Overview
Title
To reauthorize the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
S. 3606 is a plan to make sure people and buildings are safer from earthquakes in the United States by giving money to improve warning systems and building checks, while different groups like states and tribes work together to help.
Summary AI
S. 3606 reauthorizes the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 and aims to enhance earthquake preparedness and response in the United States. The bill updates existing provisions by focusing on improving earthquake early warning systems, performance evaluations of buildings, and structural safety. It emphasizes collaboration with state, local, and tribal governments and requires periodic reports on progress made in implementing these enhancements. Additionally, it specifies funding allocations for various federal agencies involved in earthquake hazard reduction efforts.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
S. 3606 is a legislative proposal aimed at reauthorizing the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977. The bill proposes a series of updates to bolster earthquake preparedness and response in the United States. It introduces modifications to various sections of the original Act, such as expanding definitions and incorporating contemporary data on earthquake risks and economic impacts. Notably, the bill also emphasizes collaboration with Tribal jurisdictions and advocates for a focus on infrastructure that could affect community resilience during earthquakes. Moreover, the bill outlines specific appropriations for fiscal years 2024 through 2028 for relevant agencies to improve seismic safety measures and enhance early warning systems.
Significant Issues
One notable issue within the bill is the inclusion of "Tribal governments" in the reauthorization without specifying the parameters of their involvement. This lack of clarity could lead to jurisdictional ambiguities and potentially affect Tribal sovereignty. Furthermore, the bill lacks details on the provision and funding of technical assistance, leaving a gap in understanding the financial and operational responsibilities needed for its implementation.
Another significant concern is the repetitive allocation of funds to different agencies over five years, without addressing potential changes in program needs or economic factors such as inflation. This could lead to financial inefficiencies or shortfalls.
Additionally, the shift in language from "encourage consideration of" to "incorporate" certain measures suggests a transition from voluntary actions to mandatory compliance, which might pose challenges for jurisdictions that lack clear guidelines for implementing such changes.
Impact on the Public
Broadly, the bill aims to improve public safety by enhancing earthquake preparedness and minimizing the economic and physical damages associated with seismic events. By emphasizing early warning systems and infrastructure improvements, the bill could significantly benefit communities in high-risk earthquake zones, potentially saving lives and reducing property losses.
However, the ambiguity in defining specific terms and the lack of clear guidelines might lead to inconsistent implementation across different regions. This inconsistency could undermine the bill's effectiveness in promoting uniform safety standards nationwide.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Tribal Governments: For Tribal governments, the bill's impacts remain uncertain due to the lack of specific guidance on their roles and responsibilities. While the acknowledgment of Tribal jurisdictions represents an inclusive approach, it also raises concerns about respecting Tribal sovereignty and ensuring effective collaboration.
State and Local Governments: These stakeholders might face challenges related to compliance due to the mandatory nature of the updated provisions. The lack of funding clarity for technical assistance further complicates their responsibilities.
Construction and Engineering Sectors: The focus on retrofitting and updating building codes presents both opportunities and challenges for the construction and engineering industries. While there is potential for increased business through required evaluations and renovations, there may also be higher compliance costs associated with meeting new standards.
Federal Agencies: Agencies such as FEMA, NOAA, and the US Geological Survey are tasked with implementing new and expanded programs. This could enhance their roles in protecting public safety but might also stretch existing resources without additional funding details.
Overall, while S. 3606 sets a promising direction for enhancing earthquake resilience, its potential impact could be significantly influenced by how these outlined issues are addressed in its implementation.
Financial Assessment
The bill titled "National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Reauthorization Act of 2024" involves several financial allocations designed to enhance earthquake preparedness in the United States. Here is a breakdown of these financial components and their related issues:
Financial Allocations
Section 9: Authorization of Appropriations
This section outlines the financial allocations for several federal agencies involved in implementing the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program. The bill specifies consistent funding over five fiscal years (2024-2028):
- General Authorization for Program: $10,590,000 per fiscal year.
- United States Geological Survey (USGS): $100,900,000 per fiscal year, with at least $36,000,000 annually dedicated to completing the Advanced National Seismic System.
- National Science Foundation: $58,000,000 per fiscal year.
- National Institute of Standards and Technology: $5,900,000 per fiscal year.
Financial and Operational Concerns
Uniform Allocations Over Multiple Years
The financial allocations for each fiscal year are uniform, with no adjustments for inflation or changes in program needs. This creates potential inefficiencies or financial shortfalls. Programs addressing evolving issues, like earthquake hazards, often require adaptable funding to meet new challenges or expanded operations. The lack of a mechanism to adjust these figures could limit the program's efficacy in the face of rising costs or unforeseen circumstances.
Technical Assistance Funding
There is a requirement for various forms of technical assistance to be provided to state, local, and tribal governments. However, the bill lacks clarity on how such assistance will be financed and managed. This omission raises concerns about responsibility and the potential for bureaucratic obstacles. Without a clear financial plan, implementing these technical support measures might face significant delays or inadequacies.
Implications of Financial References on Issues
The references to financial appropriations are directly linked to issues surrounding bureaucratic efficiency and clear jurisdictional guidelines. For instance, the focus on collaboration with tribal governments (highlighted in several sections) might lead to jurisdictional ambiguities and financial accountability issues. Explicitly detailing how funds will be distributed and managed among these governments could mitigate such concerns.
Additionally, the need for effective coordination among multiple agencies (such as FEMA, FCC, and NOAA) as outlined in Section 5 could encounter challenges due to potential bureaucratic inefficiencies. Clearly defined funding strategies for inter-agency collaboration could address operational challenges and ensure that program goals are met efficiently.
Conclusion
While the bill clearly defines the financial allocations, it could benefit from incorporating flexible financial provisions to address future variables and clarify the funding mechanisms for required technical assistance. Addressing these financial and operational concerns could enhance the program's effectiveness in reducing earthquake hazards across the nation.
Issues
The inclusion of 'Tribal government' in sections 3, 4, and 5 without clear definitions or guidelines may lead to legal ambiguities regarding jurisdiction and the extent of involvement in funding and implementation. This could be significant from both political and legal perspectives, as it affects Tribal sovereignty and governmental responsibilities. (Sections 3, 4, and 5)
The lack of specificity in how 'provision of technical assistance' will be funded and implemented in Section 5 could lead to unclear responsibilities and bureaucratic inefficiencies, raising financial and operational concerns. (Section 5)
The repetitive inclusion of allocations without accounting for potential changes in program needs or inflation in Section 9 might lead to inefficiencies or financial shortfalls, as the text does not provide a rationale for uniform allocations over multiple years. (Section 9)
Replacing the phrase 'encourage consideration of' with 'incorporate' in Section 3 suggests a shift from voluntary to mandatory actions without providing clear guidelines, leading to potential implementation and compliance challenges. This could have legal implications for jurisdictions. (Section 3)
The phrase 'the use of terms like 'critical to community resilience' in Section 2 is vague and may require a clearer definition for effective application, which can lead to issues in policy enforcement and legal interpretations. (Section 2)
The bill's lack of details regarding how 'performance' and 'seismic-related property damage' will be measured and enforced in Section 6 creates ambiguity around the seismic performance property standards proposed, which has both safety and legal implications. (Section 6)
Potential bureaucratic inefficiencies are highlighted by calls for coordinating with various agencies (e.g., FEMA, FCC, NOAA) in Section 5, which could lead to operational challenges without clear mechanisms for coordination and funding. (Section 5)
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of this act states its official name: the "National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Reauthorization Act of 2024".
2. Modification of findings Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 is being updated to include changes like recognizing Tribal jurisdictions, increasing the focus on building safety during earthquakes, and addressing risks with older construction codes. New findings highlight that half the U.S. population lives in earthquake-risk areas and estimate financial losses from earthquakes.
Money References
- Section 2 of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7701) is amended— (1) in paragraph (1)— (A) by striking “50 States, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,” and inserting “States and Tribal jurisdictions”; (B) by striking “of them” and inserting “States”; and (C) by adding at the end the following: “Almost half of the United States population resides in areas that are at risk or experiencing a damaging earthquake during the 50-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Reauthorization Act of 2024”; (2) in paragraph (2)— (A) by inserting after the first sentence the following: “A 2023 report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the United States Geological Survey (FEMA P–366) estimates the annualized earthquake losses to the national building stock is $14,700,000,000 per year and the total economic exposure to earthquake losses (buildings and contents) across the nation is $107,800,000,000,000.”; and (B) in the third sentence— (i) by striking “and construction” and inserting “, construction, evaluation, and retrofitting”; (ii) by striking “and (E)” and inserting the following: “(E) inventories of buildings and infrastructure with high seismic risk, especially those that are critical to community resilience, (F) programs that require or incentivize replacement or retrofit of existing buildings and infrastructure with high seismic risk, especially those that are critical to community resilience, and (G)”; (3) in paragraph (3), by inserting “Tribal,” after “local,”; (4) in paragraph (4), by striking “could provide” and all that follows through the period at the end and inserting “is necessary to provide the scientific understanding needed to improve and expand the earthquake early warning system.”; (5) in paragraph (8), by striking “cave-ins” and inserting “collapse”; (6) in paragraph (9)— (A) in the first sentence, by striking “and local” and inserting “local, and Tribal government”; and (B) in the second sentence, by striking “transfer knowledge and information to” and inserting “exchange knowledge and information between”; and (C) in the third sentence, by striking “specifications, criteria” and inserting “guidelines, codes, standards”; (7) in paragraph (12)— (A) in the second sentence— (i) by striking “When earthquakes occur, the built environment is generally” and inserting “Relatively newer buildings and infrastructure have generally been”; (ii) by striking “and is” and inserting “when earthquakes occur, but most are”; and (B) by adding at the end the following: “In addition, buildings and infrastructure built to older codes and standards may pose significant risk of injury, loss of life, or irreparable damage.
- A 2021 report submitted to Congress pursuant to section 8(b), as amended by section 5 of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Reauthorization Act of 2018 (Public Law 115–307), by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (FEMA P2090/NST SP–1254) provides recommendations for improving post-earthquake functional recovery time of the built environment to support community resilience goals and many of these recommendations still need to be implemented.”; and (8) in paragraph (13)— (A) in the first sentence, by inserting “in 2011” after “a study”; (B) in the second sentence, by inserting “(in 2011 dollars)” after “$300,000,000”; and (C) by adding at the end the following: “The cost of actual seismic retrofits to reduce known risks is not included in such valuation.”. ---
3. Modification of purpose Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The changes to the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 include involving Tribal governments alongside federal and local ones, expanding the focus on buildings and infrastructure, adding evaluations and retrofitting in construction efforts, and considering housing for vulnerable populations.
4. Modification of definitions Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section modifies definitions in the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 by adding that earthquakes can cause secondary effects like tsunamis and defining two new terms: "Tribal government," as referred to in another law, and "functional recovery," which describes a condition where a building or infrastructure can still safely function after an earthquake.
5. Improvements to National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines updates to the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, emphasizing enhanced support and collaboration with local, Tribal, and state governments. It includes improvements in earthquake hazard understanding, early warning systems, and the creation of best practices for assessing and retrofitting structures vulnerable to earthquakes, as well as expanding communication efforts for timely emergency alerts.
6. Seismic performance property standards Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section modifies the Cranston-Gonzales National Affordable Housing Act by changing the language related to seismic safety. It replaces "safety" with "performance" and updates the definition of property damage to focus on improving the recovery time after an earthquake.
7. Seismic standards Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The amendment to the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act requires agencies to carry out research and projects to improve building performance after earthquakes, and to submit reports every two years about their progress. The Interagency Coordinating Committee will include this information in its reports and consider how to prioritize and fund these efforts.
8. Improvements to post-earthquake investigations program Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section updates the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 to allow for both domestic and international investigation of major earthquakes and specifies that the Federal Emergency Management Agency should be mentioned in a particular sentence.
9. Authorization of appropriations Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section authorizes specific funding amounts for the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program and its related agencies for fiscal years 2024 to 2028. It details allocations to the United States Geological Survey, the National Science Foundation, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology with designated amounts for each organization for completing initiatives like the Advanced National Seismic System.
Money References
- (a) General authorization for program.—Subsection (a)(8) of section 12 of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7706) is amended— (1) in subparagraph (I), by striking “, and” and inserting a comma; and (2) by inserting after subparagraph (J) the following: “(K) $10,590,000 for fiscal year 2024, “(L) $10,590,000 for fiscal year 2025, “(M) $10,590,000 for fiscal year 2026, “(N) $10,590,000 for fiscal year 2027, and “(O) $10,590,000 for fiscal year 2028,”.
- (b) United States Geological Survey.—Subsection (b)(2) of such section is amended— (1) in subparagraph (I), by striking “; and” and inserting a semicolon; (2) in subparagraph (J), by striking the period at the end and inserting a semicolon; and (3) by adding at the end the following: “(K) $100,900,000 for fiscal year 2024, of which not less than $36,000,000 shall be made available for completion of the Advanced National Seismic System established under section 13; “(L) $100,900,000 for fiscal year 2025, of which not less than $36,000,000 shall be made available for completion of the Advanced National Seismic System established under section 13; “(M) $100,900,000 for fiscal year 2026, of which not less than $36,000,000 shall be made available for completion of the Advanced National Seismic System established under section 13; “(N) $100,900,000 for fiscal year 2027, of which not less than $36,000,000 shall be made available for completion of the Advanced National Seismic System established under section 13; and “(O) $100,900,000 for fiscal year 2028, of which not less than $36,000,000 shall be made available for completion of the Advanced National Seismic System established under section 13.”. (c) National Science Foundation.—Subsection (c)(2) of such section is amended— (1) in subparagraph (I), by striking “, and” and inserting a comma; (2) in subparagraph (J), by striking the period at the end and inserting a comma; and (3) by adding at the end the following: “(K) $58,000,000 for fiscal year 2024, “(L) $58,000,000 for fiscal year 2025, “(M) $58,000,000 for fiscal year 2026, “(N) $58,000,000 for fiscal year 2027, and “(O) $58,000,000 for fiscal year 2028.”. (d) National Institute of Standards and Technology.—Subsection (d)(2) of such section is amended— (1) in subparagraph (I), by striking “, and” and inserting a comma; (2) in subparagraph (J), by striking the period at the end and inserting a comma; and (3) by inserting after subparagraph (J) the following: “(K) $5,900,000 for fiscal year 2024, “(L) $5,900,000 for fiscal year 2025, “(M) $5,900,000 for fiscal year 2026, “(N) $5,900,000 for fiscal year 2027, and “(O) $5,900,000 for fiscal year 2028,”. ---