Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Re: California Building Code seismic provisions.

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
FEMA won't complain if codes are more restrictive. In fact, just the
opposite is true. FEMA usually chooses not  to insist on compliance with the
Federal Stafford Act. The Act stipulates that eligibility for future FEMA
disaster assistance is contingent upon disaster-stricken regions
implementing "Hazard Mitigation Plans." Often these plans include things
like code enforcement. FEMA needs to put its teeth into the Act.

As to your second set of questions, engineered building design requirements
generally need plan reviews by design professionals. Inspectors should be
well-versed in testing and inspection requirements of the code.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jake Watson <jwatson(--nospam--at)>
To: seaint(--nospam--at) <seaint(--nospam--at)>
Date: Friday, December 24, 1999 11:12 AM
Subject: Re: California Building Code seismic provisions.

> Correct me if I am wrong, but FEMA will only refuse money if a state
>adopts standards that are less stringent that a nation standard
>(FEMA/NEHRP).  So if California and were to amend stricter standards
>(Blue book) then there is no violation and FEMA will be happy.  Why
>would FEMA complain if California enforced tougher codes?
> Secondly, enforcement was mentioned in another thread.  Here in Utah,
>special inspection seams to be a four letter word.  Larger buildings
>will use it, but only if absolutely necessary.  What could be done to
>encourage owners, contractors, and building officials to use special
>inspection or similar methods more often?  Furthermore, is there a way
>to train inspectors in ways of engineering? Or am I naive in the
>thoughts that inspectors should know the code as well as we do?
>Happy Holidays,
>Jake Watson, E.I.T.
>Salt Lake City, UT