ATTACHMENT 3

Public Comments on Proposed ICR and EPA Responses to Public Comments 

Two comments (from the Commercial Properties Coalition and the Independent Electrical Contractors) 

were submitted during the comment period for the December 2013 Federal Register Notice. The comment 

period ended on February 4, 2014. 
 
COMMENTS OF THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES COALITION

ON EPA’S PROPOSED INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST

REGARDING LEAD RENOVATION, REPAIR AND PAINTING 

ACTIVITIES IN PUBLIC AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 

February 4, 2014 
I. INTRODUCTION AND COALITION DESCRIPTION

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on EPA’s proposed information collection 

request (“ICR”) regarding lead-based paint renovation, repair, and painting (“RRP”) activities in 

public and commercial (“P&C”) buildings. These comments are submitted by the Commercial 

Properties Coalition (the “Coalition”), an informal group of trade associations that represent 

companies involved in almost every aspect of commercial real estate development, construction, 

ownership, management, contracting, renovation, and building product supply. Attachment 1 

describes the mission and membership of each participating organization in more detail.1

The Coalition’s member companies (many of which are small businesses) would be 

significantly affected by any RRP program for P&C buildings. The viability of the commercial 

real estate sector depends on constructing, owning, and maintaining buildings in a manner to 

safeguard the health and well-being of employees, workers, tenants and occupants. Above and 

beyond regulatory mandates, the Coalition’s member companies routinely seek voluntary 

certification and accreditation of their offices, apartment buildings, stores, plants, hotels and 

other structures to ensure that they are sustainable, efficient – and healthy. Accordingly, the 

Coalition has a substantial interest in the ICR, any finding under Section 403 of the Toxic 

Substances Control Act (“TSCA”) regarding potentially “dangerous levels of lead” in the 

building stock at issue, and any additional regulations that will expand federal programs covering 

RRP activities within and on the exterior of P&C buildings. If EPA obtains White House 

approval to proceed with the ICR, Coalition member firms are likely to be randomly selected to 

participate in telephone interviews and complete survey instruments. 

The Coalition has had a longstanding interest in RRP matters. It has participated in 

earlier phases of public engagement regarding P&C buildings, most recently at a hearing held by 

EPA on June 26, 2013.2 We also incorporate by reference our comments filed on April 1, 2013, 

in response to EPA’s request for information (hereafter, “April 1, 2013, Comments”);3 2010 

comments to EPA’s advanced notice of proposed rulemaking;4 and 2010 comments regarding a 

1 The Coalition’s members are: Associated Builders and Contractors; Associated General Contractors of 

America; Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) International; CCIM Institute; Independent 

Electrical Contractors; Institute of Real Estate Management (IREM®); International Council of Shopping Centers; 

NAIOP, the Commercial Real Estate Development Association; NAREIT®, the National Association of Real Estate 

Investment Trusts®; National Apartment Association (NAA); National Association of Home Builders (NAHB); 

National Association of REALTORS®; National Association of the Remodeling Industry (NARI); National 

Federation of Independent Business (NFIB); National Multifamily Housing Council (NMHC); the PlumbingHeating-Cooling Contractors—National Association; The Real Estate Roundtable; and Window and Door 

Manufacturers Association. See Attachment 1. 

2 Hearing transcript available at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-

0173-0194. 

3 Available at EPA’s on-line regulatory docket at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPAHQ-OPPT-2010-0173-0154. 

4 Available at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0173-0074. 
Page 2

proceeding before EPA’s Science Advisory Board.5 Many of the larger themes and points we 

made in our earlier filings are raised again here, as they remain unaddressed by EPA and are 

relevant to the proposed ICR. 

II. SUMMARY

For a number of reasons, it is imperative for the Coalition’s member firms to own, 

manage and construct healthy, safe, and desirable buildings. They have earned their reputations 

as environmental stewards, and must be vigilant in responding to ever increasing demands of 

tenants and investors seeking socially and environmentally responsible leasing and investment 

opportunities. Our members thus take pride in the building certifications they receive from EPA 

in its ENERGY STAR program, and the corporate and building “labels” they obtain from a 

variety of organizations to signify their commitment to safeguard the environment for future 

generations. If toxic or hazardous conditions exist in our members' buildings, the Coalition 

wants to know what those hazards are, where they exist, and what should be done to address 

them. 

The Coalition is aligned with EPA insofar as the ICR represents an effort to gather 

factual data to inform the agency as to whether there is need for a new program regulating the 

public and commercial real estate and contracting sectors of the U.S. economy. We commend 

EPA for recognizing that it has significant data gaps to fill before it can determine whether to 

regulate RRP activities in P&C buildings and, if so, what type of regulation may be warranted.6

We appreciate EPA’s willingness to utilize the tools at its disposal, such as an ICR, to “fill some 

of the key data gaps.”7 However, we believe EPA is putting the cart before the horse in seeking 

to issue the proposed ICR, for the reasons set forth below. We offer our comments in the spirit 

of assisting EPA to fulfill its responsibilities under TSCA, the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(“PRA”), and the Administrative Procedure Act. In particular, should EPA ultimately proceed 

with an ICR, we submit our comments to help ensure that EPA does all it can to satisfy its 

statutory obligations under the PRA to minimize the public’s response burden and maximize the 

practical utility of collected information. 

The Coalition recommends as follows: 

1. In framing the ICR, EPA is asking the wrong questions at this juncture. As a 

threshold matter, EPA must determine whether a lead hazard exists in P&C buildings. 

Routine maintenance and repair, painting, and other renovations are conducted on a 

regular basis in the public and commercial building stock. The critical question is not 

whether these activities are performed, but whether they create lead hazards. 

2. EPA should practicably minimize the response burden on the public by first gathering 

information through a plan of outreach and coordination with federal government 

5 Attachment 3 to the Coalition’s April 1, 2013, available at 

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0173-0154. 

6 See “Supporting Statement for a Request for OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act” (“ICR 

Supporting Statement”), at 3. 

7 Id.
Page 3

building owners and managers. These entities will likely have the information EPA 

seeks to collect regarding RRP activities. Obtaining such information from federal 

sources will allow for a more refined and less burdensome ICR that may be sent to 

non-governmental entities. 

3. Any proposal to survey owners, managers, lessors, lessees, and contractors that are 

engaged in RRP activities in P&C buildings should rely on improved sampling 

techniques and questionnaire instruments to generate data of “practical utility.” 

III. DISCUSSION

A. Without a predicate determination from EPA as to whether RRP activities in 

P&C buildings cause a lead-based paint hazard in the first place, the 

proposed ICR cannot be relied upon to produce useful information and 

therefore does not comport with the PRA’s “practical utility” requirement.

In preparing to issue the residential RRP rule, EPA and the U.S. Department of Housing 

and Urban Development (“HUD”) relied upon numerous studies that examined target housing 

for the presence of lead-based paint (“LBP”), the condition of painted “impact” surfaces, the 

presence of dust in window wells and floors, and chipped paint residue in the exterior perimeter 

of the house.8 These studies were conducted by federal agencies or with federal grant support, 

and thoroughly analyzed the nature and extent of lead in the housing stock and the relationship 

between lead exposure and blood lead levels in children. This body of research formed the basis 

for the federal regulations that guide RRP activities in privately owned and federally assisted 

housing built before 1978. However, no comparable research foundation has been established 

for P&C buildings.

EPA has repeatedly acknowledged, and the statute makes clear, that it has no TSCA 

authority to regulate renovation and remodeling activities in P&C buildings per se. Rather, it has 

regulatory authority over RRP activities only to the extent they cause a lead-based paint hazard.9

8 See, e.g., U.S. EPA, Report on the National Survey of Lead-Based Paint in Housing, Washington, DC: 

EPA 747-R-95-003 (1995); U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”)Task Force on LeadBased Paint Hazard Reduction and Financing, “Putting the Pieces Together: Controlling Lead Hazards in the 

Nation's Housing—Final Report,” Washington, DC, HUD-1542-LBP (1995); U.S. EPA, Standards for the 

Identification of Dangerous Lead Levels, 40 CFR Part 745 Subpart D, 66 Fed. Reg. 1205 (2001); U.S. EPA, “Risk 

Analysis to Support Standards for Lead in Paint, Dust and Soil,” Appendix B – “Health Effects Associated with 

Exposure to Lead and Internal Lead Doses in Humans,” and Appendix C1 – “Characterizing Baseline 

Environmental Lead Levels in the Nation's Housing Stock, Washington, DC, EPA 747-R-97-006 (2001); U.S. EPA, 

“Risk Analysis to Support Standards for Lead in Paint, Dust and Soil: Supplemental Report,” EPA 747-R-00-004 

(2000); U.S. HUD, “The Relationship of Lead Contaminated House Dust and Blood Lead Levels Among Urban 

Children” (vols. I and II), “Final Report to HUD from the University of Rochester School of Medicine, Rochester, 

NY and the National Center for Lead Safe Housing, Columbia, MD (1995); Clark, CS, et al., "Condition and Type 

of Housing as an Indicator of Potential Environmental Lead Exposure and Pediatric Blood Lead Levels," 

Environmental Research 38:46-53 (1985); Lepow, ML, et al., "Investigations into Sources of Lead in the 

Environment of Urban Children." Environmental Research 10:415-426 (1975). 

9 See, e.g., Amended Litigation Settlement Agreement ¶ 2 (Sept. 7, 2012) (“Unless EPA notifies Petitioners 

that it has concluded that renovation activities in pre-1978 [P&C] buildings do not create a lead-based paint hazard,” 

EPA will propose work practices standards applicable to renovation activities in those buildings) (emphasis 

supplied); 77 Fed. Reg. at 76,997 (Dec. 31, 2012) (EPA can regulate LRRP activities in public and commercial 

buildings only “to the extent such renovations create lead-based paint hazards”); 78 Fed. Reg. at 73,521 (Dec. 6, 
Page 4

Without first making such a “hazard” finding under TSCA section 403 with regard to P&C 

buildings, the ICR cannot be expected to gather useful information, a requirement under the 

PRA’s “practical utility” criterion.10 In fact, EPA must “certify” that information collected 

through the ICR “is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, 

including that the information has practical utility....”11

One of the PRA’s enumerated purposes is to “ensure the greatest possible benefit from 

and maximize the utility of the information created, collected, maintained, used, shared and 

disseminated by or for the Federal Government.”12 The Act intends to “improve the quality and 

use of Federal information to strengthen decision making,” and the OMB Director (acting 

through the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs [“OIRA]”) bears the responsibility to 

“maximize the practical utility of and public benefit from information collected by or for the 

federal government....”13

The information gathering process that EPA is pursuing must be improved to satisfy 

these PRA objectives. According to the Supporting Statement: “If EPA determines that a [P&C 

LRRP] regulation is needed, the Agency will use [any ICR] data ....”14 That is, if the agency 

determines no regulation is needed, then the agency would not use the data – and any data thus 

collected through the ICR will have no practical utility. The public will have been burdened in 

responding to the ICR for no lawfully recognized purpose. 

Accordingly, before EPA can regulate LRRP activities in P&C buildings or collect 

information from the public that may justify such a regulation, it must first develop a TSCA 

section 403 rule to identify whether “dangerous levels of lead” exist in the commercial real estate 

stock.15 The Coalition’s April 1, 2013, Comments explained: 

2013) (“EPA has initiated a proceeding to investigate whether and what type of regulatory action might be 

appropriate to control exposures to lead dust resulting from [LRRP activities in P&C buildings]” (emphasis supplied);

ICR Supporting Statement at 1 (“If EPA determines that a [P&C LRRP] regulation is needed, the Agency will use 

[any ICR] data ....”) (emphasis supplied); ICR Supporting Statement at 3 (“Under the terms of the amended litigation 

settlement agreement [dated Sept. 7, 2012] ... EPA has agreed to either sign a proposed rule covering RRP activities 

in [P&C buildings], or determine that these activities do not create LBP hazards ....”). 

10 44 U.S.C. § 3504(c)(4). “The term ‘practical utility’ means the ability of an agency to use information, 

particularly the capability to process such information in a timely and useful fashion ....” Id. § 3502(11). 

11 Id. § 3506(c)(3)(A). 

12 Id. § 3501(2). 

13 Id. § 3506(c)(3)(A). 

14 ICR Supporting Statement, at 1 (emphasis supplied). 

15 TSCA § 402 (c)(3), 15 U.S.C § 2682(c)(3). The statute defines a “lead based paint hazard” as a “condition

that causes exposure to lead... that would result in adverse human health effects as established by the EPA under this 

subchapter,” TSCA § 401(10). And to the extent that EPA may now be seeking to base a lead-based paint hazard for 

P&C buildings on adult, rather than child-targeted exposures, it has made no determination of what levels of 

exposure would constitute such a hazard or whether it exists in P&C buildings. 
Page 5

Further delimiting the scope of EPA’s regulatory authority, a conjunctive reading 

of TSCA sections 402 and 403 reflects an expected sequence for agency action – 

requiring EPA first to promulgate regulations that “identify ... lead-based paint 

hazards,” the results of which are then to be used in determining whether “to 

apply the regulations to renovations...” in public and commercial buildings, or, 

alternatively, to determine that certain categories of renovation do not require 

regulation.16

The thrust of the ICR should be modified to ensure that it does not leapfrog over the 

predicate 403 “hazard” determination. EPA proposes to collect information on RRP activities 

that it may ultimately regulate – as if the “hazard” finding is a foregone conclusion. The 

Supporting Statement acknowledges: “The primary purposes of this survey include estimating 

the baseline usage of particular work practices, and how this usage varies with the type of RRP 

job; determining the number of firms that perform RRP activities in [P&C buildings]; and 

determining the types and numbers of RRP activities that are performed.”17 The secondary 

purpose of the ICR is to “collect information on how the proportion of jobs that use particular 

practices differs between different types of firms.”18 Beyond such “baseline work practice data, 

the survey will collect information on the number of contractors that are already trained and 

certified under the existing [residential] RRP Program.”19 For paperwork reduction purposes, 

however, there is no practical utility to collect “baseline data” on work practices and trained 

residential contractors if no lead-based paint hazard in P&C buildings is found to exist – because 

no work practice regulations will be necessary (or lawful) in the absence of a TSCA section 403 

hazard determination. 

The Supporting Statement and questionnaire instruments themselves evidence that EPA 

would collect data on RRP activities disconnected from any possible lead-based paint hazard.

The Supporting Statement sets forth 14 “key” pieces of information that the ICR would collect.20

The 11th listed “variable” is “LBP Testing,” where “Respondents will be asked about whether 

they tested for LBP and if so, whether or not the test indicated the presence of LBP.”21

Similarly, Question 10 (second to last) of the “Manager/Lessor Survey Questionnaire” asks the 

respondent: “To your knowledge, has the building we’ve been discussing ever been tested for 

the presence of lead-based paint?”22 If a building tested positive for the presence of lead paint, 

16 April 1, 2013, Comments at 53-54. 

17 ICR Supporting Statement, at 3. 

18 Id. 

19 Id. None of EPA’s stated “primary” or “secondary” objectives of the questionnaires are to support a 

possible 403 hazard determination as the predicate to justify regulation of P&C LRRP activities. Id. at 17. 

20 ICR Supporting Statement, at 17-20. These include “Respondent Identification,” “ Firm Type and Size,” 

“Recent Job” descriptions about a “single RRP activity type,” “Paint Removal Techniques,” “Contaminant” 

practices related to dust, “Cleanup,” and “Baseline RRP Certification,” among others. 

21 Id. at 20. 

22 Manager/Lessor Survey Questionnaire, ICR Attachment 4, at 6. Likewise, the second-to-last question of 

the “Building Occupant Survey Questionnaire,”(ICR Attachment 5, at 8) asks, “To your knowledge, has the building 

we’ve been discussing ever been tested for the presence of lead-based paint?” Similarly, the 12th question of the 
Page 6

or if a respondent otherwise believes or knows that lead-based paint exists in the building, it 

would be useful to gather information on RRP practices. However, if a respondent states that 

lead-based paint does not exist in the commercial structure or is otherwise unsure of its presence, 

then any interview or questionnaire response should stop there. Subsequent questioning would 

gather information on RRP activities that lack practical utility – because EPA lacks authority to 

regulate such activities without a section 403 showing that they create lead-based paint hazards. 

The PRA’s spirit and objectives more clearly require a decision-making sequence that 

first requires EPA to determine if additional regulation of RRP activities is indeed necessary – 

and then gather information on those activities to specify the type, breadth, and specifications for 

any renovation, repair and painting work practices in P&C buildings. Without pursuing this 

logical path, any OMB approval here runs the risk of failing to “maximize” the utility of ICRgathered data. And EPA would collect information that is not “necessary for the proper 

performance”23 of its limited regulatory role within TSCA’s structure to regulate only RRP 

activities that are found to create a lead-based paint hazard. 

Finally, EPA may not rely on the lead-based paint hazard finding it has already made for 

residential RRP purposes, and somehow bootstrap that determination to conclude that 

commercial RRP activities are hazardous. The TSCA 403 residential rule states: “[I]t is 

important to emphasize that this rule only applies to pre-1978 target housing and certain childoccupied facilities, and that these standards were not intended to identify potential hazards in 

other settings.” 24 Likewise, a panel of EPA’s Science Advisory Board (“SAB”) has recognized 

that there is “insufficient data concerning lead dust exposures in commercial or public buildings 

to support a reliable standard.” 25 The Coalition strongly cautions against a reductive approach 

that relies upon studies conducted in residential settings to somehow buttress any P&C RRP 

program. 

Should EPA first develop a 403 hazard rule for the P&C stock, it might then administer 

an ICR of practical utility to gather information on RRP activities in those buildings. But the 

agency is not at that critical juncture.26 The Coalition accordingly believes that the proposed 

“Contractor Survey Questionnaire” (ICR Attachment 3, at 22) is a two-part question that asks, “[D]id the test 

indicate there was lead-based paint?” 

23 44 U.S.C.§ 3506(c)(3)(A). 

24 Lead; Identification of Dangerous Levels of Lead, 66 Fed. Reg. 1,206, 1,211 (Jan. 5, 2001) (emphasis 

supplied). 

25 EPA Science Advisers Urge Tough Lead Dust Cleanup Requirements, Inside EPA.com (July 13, 2010), 

(used with permission), Attachment 4 April 1, 2013, Comments, available at 

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0173-0154. 

26 The Coalition believes EPA has yet to develop a record to justify a section 403 hazard finding for LRRP 

activities in P&C buildings. Our April 1, 2013, Comments set forth a detailed examination of “studies” cited by 

EPA, in response to questions for a Senate hearing record, as potentially relevant to lead-based paint hazard issues in 

P&C buildings (Comments at 21-24). These studies were also raised at EPA’s June 26, 2013 public meeting. (See 

meeting transcript at 128-135, available at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-

0173-0194.) Several of EPA’s cited studies expressly state that they provide no basis to draw conclusions about 

LBP issues in public and commercial buildings. Further, the only non-residential buildings considered across the 

many studies offered by EPA to the Senate were a 1967 school building, and a 150-year old business. 
Page 7

ICR does not meet the “practical utility” standard under the PRA. At a minimum, EPA should 

restructure the survey to begin with a question on whether a property is known to contain lead 

paint; if the response indicates the answer is no, the survey should be terminated. 

B. Federal agencies maintain P&C buildings of varying purposes, sizes, ages, 

and geographic distribution and thus form a reliable cohort to provide a 

comprehensive catalogue of the RRP activities conducted in a range of P&C 

buildings. Before sending an ICR to the public (including many small 

businesses), EPA should collect renovation and remodeling information from 

readily accessible federal government sources and thereby minimize the 

public’s response burden.

The PRA’s overriding objective is to ensure that the public’s burden when responding to 

a federal ICR must be kept to a minimum. The first purpose of the PRA is to “minimize the 

paperwork burden” for individuals, businesses, contractors, non-federal government bodies, and 

other entities “from the collection of information by or for the Federal Government.”27

To meet this objective, Congress charged the OMB Director (acting through OIRA) to 

coordinate review of ICRs “with a particular emphasis ... to reduce information collection 

burdens on the public ....”28 Like all federal agencies, EPA must “ensur[e]” satisfaction of the 

PRA’s goals – including the paramount aim to minimize the public’s ICR burdens.29 When 

collecting information, EPA must also “develop a plan” that furthers paperwork reduction 

objectives such as public burden minimization.30 Moreover, the OMB Director, in consultation 

with the EPA Administrator and other department heads, is obliged to set annual goals that 

“represent the maximum practicable opportunity” to reduce the data collection burdens borne by 

the public.31

Respectfully, the Coalition believes that EPA must go further to minimize the burden it 

would impose on the public in responding to the ICR at issue. The RRP program that EPA 

contemplates would regulate commercial buildings owned, managed and occupied by the federal 

government, as well as non-federal and private sector structures. However, EPA has yet to 

explain what, if any, steps it has taken to collect information sought by the ICR from the federal 

buildings community. As the U.S. government owns the most buildings in the country, and 

leases the most commercial space across the nation, federal agencies are the most logical and 

efficient first stop for EPA to gather lead paint and work practices information before the public 

is screened, surveyed, and questioned. Considering the breadth and diversity of the federal 

27 44 U.S.C. § 3501(1). PRA regulations define “burden” to mean the “total time, effort or financial 

resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal 

agency ....” 5 C.F.R. § 1320.3(b). 

28 Id., § 3503; § 3504(c)(2). 

29Id., § 3506(a)(3). 

30Id., § 3506(c)(1)(A)(iii). 

31Id., § 3505(a)(1)(A)(i). 
Page 8

government’s commercial real estate stock, gathering lead-based paint information from federal 

owners and occupants would minimize the public’s burden to provide the same information. 

Surprisingly, EPA’s Supporting Statement does not mention any efforts whatsoever to 

obtain RRP information from federal departments. The Coalition has repeatedly offered to assist 

EPA in coordinating with its sister agencies and to follow-up on our own outreach that we have 

started with federal facilities staff.32 Indeed, our April 1, 2013, Comments strongly urged EPA 

to coordinate with federal facilities owners and managers to study their buildings for any leadbased paint hazards, identify actual renovation projects in these structures, and assess the 

effectiveness of associated work practices. The Coalition’s earlier comments cited a letter from 

Senators Vitter, Inhofe, Crapo and Fischer to EPA, which explained that “[t]he massive stock of 

federal buildings can serve as a laboratory to develop any Public & Commercial LRRP rule and 

help assure a sound, scientific, and fact-based record,” and further recognized: 

[T]he General Services Administration (“GSA”) is the nation’s 

largest public real estate organization and provides workspace in 

commercial buildings for more than 1 million federal workers 

through its Public Buildings Services (“PBS”). PBS’s commercial 

real estate portfolio covers over 8,100 leases in excess of 171 

million square feet, and 1,500 government-owned buildings, across 

the nation. Likewise, the infrastructure of the Department of 

Defense (“DoD”) encompasses several hundred thousand buildings 

at more than 5,000 different locations or sites. The footprint of the 

Veterans Administration (“VA”) is marked by 5,500 buildings and 

1600 leases totaling approximately 142 million square feet, with an 

average age approaching 60 years. And, the Architect of the 

Capitol (“AoC”) is responsible to the U.S. Congress and Supreme 

Court to maintain and operate 17.4 million square feet of buildings 

on Capitol Hill.”33

Among other suggestions, the Coalition recommended that EPA contact the Architect of 

the Capitol with regard to solicit information regarding the rehabilitation of the Capitol Dome 

and the imminent “top-to-bottom renewal of the [U.S. House] Cannon Building.”34 Certainly, 

these renovation, repair, and painting projects on Capitol Hill can provide EPA with work 

practices information sought by the ICR – without burdening the public. The Coalition is not 

32 To raise awareness regarding EPA’s efforts to collect information regarding a potential RRP rule for P&C

buildings, Coalition members have met with and conducted outreach to the General Services Administration, Office 

of the Secretary of Defense, the Naval Facilities Engineering Command, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the 

multiple federal agencies that participate in the Whole Building Design Guide program administered by the National 

Institute of Building Sciences, among others. See Coalition’s April 1, 2013, Comments, at 24-25. 

33 Id. at 4. The letter from Senators Inhofe, Vitter, Crapo and Fischer is Attachment 6 to the Coalition’s 

April 1, 2013 Comments, available at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-

0173-0154. 

34 April 1, 2013, Comments, at 52-53. 
Page 9

persuaded that information on commercial LLRP activities “is not available from any readily

accessible source.”35 The federal government is such a source. 

Our April 1, 2013, Comments also urged EPA to coordinate with the National Institute of 

Building Sciences (“NIBS”), which manages the federal “Whole Building Design Guide 

(“WBDG”), and develop a plan to gather information regarding work practices used in 

commercial building renovations and remodels. A board of federal agencies – which includes 

EPA itself, the General Services Administration, the Department of Defense, and other agencies 

– guides the WBDG’s development to provide “government and industry practitioners one-stop 

access to up-to-date information on a wide range of building-related guidance, criteria, and 

technology from a whole-building perspective.”36 Senators King, Manchin, and Begich wrote to 

NIBS urging it to assist EPA in providing lead-based paint information, 37 and NIBS itself 

provided comments expressing its willingness to assist EPA in collecting lead-based paint 

information from federal facilities owners and managers.38 As stated in the Coalition’s April 1, 

2013, Comments: “If the WDBG and collaboration among its participating agencies cannot 

provide [relevant lead-based paint] information ... then the Coalition wonders whether any group 

or organization could practicably or feasibly supply the information sought by EPA.”39

Certainly, the public’s response burden would be minimized if EPA coordinates with NIBS and 

the WBDG’s participating federal agencies to collect lead paint and work practices data. 

The Coalition encourages EPA to leverage the wealth of experience and depth of 

knowledge of federal entities as a fair and practicable step to minimize the public’s burdens from 

an ICR that would duplicate the information that could be obtained from the federal building 

community. Indeed, the federal buildings community is an ideal source for the data EPA seeks 

to provide “specificity and level of detail ... in order to estimate the potential risks, the industry

baseline, and the costs and benefits of potential regulatory requirements.”40

C. Any proposal to survey owners, managers, lessors, lessees, and contractors 

that are engaged in activities in P&C buildings, as a basis for establishing 

new regulatory requirements, should rely on a rigorous statistical analysis, 

including improved sampling techniques and questionnaire instruments.

35 ICR Supporting Statement, at 2. 

36 Id. at 41-43. 

37 Id. at 4. The letter from Senators King, Manchin and Begich is Attachment 7 to the Coalition’s 

Comments, available at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0173-0154. 

38 NIBS’s comment letter states: “As the entity charged by Congress to engage both the public and private 

sector in the development and dissemination of technical criteria for buildings, the Institute welcomes the 

opportunity to facilitate the identification and subsequent conduct of research to inform development of lead-based 

paint regulations for public and commercial buildings.” Available at 

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0173-0153. 

39 Id. at 43. 

40 ICR Supporting Statement, at 4. 
Page 10

The Coalition submits that the sampling methodologies and questionnaire instruments 

proposed in the ICR do not appear likely to yield data of “practical utility.” Moreover, the 

design of the survey is not sufficiently detailed to determine whether the information obtained 

will be statistically relevant. 

EPA intends to pose brief screening questions to 10,650 entities including: “(A) 

establishments that perform RRP activities in [P&C buildings] for compensation on a contract 

basis; hereinafter referred to as contractors; (B) lessors and managers of [P&C buildings]; and 

(C) building occupants of [P&C buildings] (both owners and tenants) who may use their own 

staff to perform RRP activities.”41 In addition to screening contractors, lessors, managers, and 

occupants, EPA “plans to have 402 respondents complete a questionnaire.”42 This randomly 

sampled universe of respondents is said to “provide a basis for estimating the population of 

establishments engaged in RRP activities in [P&C buildings].”43 Without additional information 

on the methodology to be used in such a survey, we are concerned that the respondent pool of 

402 surveys will be insufficient to reflect the diversity of the public and commercial building 

stock. 

A similar type of survey, the Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey 

(CBECS), is “conducted quadrennially by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) to 

provide basic statistical information about [energy consumption, expenditures, and related 

characteristics] in U.S. commercial buildings. The survey is based upon a sample of commercial 

buildings selected according to the sample design requirements.”44 One of CBECS’s data 

collection phases is a “Building Characteristics Survey” which “collects information about 

selected commercial buildings through voluntary interviews with the buildings' owners, 

managers, or tenants.”45

To collect information in 200346 on the estimated 4.9 million commercial buildings in the 

U.S., the CBECS relied upon an initial screening sample size of 6,955 buildings of which 5,215 

completed surveys (a response rate of 82%) formed the basis of the final report. Given the 

similarities between the ICR and the CBECS survey populations (i.e., the U.S. commercial 

building stock) it is unclear whether 402 completed lead ICR surveys reflecting the experiences 

of three categories of survey respondents (i.e., contractor, owner, and occupant) will be sufficient 

for the task of predicting a reliable “baseline for the incidence of different types of RRP activities 

that disturb lead-based paint in [P&C buildings], the methods that are used to conduct these 

41 ICR Supporting Statement, at 1. 

42 Id.

43 Id.

44 http://www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/data/2003/index.cfm?view=methodology#sampledesign. 

45 Id.

46 A current CBECS survey and sampling effort has been underway since 2011. The Coalition strongly 

encourages EPA to contact EIA to gain a better understanding of the methodologies and statistical analyses used by 

CBECS in its survey of commercial buildings, and we offer to facilitate and arrange meetings on this topic. 
Page 11

activities, the work practices that are used to contain and clean the resulting dust, and the 

characteristics of the buildings.”47

As outlined in the ICR, if each surveyed entity is considered a “building,”48 then 402 

responses – representing only 0.008% of the commercial building stock – will form the basis of 

EPA’s understanding of RRP activities across the broad and diverse spectrum of U.S. P&C 

structures. By comparison, the CBECS survey of roughly the same building stock sought 

information on a narrower question (energy consumption) and relied upon a sample size of 5,215 

buildings or 0.1% of the building stock. As noted above, the comparison between survey rates of 

the ICR and CBECS likely overstates the percentage of commercial buildings that will be 

sampled in the ICR because not all of the 402 completed surveys will actually represent 

individual buildings. Nonetheless, EPA states that the ICR will “use a probability sample to 

calculate nationally representative parameter estimates” and will “produce statistically valid 

estimates” of RRP jobs in commercial buildings.49 EPA provides no information or background 

materials to explain whether the “screening” sample or the “survey” sample will produce 

statistically valid estimates on lead-based paint and work practices information to justify an 

expansive new regulatory program. 

With regard to the universe of contractors that might be surveyed, the United States had 

approximately 740,000 construction firms in 2012, of which 92% employed fewer than 20 

workers (according to the latest U.S. census bureau data). As the chart below shows, even if all 

of the responses EPA ultimately collects were to come from the building and specialty trade 

segments of the contractor community (which will not be the case given that some of the surveys 

are intended to be completed by building owners and tenants), the agency would have reached 

out to merely 0.05% of those construction firms to solicit information on the types of painting 

activities that disturb lead-based paint in P&C buildings, and the work practices that are being 

used to contain and collect paint dust. This is not likely to produce “statistically valid” data or 

data that is representative of standard industry practices. 

Construction Company Type Statistics Number of Companies

Construction of Buildings 211,956

Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction 39,439

Specialty Trade Contractors 477,950

Moreover, the likelihood that the exceedingly low number of sampled buildings and 

contractors will not result in data of “practical utility” is exacerbated by the diversity of the U.S. 

commercial building stock in terms of size, age, geography, uses, and occupancy types. The 

“practical utility” of any information gathered from the 10,650 “screened”/402 “fully surveyed” 

respondents is thus further diminished, because the number of surveyed jobs will be so low as to 

47 ICR Supporting Statement, at 1 

48 Indeed, considering the inclusion of “contractors” as a category of respondents, it is not clear that each 

surveyed entity represents a “building” for purposes of the lead paint ICR. 

49 ICR Supporting Statement, at 2. 
Page 12

preclude reasonable estimates regarding lead-based paint presence, RRP practices, and dust 

exposure across the widely diverse U.S. stock of commercial buildings. The April 1, 2013, 

Comments explain that, among other building variables assessed by CBECS50: 

           “There are nearly 4.9 million commercial buildings in the U.S. spanning a

broad spectrum of types and uses, and comprising more than 71.6 billion square feet

of floorspace.”

           “Buildings constructed from 1970 to 2003 comprise 58 percent of buildings

and 63 percent of floorspace.”

            “Since the first CBECS in 1979, the commercial buildings sector has increased

in size.    From 1979 to 2003, the number of commercial buildings increased from 3.8

million to 4.9 million. And, the amount of commercial floorspace increased from 51

billion to 72 billion square feet.”

           “The South Census Region, the most populous of the four regions, accounts for

more than one‐third of both commercial buildings and floorspace.    The fewest

commercial buildings are found in the Northeast  Census  Region,  while  the  smallest  

amount  of commercial floor space is found in the West Census Region.”

           “Key occupancy information such as numbers of workers, median square feet

per worker, and median hours per week of operation, significantly vary across all

building types and sub‐types.”

            “The most recent CBECS survey identified more than 100 specific activities,

aggregated into fourteen “principal building activities” which are then broken down

into numerous sub‐types based on the primary business, commerce or function

conducted within each structure ....”

The Coalition understands that there must be limits to the number of buildings and RRP 

jobs that EPA may feasibly survey. But insofar as the ICR request comes from the agency, EPA 

bears the burden to fully explain how the universe of randomly sampled respondents is sufficient 

in scope and number to yield data of “practical utility” that will enable reasonable estimates, 

assumptions, and conclusions that may have a regulatory impact under TSCA. That “[t]his ICR 

will allow EPA to produce statistically valid estimates” is stated as a bald conclusion51 – with no 

articulated reasons, justifications, or back-up documentation. For that matter, neither the 

Supporting Statement nor any other document provides an explanation as to why EPA believes

50 April 1, 2013, Comments, at 8-23. 

51 ICR Supporting Statement, at 3. 
Page 13

the ICR meets the Office of Management and Budget’s “Standards and Guidelines for Statistical

Surveys” (September 2006).52

With the General Services Administration’s portfolio totaling 1,500 government-owned 

buildings,53 EPA would obtain a far better statistical sample if it just focused on federal 

government buildings and facilities.54 But as the ICR is presently conceived, it will not likely 

result in useful data for potential regulatory purposes and, therefore, does not demonstrate that it 

will satisfy the PRA’s “practical utility” criterion. 

IV. CONCLUSION

The Coalition supports EPA’s efforts to gather information to determine whether there is 

a need for a new RRP regulatory program for P&C buildings and, if so, what type of regulation 

may be warranted. We appreciate EPA’s willingness to use available tools like the ICR to fill 

some of the key data gaps that exist, as the agency itself recognizes. 

However, EPA must significantly improve the ICR if it is to satisfy the PRA’s statutory 

requirements. The agency must maximize the practical utility of collecting information as 

necessary for the proper exercise of its authority to regulate only those RRP activities that create 

a lead-based paint hazard. Also, the agency must minimize the response burden on the public 

(including small businesses) in collecting data, such as by coordinating with the federal buildings 

community to provide information sought by the ICR. The Coalition reiterates its previous offer 

to work with EPA in coordinating efforts with relevant federal building owners and managers to 

obtain information that might ultimately inform any RRP rule for P&C buildings. 

52 Available at: 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/statpolicy/standards_stat_surveys.pdf. Among other 

things, OMB’s guidelines states that agencies must “select[ ] samples using generally accepted statistical methods,” 

such that “[t]he size and design of the sample must reflect the level of detail needed in tabulations and other data 

products, and the precision required of key estimates.” Id. at i. Further, agencies must “ensure that survey results 

are representative of the target population so that they can be used with confidence to inform decisions.” Id. It is 

not apparent to the Coalition that EPA has taken such steps to assure the statistical reliability of any information that 

may be gathered through the ICR at issue. 

53 Supra n. 33. 

54 In this regard, EPA plans to send surveys to only nine – and no more – respondents for each questionnaire 

“in order to identify potential changes to improve the survey instrument.” ICR Supporting Statement, at 4. See also 

id. at 28 (“The agency will pre-test each draft questionnaire with 9 or fewer respondents.”). However, “[t]he agency 

does not anticipate that a pilot test will be possible given time and budget constraints.” Id. at 28. Given the scope of 

any RRP regulations will cover federal buildings, why aren’t GSA personnel, federal facilities managers, and federal 

building construction contractors participating in any pre-test and pilot? The Coalition believes that testing the

survey instruments with federal personnel can only help achieve the PRA’s purposes to gather potentially useful data 

and minimize public response burdens. 
Page 1

ATTACHMENT 1 

LIST OF ORGANIZATIONS IN COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES COALITION 

Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC) is a national construction industry trade 

association with 22,000 chapter members. Founded on the merit shop philosophy, ABC and its 

70 chapters help members develop people, win work and deliver that work safely, ethically and 

profitably for the betterment of the communities in which they work. ABC member contractors 

employ workers, whose training and experience span all of the 20-plus skilled trades that 

comprise the construction industry. Moreover, the vast majority of our contractor members are 

classified as small businesses. Our diverse membership is bound by a shared commitment to the 

merit shop philosophy in the construction industry. The philosophy is based on the principles of 

nondiscrimination due to labor affiliation and the awarding of construction contracts through 

open, competitive bidding based on safety, quality and value. This process assures that taxpayers 

and consumers will receive the most for their construction dollar. 

Associated General Contractors of America (AGC) is the leading trade association in the 

construction industry. It dates back to 1918, and it currently represents 33,000 firms in nearly 

100 chapters across the United States. AGC’s members include 7,500 of the nation’s leading 

general contractors, nearly 12,500 specialty contractors and more than 13,000 material suppliers 

and service providers to the construction industry. These members engage in the construction of 

commercial buildings, hospitals and laboratories, schools, shopping centers, factories, 

warehouses, highways, bridges, tunnels, airports, levees, water works facilities and multi-family 

housing units, and they prepare sites and install the utilities necessary for housing development. 

AGC Building Contractors represent large and small contractors, from those that offer a wide 

variety of pre-construction and post-construction services to those that offer only traditional 

construction services. In 2012 nonresidential construction spending in the U.S. totaled $570 

billion ($273 billion public, $298 billion private). In December 2013, nonresidential building 

and specialty trade contractors accounted for 2.8 million of the industry’s 5.8 million employees. 

Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) International is a federation of 93

BOMA U.S. associations, BOMA Canada and its 11 regional associations and 13 BOMA 

international affiliates. Founded in 1907, BOMA represents the owners and managers of all 

commercial property types including nearly 10 billion square feet of U.S. office space that 

supports 3.7 million jobs and contributes $205 billion to the U.S. GDP. Its mission is to advance 

the interests of the entire commercial real estate industry through advocacy, education, research, 

standards and information. BOMA International is a primary source of information on building 

management and operations, development, leasing, building operating costs, energy consumption 

patterns, local and national building codes, legislation, occupancy statistics, technological 

developments and other industry trends.

CCIM Institute is an affiliate of the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS® (NAR). 

The Institute confers the Certified Commercial Investment Member (CCIM) designation through 

an extensive curriculum and experiential requirements. The CCIM designation was established 

in 1969 and is recognized as the mark of professionalism and knowledge in commercial 

investment real estate. Membership includes qualified professionals in all disciplines of 

commercial investment real estate, including brokers, leasing professionals, investment 
Page 2

counselors, asset managers, appraisers, corporate real estate executives, property managers, 

developers, institutional investors, commercial lenders, attorneys, bankers, and other allied 

professionals. Of the approximately 125,000 commercial real estate practitioners nationwide, 

9,000 currently hold the CCIM designation, with an additional 6,000 candidates pursuing the 

designation. Founded upon the principles of education, networking, and ethical practice, the 

CCIM Institute, as an affiliate of the 1.2 million-member NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF 

REALTORS®, helps shape policy and legislation affecting the industry and safeguards the 

interests of commercial investment real estate practitioners. 

The Independent Electrical Contractors (IEC) is a national trade association for merit shop 

electrical and systems contractors representing over 3,000 member companies and 56 chapters 

nation-wide. Over 50 percent of IEC members are small business owners. With over $14 billion 

in annual sales, our members are a driving force in the electrical and systems contracting 

industry. IEC serves as the voice of the industry on policies affecting our membership and 

attempts to further our economy through skilled manpower and the principle of free enterprise. 

IEC has more than 50 chapter training centers nationwide that provide training to approximately 

10,000 apprentices each year. IEC's training program offers participants the knowledge, 

technical skills, and practical experience necessary to succeed in today’s electrical trade. 

Institute of Real Estate Management (IREM®) is an international community of real estate 

managers dedicated to ethical business practices, maximizing the value of investment real estate, 

and promoting superior management through education and information sharing. An affiliate of 

the National Association of REALTORS®, IREM is the home for all industry professionals 

connected to real estate management – and the only organization serving both the multi-family 

and commercial sectors. We believe that good management matters, and that well-managed 

properties pay dividends in terms of value and in the quality of life for residents, tenants and 

customers. We believe in professional ethics. We believe in the power of knowledge and the 

importance of sharing it. IREM offers a variety of membership types for professionals of every 

experience level, from on-site managers to high-level executives. Our credentials, earned by 

meeting high standards of education, experience, and ethical business practices, include: 

CERTIFIED PROPERTY MANAGER® (CPM®), ACCREDITED RESIDENTIAL 

MANAGER® (ARM®), ACCREDITED COMMERCIAL MANAGER (ACoM), or 

ACCREDITED MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION® (AMO®). Since 1933, IREM has set 

the standard for best practices in real estate management. Today, IREM® membership includes 

more than 18,000 individuals and 560 corporate members. 

Founded in 1957, the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC) is the premier global 

trade association of the shopping center industry. Its more than 60,000 members in over 90 

countries include shopping center owners, developers, managers, marketing specialists, 

investors, retailers and brokers, as well as academics and public officials. As the global industry 

trade association, ICSC links with more than 25 national and regional shopping center councils 

throughout the world. 

NAIOP, the Commercial Real Estate Development Association, is the leading organization 

for developers, owners and related professionals in office, industrial and mixed-use real estate. 

NAIOP comprises 15,000 members in North America, with over 50 local chapters. NAIOP 
Page 3

advances responsible commercial real estate development and advocates for effective public 

policy. 

NAREIT®, the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts®, is the worldwide 

representative voice for REITs and publicly traded real estate companies with an interest in U.S. 

real estate and capital markets. NAREIT's members are REITs and other businesses throughout 

the world that own, operate, and finance income-producing real estate, as well as those firms and 

individuals who advise, study, and service those businesses. 

For more than 20 years, the National Apartment Association (NAA) and the National 

Multifamily Housing Council (NMHC) have partnered on behalf of America's apartment 

industry. Drawing on the knowledge and policy expertise of staff in Washington, D.C., as well 

as the advocacy power of 170 NAA state and local affiliated associations, NAA and NMHC 

provide a single voice for developers, owners and operators of multifamily rental housing. 

Apartments and their 35 million residents support more than 25 million jobs and contribute $1.1 

trillion to the economy. 

The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) is a trade association organized for the 

purpose of promoting the general commercial, professional, and legislative interests of its 

membership. NAHB consists of more than 140,000 builder and associate members organized 

into approximately 800 affiliated state and local associations in all 50 states, the District of 

Columbia, and Puerto Rico. These members are involved in home building, remodeling, 

multifamily construction, property management, subcontracting, design, housing finance, 

building product manufacturing and other aspects of residential and light commercial 

construction. Founded in 1982, NAHB Remodelers of the National Association of Home 

Builders represents and serves the interests of more than 24,000 remodeling industry members. 

The National Association of REALTORS®, The Voice for Real Estate®, is America’s largest 

trade association, representing over 1 million members involved in the residential and 

commercial real estate industries. NAR is strategically poised to work on behalf of America's 

property owners providing a facility for professional development, research and exchange of 

information among its members and to the public and government for the purpose of preserving 

the free enterprise system, and the right to own, use, and transfer real property. 

The National Association of the Remodeling Industry (NARI) is structured as a federation 

with almost 60 independent chapters located in most major metro areas throughout the country 

and with headquarters located in Des Plaines, IL (Northwest Chicago suburbs). NARI is a trade 

association whose 6,500 company members voluntarily subscribe to a Code of Ethics and 

Standards of Practice. Membership is comprised of general and specialty remodeling companies 

and local and national suppliers to the industry. NARI is the only national organization 

dedicated exclusively to the remodeling industry. With aging of the country’s housing stock and 

double digit growth in home improvement spending expected through mid-2014, NARI members 

perform a vital public purpose. 

The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) is the nation’s leading small 

business advocacy association, representing members in Washington, D.C., and all 50 state 

capitals. Founded in 1943 as a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization, NFIB’s mission is to 

promote and protect the right of its members to own, operate, and grow their businesses. NFIB 
Page 4

represents about 350,000 independent-business owners who are located throughout the United 

States. 

The Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors—National Association is America’s 

premier trade group for the p-h-c professional. PHCC has more than 3,500 open and union 

shop contractor members who successfully manage businesses in residential service and 

new construction, commercial and industrial markets. 

The Real Estate Roundtable (www.rer.org) brings together leaders of the nation’s top 

publicly- held and privately-owned real estate ownership, development, lending and 

management firms with the leaders of major national real estate trade associations to jointly 

address key national policy issues relating to real estate and the overall economy. Collectively, 

Roundtable members’ portfolios contain over 5 billion square feet of office, retail and 

industrial properties valued at more than $1 trillion; over 1.5 million apartment units; and in 

excess of 1.3 million hotel rooms. Participating trade associations represent more than 1.5 

million people involved in virtually

every aspect of the real estate business.

Window and Door Manufacturers Association (WDMA) defines the standards of 

excellence in the residential and commercial window, door and skylight industry and advances 

these standards among industry members while providing resources, education and 

professional programs designed to advance industry businesses and provide greater value for 

their customers. 

 
Page 5

February 4, 2014 

Document Control Office (7407M) 

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) 

Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW 

Washington, DC 20460-0001 

Re: Docket ID EPA-HQ-OPPT-2013-0715 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

As an employer representative of electrical contractors in the construction industry, I am writing 

in response to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Identification of the Information 

Collection posted in the Federal Register, December 6, 2013, Federal Register Number 2013-

29192. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on EPA’s request regarding a Survey of the Public and 

Commercial Building Industry. The survey deals with lead-based paint renovation, repair, and 

painting. 

The Independent Electrical Contractors, Inc. (IEC) is a national trade association representing 

nearly 3,000 member companies and 55 chapters nationwide. With over $14 billion in annual sales, 

IEC members are a driving force in the electrical and systems contracting industry. IEC serves as 

the voice of the industry on policies affecting our membership and attempts to further our economy 

through skilled manpower and the principle of free enterprise. 

 

While many of IEC’s members are among the top 50 electrical contractors (ranked by EC&M 

Magazine), more than 50 percent of members are small businesses. IEC members perform work 

in the following industry sectors: Residential, commercial, industrial, municipal, hospitals, 

airports, schools, defense, and both public and private power generation and distribution. IEC 

members frequently perform work on state and federal projects including work conducted in 

support of the federal government’s Defense Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) initiative. 
Page 6

Please accept IEC’s comments below: 

1. It is the opinion of IEC that questions raised by EPA’s Information Collection Request is 

premature. EPA should first determine if a lead hazard exists in public and commercial 

buildings. 

2. Also, the EPA should minimize the burden to building and service contractors by first 

gathering information dealing with the hazards of lead-based paint by coordination with 

federal government building owners and managers. These entities will likely have the 

information the EPA seeks to collect regarding renovation, repair, and painting activities. 

Obtaining such information from federal sources will allow for a more refined and less 

burdensome Information Collection Request that may be sent to non-governmental entities. 

 

3. It is our opinion that workers and the public are presently protected on the jobsite by 

regulation CFR 1926.62 of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). 

The OSHA regulation deals with construction as well as repairs and improvements. Many 

procedures in the OSHA regulation protect the public as well as workers. 

Conclusion: 

The EPA should minimize the burden to the contracting industry by first determining if a lead 

hazard exists from the renovation of government buildings. Only then should additional 

information be gathered also from federal government building owners and managers during the 

removal of lead-based paint. The EPA should carefully evaluate OSHA regulations to see if any 

additional requirements are needed to protect the public prior to creating a new EPA regulation. 

Redundant regulations require additional training and may be expensive to implement for small 

business construction contractors. 

IEC appreciates the opportunity to share our perspective on Renovation, Repair, and Painting of 

Lead-Based Paint in Public & Commercial Buildings. We would like to participate in any future 

development of a new rule. 

Respectfully, 

John Masarick 

VP of Codes & Safety 

 
1 

A. EPA Responses to Comments from the Commercial Properties Coalition 

 

Comment 1: In framing the ICR, EPA is asking the wrong questions at this juncture. As a threshold 

matter, EPA must determine whether a lead hazard exists in P&C buildings. Without a predicate 

determination from EPA as to whether RRP activities in P&C buildings cause a lead-based paint hazard 

in the first place, the proposed ICR cannot be relied upon to produce useful information and therefore 

does not comport with the PRA’s “practical utility” requirement. According to the Supporting Statement: 

“If EPA determines that a [P&C LRRP] regulation is needed the Agency will use [any ICR] data ...” 

That is, if the agency determines no regulation is needed, then the agency would not use the data – and 

any data thus collected through the ICR will have no practical utility. The public will have been burdened 

in responding to the ICR for no lawfully recognized purpose. The Supporting Statement acknowledges: 

“The primary purposes of this survey include estimating the baseline usage of particular work practices, 

and how this usage varies with the type of RRP job; determining the number of firms that perform RRP 

activities in [P&C buildings]; and determining the types and numbers of RRP activities that are 

performed.” For paperwork reduction purposes, however, there is no practical utility to collect “baseline 

data” on work practices and trained residential contractors if no lead-based paint hazard in P&C buildings 

is found to exist – because no work practice regulations will be necessary (or lawful) in the absence of a 

TSCA section 403 hazard determination. 

Response 1: If, prior to conducting the survey, EPA determines that no lead-based paint hazards are 

created in P&CBs due to RRP activities, then EPA will not put the survey in the field, irrespective of 

having an approved ICR. But due to the time required for public comment on the ICR and OMB review 

of the ICR, it is not appropriate for EPA to wait until after it determines whether there is a hazard before 

receiving approval of the ICR from OMB. Therefore, EPA is requesting that OMB approve the survey 

(which has a total estimated burden of only 564 hours) at this time. 

Comment 2: The Supporting Statement and questionnaire instruments themselves evidence that EPA 

would collect data on RRP activities disconnected from any possible lead-based paint hazard. The 

Supporting Statement sets forth 14 “key” pieces of information that the ICR would collect. The 11th 

listed “variable” is “LBP Testing,” where “Respondents will be asked about whether they tested for LBP 

and if so, whether or not the test indicated the presence of LBP.” Similarly, Question 10 (second to last) 

of the “Manager/Lessor Survey Questionnaire” asks the respondent: “To your knowledge, has the 

building we’ve been discussing ever been tested for the presence of lead-based paint?” If a building 

tested positive for the presence of lead paint, or if a respondent otherwise believes or knows that leadbased paint exists in the building, it would be useful to gather information on RRP practices. However, if 

a respondent states that lead-based paint does not exist in the commercial structure or is otherwise unsure 

of its presence, then any interview or questionnaire response should stop there. Subsequent questioning 

would gather information on RRP activities that lack practical utility – because EPA lacks authority to 

regulate such activities without a section 403 showing that they create lead-based paint hazards. At a 

minimum, EPA should restructure the survey to begin with a question on whether a property is known to 

contain lead paint; if the response indicates the answer is no, the survey should be terminated. 

Response 2: The survey should not be limited to respondents that know that the building tested positive 

for lead-based paint. The survey collects data such as the size, frequency, and duration of different job 

types, all of which can influence exposure to lead from renovations. Respondents can provide such 

information – which has practical utility – whether or not LBP is known to have been present. 

 Information from respondents who are unsure about the presence of lead-based paint are clearly 

relevant to EPA’s analysis of the risks from RRP activities in P&CBs. Some fraction of the jobs where 
2 

respondents are unsure of the presence of lead-based paint will result in lead-based paint being disturbed. 

EPA can use data on the general prevalence of lead-based paint to estimate how many of these jobs 

disturb lead-based paint. Therefore, data from these respondents has practical utility. In fact, since 

renovators may not be using lead-safe work practices if they are unaware of the presence of lead-based 

paint, these may be among the most important renovations on which to collect data. And according to the 

Painting and Decorating Contractors of America, commercial project specifications generally do not 

direct lead testing, so the lead status will be unknown in many cases. 

 Even respondents who state that they worked in P&CBs where lead-based paint was not present 

will provide responses that have practical utility. Information on the sizes, frequencies, and durations of 

such jobs is still relevant, as there is no data to indicate that these factors differ significantly between jobs 

where lead-based paint is known to be present, known to be absent, or unknown. As with jobs where the 

presence of lead-based paint is unknown, EPA can use these responses in estimating the sizes, 

frequencies, and durations of different types of jobs irrespective of the presence of lead-based paint. 

Given the challenges in locating entities that conduct RRP activities disturbing LBP in P&CBs, the 

approach that is both least burdensome for the respondent pool and least costly for the Federal 

government is to ask these questions even if the respondent believes that lead-based paint was not present 

at any of their jobs. 

 EPA disagrees with the commenter’s presumption that the order that variables are described in 

the Supporting Statement or a questionnaire determines the relevance of that information in EPA’s 

analysis, or the degree of practical utility. And given the importance of collecting data from respondents 

whether or not they have tested for lead-based paint, there is no need to start the questionnaire by asking 

whether the building has been tested for lead-based paint. This is particularly true since the majority of 

buildings have probably not been tested. 

Nonetheless, EPA has revised how the survey asks respondents about lead-based paint. 

Respondents are asked about the types of RRP activities they performed that disturb painted surfaces, and 

a single activity type reported for each respondent will be randomly selected for a more detailed series of 

questions. In the revised questionnaire, the respondent will be asked to recall the most recent job of that 

type they performed that is either known to have disturbed lead-based paint, or disturbed surfaces that 

may contain paint that was applied before 1978. If none of the recent jobs for the randomly selected 

activity type meet these criteria, the respondent will still be asked questions about the recent job. (As 

described above, this provides important information about the sizes, frequencies, and durations of 

different types of RRP activities.) Thus, the survey will first attempt to collect information on jobs where 

LBP was or may have been disturbed. If the respondent cannot provide that information they will be 

asked about other jobs, as their responses still have practical utility. 

Comment 3: Federal agencies maintain P&C buildings of varying purposes, sizes, ages, and geographic 

distribution and thus form a reliable cohort to provide a comprehensive catalogue of the RRP activities 

conducted in a range of P&C buildings. Before sending an ICR to the public (including many small 

businesses), EPA should collect renovation and remodeling information from readily accessible federal 

government sources and thereby minimize the public’s response burden. 

 However, EPA has yet to explain what, if any, steps it has taken to collect information sought by 

the ICR from the federal buildings community. As the U.S. government owns the most buildings in the 

country, and leases the most commercial space across the nation, federal agencies are the most logical and 

efficient first stop for EPA to gather lead paint and work practices information before the public is 

screened, surveyed, and questioned. Considering the breadth and diversity of the federal government’s 

commercial real estate stock, gathering lead-based paint information from federal owners and occupants 
3 

would minimize the public’s burden to provide the same information. Surprisingly, EPA’s Supporting 

Statement does not mention any efforts whatsoever to obtain RRP information from federal departments. 

 Among other suggestions, the Coalition recommends that EPA contact the Architect of the 

Capitol with regard to solicit information regarding the rehabilitation of the Capitol Dome and the 

imminent top-to-bottom renewal of the U.S. House Cannon Building. Certainly, these renovation, repair, 

and painting projects on Capitol Hill can provide EPA with work practices information sought by the ICR 

– without burdening the public. The Coalition is not persuaded that information on commercial LLRP 

activities “is not available from any readily accessible source.” The federal government is such a source. 

With the General Services Administration’s portfolio totaling 1,500 government-owned buildings, EPA 

would obtain a far better statistical sample if it just focused on federal government buildings and 

facilities. 

 EPA should coordinate with the National Institute of Building Sciences (“NIBS”), which 

manages the federal “Whole Building Design Guide (“WBDG”). If the WDBG and collaboration among 

its participating agencies cannot provide relevant lead-based paint information then the Coalition wonders 

whether any group or organization could practicably or feasibly supply the information sought by EPA. 

 The Coalition encourages EPA to leverage the wealth of experience and depth of knowledge of 

federal entities as a fair and practicable step to minimize the public’s burdens from an ICR that would 

duplicate the information that could be obtained from the federal building community. Indeed, the federal 

buildings community is an ideal source for the data EPA seeks to provide “specificity and level of detail 

... in order to estimate the potential risks, the industry baseline, and the costs and benefits of potential 

regulatory requirements.” 

Response 3: Despite the commenter’s claim that Federal buildings are an “ideal source” and that limiting 

the data collection to Federal buildings “would obtain a far better statistical sample” than conducting a 

random sample of entities that conduct RRP activities in P&CBs, EPA’s proposed probabilistic method 

for survey sampling allows a sampling error to be calculated, so it is a better approach from a statistical 

standpoint. 

 Federal buildings represent only part of the universe of P&CBs, and of RRP activities in P&CBs. 

While the Federal government maintains a large number of buildings, administering the survey to a 

random sample of entities will better characterize the range of P&CBs, P&CB contractors, RRP activities 

in P&CBs, and baseline work practices in P&CBs. Therefore, EPA’s survey will not duplicate available 

information. It is in the public’s interest that EPA act without delay to collect a robust data set based on 

a survey of randomly selected entities, including non-Federal entities. 

 EPA has already collected information about lead-based paint and RRP practices from various 

Federal entities. The Supporting Statement does not discuss this data because EPA does not need ICR 

approval to conduct such discussions within the Federal government.1

 Nor is it necessary to document all 

of the data that has been obtained from Federal entities (or any other sources) in order to justify the 

information collection requested in the Supporting Statement. EPA is interested in work practices in 

Federal buildings because, as the commenter points out, the Federal government owns and leases P&CB 

space. However, this does not mean that EPA’s information collection should be limited to Federal 

entities. The unique nature of Federal projects such as the Capitol Dome renovation means that EPA’s 

survey is not duplicative of available information about Federal buildings. 

 

1

 Although the ICR Supporting Statement did note that “EPA has investigated various sources of data on RRP firms 

and practices, including ... government reports, and information provided to EPA...” 
4 

 Federal building renovations costing of tens or hundreds of millions of dollars with multi-year 

timeframes may differ from the RRP activities that other entities (including small businesses) more 

commonly undertake in P&CBs such as preparing surfaces for repainting in a motel, creating an opening 

in a wall to perform electrical work in a doctor’s office, or removing a section of a wall in order to repair 

a broken water pipe in a shopping mall. As shown in Table B2.1 of the ICR Supporting Statement, 76% 

of entities have 1 to 4 employees, 9% have 5 to 9 employees, 8% have 10 to 49 employees, and just 2% 

have more than 50 employees. Over 99% of the entities in the U.S. qualify as small entities. By contrast 

the Federal government, with over 2 million civilian employees alone, is not a small entity. As a result, 

the AOC and other Federal entities may have more time and money to address LBP in the absence of any 

requirement to do so. Thus, the prevalence of work practices to control lead exposures from RRP 

activities may differ between the Federal government and other entities. Conducting a survey (instead of 

relying solely on data collected from Federal entities), will allow EPA to make a more in-depth 

characterization of the risks from common RRP events, and (if needed) to better estimate the potential 

costs and benefits of controlling exposures. 

 Before proposing a survey, EPA tried other means of gathering information about RRP activities 

in P&CBs. EPA has requested information, such as the frequency and extent of renovations in or on 

public and commercial buildings, the work practices used, and other related questions, on multiple 

occasions.2

 To the extent that the RRP industry responded to the questions in these Federal Register 

notices, the answers were not specific enough to be useful as the basis for EPA’s analysis. For example, 

one of the questions in the 2010 ANPR was “What types of renovations are typically performed in and on 

public and commercial buildings, and how often is each type of renovation performed? What is the span 

or range, both typical and extreme, in size and duration of each type of renovation job?” A typical 

response was “Interesting questions, renovations depend on specific project work scope, building use 

function, or function change. The span may encompass simple, basic maintenance to complete re-use.” 

Such a response does not provide the type of concrete data that EPA seeks for an analysis to determine 

whether lead hazards are created by RRP activities in P&CBs. Therefore, EPA concluded that it should 

conduct a survey to gather this information. 

 While the commenter is concerned that it will be difficult for non-Federal entities to complete the 

survey and “wonders whether any group or organization could practicably or feasibly supply the 

information sought by EPA,” the actual evidence indicates that non-Federal respondents can readily 

complete the survey. EPA conducted a pretest of the survey with 6 private sector respondents, and the 

pretesters did not have difficulty completing the questionnaire or supplying the information sought by 

EPA. 

OMB’s guidelines indicate that agencies should ensure that “survey results are representative of 

the target population.” While the commenter asserts that Federal buildings are representative of P&CBs, 

in Comment #4 this same commenter compared EPA’s survey to the Energy Information 

Administration’s Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS). EIA did not limit 

CBECS to Federal buildings, although that would have significantly reduced reporting burden for the 

private sector. Like EIA, EPA is proposing to collect data from a representative random sample instead 

of only surveying the Federal government. 

 

2

 See “Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program for Public and Commercial Buildings” (advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking [ANPR]) (75 FR 24848, May 6, 2010); “Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program for 

Public and Commercial Buildings; Request for Information and Advance Notice of Public Meeting” (77 FR 76996, 

December 31, 2012); and “Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program for Public and Commercial Buildings; 

Notice of Public Meeting and Reopening of Comment Period” (78 FR 27906, May 13, 2013). 
5 

Comment 4: The Coalition submits that the sampling methodologies and questionnaire instruments 

proposed in the ICR do not appear likely to yield data of “practical utility.” EPA intends to pose brief 

screening questions to 10,650 entities and plans to have 402 respondents complete a questionnaire. 

Without additional information on the methodology to be used in such a survey, we are concerned that the 

respondent pool of 402 surveys will be insufficient to reflect the diversity of the public and commercial 

building stock. 

 The 2003 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) conducted by the 

Energy Information Administration relied on 5,215 completed surveys to characterize 4.9 million 

commercial buildings in the U.S. Given the similarities between the ICR and the CBECS survey 

populations (i.e., the U.S. commercial building stock) it is unclear whether 402 completed lead ICR 

surveys will be sufficient. If each surveyed entity is considered a “building” then 402 responses represent 

only 0.008% of the commercial building stock. By comparison, the CBECS survey relied upon a sample 

size of 0.1% of the building stock. 

 Nonetheless, EPA states that the ICR will “use a probability sample to calculate nationally 

representative parameter estimates” and will “produce statistically valid estimates” of RRP jobs in 

commercial buildings. EPA provides no information or background materials to explain whether the 

“screening” sample or the “survey” sample will produce statistically valid estimates on lead-based paint 

and work practices information to justify an expansive new regulatory program. 

 According to Census Bureau data there were approximately 740,000 construction firms in the 

U.S. in 2012, including 212,000 firms engaged in the construction of buildings, 39,000 firms engaged in 

heavy and civil engineering construction, and 478,000 firms engaged in specialty trade contractors. Even 

if all of the responses EPA ultimately collects were to come from the building and specialty trade 

segments of the contractor community, this is not likely to produce “statistically valid” data or data that is 

representative of standard industry practices. 

 Moreover, the likelihood that the exceedingly low number of sampled buildings and contractors 

will not result in data of “practical utility” is exacerbated by the diversity of the U.S. commercial building 

stock in terms of size, age, geography, uses, and occupancy types. The “practical utility” of any 

information gathered from the 10,650 “screened”/402 “fully surveyed” respondents is thus further 

diminished, because the number of surveyed jobs will be so low as to preclude reasonable estimates 

regarding lead-based paint presence, RRP practices, and dust exposure across the widely diverse U.S. 

stock of commercial buildings. 

 EPA made a bald conclusion with no articulated reasons, justifications, or back-up documentation 

to conclude that the ICR will allow it to produce statistically valid estimates. For that matter, neither the 

Supporting Statement nor any other document provides an explanation as to why EPA believes the ICR 

meets the Office of Management and Budget’s “Standards and Guidelines for Statistical Surveys” 

(September 2006). Among other things, OMB’s guidelines states that agencies must “select[ ] samples 

using generally accepted statistical methods,” such that “[t]he size and design of the sample must reflect 

the level of detail needed in tabulations and other data products, and the precision required of key 

estimates.” Further, agencies must “ensure that survey results are representative of the target population 

so that they can be used with confidence to inform decisions.” It is not apparent to the Coalition that EPA 

has taken such steps to assure the statistical reliability of any information that may be gathered through 

the ICR at issue. 

Response 4: If it is not apparent to the commenter that EPA has taken steps to assure the statistical 

reliability of the information to be gathered through the survey then the commenter apparently overlooked 
6 

the information in the ICR supporting statement about the survey methodology and the precision of the 

estimates that will be derived from the survey data, because the ICR documents this information. 

 In response to the commenter’s question about whether the “screening” sample or the “survey” 

sample will produce statistically valid estimates on lead-based paint and work practices, the screening 

questions in the survey are designed to determine whether the respondent disturbs painted surfaces in 

P&CBs, which is relevant to determining how many entities engage in that activity. As noted in Table 

4.2 of the ICR Supporting Statement, “Responses from the screening and scope questions will be used to 

estimate the universe of relevant firms.” Since only the respondents that complete the full survey are 

asked about work practices and lead-based paint, the estimates for those parameters will be based on the 

“full completes.” The screening questions and the remaining survey questions are shown in the survey 

questionnaires, which were included as attachments to the ICR Supporting Statement. 

 Contrary to the commenter’s contention that EPA made a “bald conclusion” that it can produce 

statistically valid estimates based on the survey data, the ICR Supporting Statement provides the 

documentation and justifications for EPA’s conclusions. EPA’s survey complies with OMB’s guidelines 

that agencies must select samples using generally accepted statistical methods, and that the size and 

design of the sample must reflect the level of detail needed in tabulations and other data products and the 

precision required of key estimates. EPA has proposed using a random stratified sample, which is an 

accepted statistical method. The sampling frame is described in section (B)(2)(b)(i) of the Supporting 

Statement, and the stratification of the survey is described in Section (B)(2)(b)(iii) of the Supporting 

Statement, as well as in Table B2.2. The parameter margins of error are described in Table B2.2 of the 

ICR Supporting Statement, and in sections (B)(2)(b)(ii) and (B)(2)(c)(i). These margins of error, which 

were calculated based on the total number of relevant entities in Table B2.1 and the number of 

respondents in Table B2.2, specifically address the precision of the estimates. These precision rates will 

be adequate to characterize the number of regulated activities and the extent to which renovators currently 

use certain containment and cleaning practices. 

 The commenter’s comparisons between EPA’s survey and CBECS are invalid because the 

commenter’s premise (that the survey population for EPA’s ICR is the commercial building stock) is 

incorrect. Despite the commenter’s claims that there are “similarities” between the survey populations in 

CBECS and EPA’s survey, there are significant differences between the two survey populations. CBECS 

is a study of the commercial building stock, while EPA’s survey is of entities that conduct RRP activities. 

Renovators can work in multiple buildings over the course of a year, so a survey of renovators may reflect 

work in a much larger number of buildings. Several hundred renovation firms could work in several 

thousand buildings over the course of a year. 

 There are numerous additional reasons why CBECS uses a larger sample than EPA’s survey. The 

commenter notes that the U.S. commercial building stock is diverse in terms of size, age, geography, uses, 

and occupancy types. Energy consumption can vary with these factors, and the CBECS sample frame has 

to be large enough to account for this variability. For example, buildings in northern zones may require 

more energy for heating while buildings in southern zones may use more energy for cooling, which is 

why the CBECS sampling plan has an area plan as well as a list frame. Building square footage is highly 

correlated with energy consumption, which is why the CBECS list frame is designed to sample large 

buildings at a higher rate than small buildings. Similarly, older buildings tend to be less energy-efficient 

than newer ones, which justifies gathering data on more buildings in CBECS in order to reflect a wide 

range of building vintages. The reasons for the relatively large size of the CBECS sample do not apply to 

EPA’s survey. The commenter has not demonstrated, for example, that containment or cleaning practices 

for RRP activities depend on the geography, building size, or specific age of the building where the work 

is conducted. The commenter is wrong that CBECS is a “similar type of survey” as EPA’s survey, so the 

comparisons to the CBECS sampling plan are not germane. EPA’s survey is designed to collect 
7 

information about RRP activities and work practices among entities performing non-residential 

work. Since EPA’s target universe is renovators while the commercial building stock is the focus of 

CBECS, CBECS is not an appropriate comparison with EPA’s survey. 

The difference in the target universes for EPA’s survey and CBECS is not the only reason that the 

commenter’s claims about the validity of EPA’s estimates are inapt. More fundamentally, the precision 

of a statistic estimated from a random sample is determined by the sample size, not the population size. 

According to Moore, McCabe, & Craig’s Introduction to the Practice of Statistics (6th ed.) this is true as 

long as the population is at least 100 times larger than the sample, which is the case for EPA’s 

survey. The formula used for the estimated margin of error, 

ሾටቀ		ఈܼേ 	 ൌ ݎ݋ݎݎܧ	݂݋	݃݅݊ݎܽܯ

௣௤

௡ ቁሿ where ܼఈ	 ൌ 1.96	݂ݎ݋	ߙ	0.05 ;݌ ൌ 	 .50; ݍ ൌ ሺ1െ݌ሻ; ܽ݊݀	݊ ൌ ݏܽ݉݌݈݁	ݏ݅ݖ݁, 

is based on the size of the sample, not the size of the universe being sampled. 

 EPA is proposing a sample size and sampling strategy that produces statistically valid results, 

yet limits the number of respondents to an appropriate number for this analysis in order to impose the 

least burden that is necessary for the proper performance of the Agency’s function. EPA has documented 

the sampling plan and the precision in the ICR Supporting Statement, and the data to be collected have 

practical utility. Therefore, the survey and the ICR comply with the guidelines for information collection 

and statistical surveys. 

 
8 

B. EPA Responses to Comments from the Independent Electrical Contractors 

Comment 1: It is the opinion of IEC that questions raised by EPA’s Information Collection Request is 

premature. EPA should first determine if a lead hazard exists in public and commercial buildings. 

Response 1: See the response above to Comment #1 by the Commercial Properties Coalition 

Comment 2: Also, the EPA should minimize the burden to building and service contractors by first 

gathering information dealing with the hazards of lead-based paint by coordination with federal 

government building owners and managers. These entities will likely have the information the EPA seeks 

to collect regarding renovation, repair, and painting activities. Obtaining such information from federal 

sources will allow for a more refined and less burdensome Information Collection Request that may be 

sent to non-governmental entities. 

Response 2: See the response above to Comment #3 by the Commercial Properties Coalition 

 

Comment 3: It is our opinion that workers and the public are presently protected on the jobsite by 

regulation CFR 1926.62 of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). The OSHA 

regulation deals with construction as well as repairs and improvements. Many procedures in the OSHA 

regulation protect the public as well as workers. 

Response 3: This comment does not directly address the survey or the ICR. EPA notes that the OSHA 

regulations at 29 CFR 1926.62 do not apply to all RRP activities in P&CBs. Also, since the OSHA 

regulations are designed to protect workers, they do they necessarily protect the public from all lead 

hazards resulting from RRP activities in P&CBs. Therefore, it is important that EPA conduct a survey in 

order to better understand the work practices that are commonly used during RRP activities in P&CBs 

and the potential for lead-based paint hazards to be created.