Real Estate Industry Comments on EPA Guidance, March 2002

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

P 5) The Real Estate Roundtable

March 25, 2002

Ms. Elissa Feldman Associate Director Indoor Environments Division Office of Air and Radiation U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Mail Code (6609J) 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460 Re: Draft Guidance for Protecting Building Environments from Airborne Chemical, Biological or Radiological Attacks Dear Elissa: This letter summarizes a variety of real estate industry comments on the draft “Guidance for Protecting Building Environments from Airborne Chemical, Biological or Radiological Attacks.” (the “Guidance”). We understand the Guidance was developed by the Workgroup on Building Air Protection (Workgroup) working under the auspices of the President’s Office on Homeland Security (OHS). As an industry, we strongly support the efforts of the President to fully engage the real estate sector — on a voluntary basis — in the Nation’s homeland security efforts. With many tenants demanding unprecedented attention to security issues, we believe the industry is highly motivated to consider any and all reasonable and constructive guidance in this area. The comments set out below represent the views of security and engineering experts at various companies participating in The Real Estate Roundtable RER), as well as those of members of the Building Owners and Managers Association, International (BOMA); the Institute of Real Estate Management (IREM); the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC), which includes retail tenants; the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts (NAREIT); the National Association of Realtors (NAR); and, the Real Estate Board of New York (REBNY). The respective mission statements of those seven organizations are attached. In addition, a joint comment letter from IREM and NAR is also attached. While affiliated with the Roundtable, we understand that the National Multi Housing Council/National Apartment Association is providing comments in separate and independent communications. Summary

The comments described below reflect the concerns of diverse segments of the national real estate market including the owners of large “trophy” properties in and around central business districts and owners of small office, retail, and residential buildings in outer suburban and rural areas. While owners of smaller properties were often more wary of the scope of the Guidance than others, most responses were marked by respect for the constructive tone and substance of the Workgroup’s initial recommendations. When serious concerns were raised they tended to focus on specific suggestions that were seen as having limited applicability and/or cost-effectiveness when applied to certain types of existing buildings. Even for the authors of some of those comments, however, the fact that the document was guidance — and not a set of inflexible mandates — went some distance toward alleviating those concerns.

1420 New York Avenue, NW ♦ Suite 1100 ♦ Washington. DC 20005 ♦ 202-639-8400 ♦ 202-639-8442 ♦ [email protected]

NYC-WTC_000143746