspections are not required at the sections less than 6.5 stories. In case of tower with podium that less than 6.5 stories, number of drops should be calculated per the perimeter of the tower, drops should go all the way to the ground.
Q: Similar to above, what about a building where all street facades are less than 6-1/2 stories, and only the rear wall (not along a public right-of-way) is more than 6-1/2 stories. Are no close-up inspections required? I had been told in the past that at least one (1) close-up inspection is required, but I do not see that in the code.
A: At least one physical examination along the public right-of-way is required for all FISP buildings per 1RCNY 103-04 (c)(2)(iv).
Q: Consider a solid building wall, with no cavity, but still relies on mechanical anchors to secure the face brick to the backup masonry. One would assume that probes would be required to confirm the condition and placement of the anchors, but if the wall has no actual cavity, does it fall under the probe requirement.
A: Yes, it does fall under the probe requirement.
Q: With some buildings in Cycle 9 as UNSAFE, will they have the opportunity to still be able to file an Amended to be designated as SWARMP or SAFE?
A: Yes, Amended report can be filed outside of its cycle.
Q: Can we include the parapet inspection report as an attachment?
A: If report takes more space than allowed number of characters, attachment can be submitted.
Q: What is being done or planned to be done to DOB Now to allow for Designated Filing Representatives?
A: This is not included in our current plans.
Q: What is being done or planned to be done to DOB Now to allow for grids or tables to be inserted into the fields?
A: This is not included in our current plans. Tables and grids can currently be included in the Supporting documents.
Q: Currently, the only mechanism to change the category of the building (SWARMP to SAFE) on the Exterior Wall Condition Certificate (EWCC) is to file a Subsequent FISP Report. However, after 21 February 2025, we have been told that the Department won’t be accepting any Initials or Subsequent reports. Only Amended. But if an Owner wants to update their EWCC after completing the SWARMP repairs and keep the certificate current, they will have to wait until their next sub-cycle starts. We are concern that if the EWCC is not updated, inspectors might issue a violation for not completing SWARMP repairs, although they have been done. Creating unnecessary paperwork to clear that up.
A: Subsequent report can still be filed after 2/21/25.
Q: If an Owner conducts a comprehensive façade repair project the year before their sub-cycle starts in February. Can the drops performed during the façade repair campaign be valid to meet the requirements for close-up examinations for the next cycle if they have occurred in less than 1 year from the filing of such report? (Example: Façade project was performed in Summer/Fall of 2024. Can the close-up examinations performed during the project be used to meet the requirement of close-up examinations for the cycle that starts in February 2025?).
A: Close-up examinations if they have occurred in less than 1 year from the filing of FISP report are acceptable.
Q: If a building has neglected to file a 9th Cycle FISP report, will they be required to perform probes under the 10th Cycle FISP process even though the rule states probes are only necessary in odd cycle filing submissions?
A: Yes, probes must be conducted in cycle 10, if they were required, but not performed in cycle 9.
Q: If a building has an apartment fire and the windows in the unit were damaged and are boarded up securely, what category does this fall under? Safe, SWARMP or Unsafe?
A: No temporary protection measures/repairs can be considered Safe or SWARMP, only permanent repairs could be considered Safe.
Q: What is the new Control Number scheme? Previously the first number of the six-digit assignment changed to match the cycle (i.e. 700000 > 800000 > 900000). How will the 10th cycle control numbers look? Will they revert back and start with a “1”?
A: It will be the number 10 followed by the base 5-digit control number.
Q: Does every Unsafe filing need a FISP 3 filing? We like to make sure public protection is installed and submit full Unsafe report ASAP. What is an acceptable amount of time from inspection to filing to avoid a FISP 3.
A: Every building with Unsafe conditions (other than repeated SWARMP conditions from previous cycle that don’t require public protection) must have FISP 3 filed immediately.
Q: Do administratively UNSAFE (previously cycle SWARMP conditions that were not repaired) conditions require a FISP3?
A: See answer above.
Q: Mortar joint deterioration is a common occurrence but rarely leads to threats to public safety unless the adjacent masonry units are directly affected, a process that will take decades. Given the sheer number of LF of mortar joints in the city, labeling this condition SWARMP one cycle and then UNSAFE the next less than 5 years later leads to a significant amount of sidewalk sheds. Would the DOB be willing to consider a downgrade of this specific material inspection and classification requirement?
A: Any façade material has a potential to deteriorate to the hazardous condition. The QEWI is responsible for initial classification of façade defects. As per 1RCNY 103-04 “A report may not be filed describing the same condition and pertaining to the same location on the building as SWARMP for two consecutive report filing cycles.” However, Department recognizes that not all Unsafe conditions require public protection, QEWI must specify type(s) and location(s) of public protection measures.
Q: Has the DOB considered stricter rules of exterior fire stairs and fire escapes. We recommend that licensed engineers inspect fire escapes at least every other cycle, and architects can inspect them on off cycles. Fire Escapes are dangerous, ignored and they are inherently structural – engineers should be looking at this. In that vein, there should be prescriptive guidance on how stair treads are inspected and how often or when the bolts are replaced on stair treads. These are by far the most common failure point, most common accident with injury that occurs (at least anecdotally).
A: We’ll take this into consideration for the future amendments of the Façade Rule.
Q: Why are you issuing failure to notify of unsafe conditions violations based on an initial visit date? If we are to assume all conditions could be observed on the first visit, then surely close-up inspections would be irrelevant. This does not seem to be a reasonable assumption.
A: Department will only issue these violations if we have clear evidence of QEWI knowledge of unsafe condition(s).