Seismic Safety of Existing Federally Owned or Leased Buildings

Background

Before its revocation, the 1994 executive order on seismic safety had a significant impact on federal infrastructure policy, mandating systematic seismic evaluations of federal buildings. Federal agencies were required to conduct assessments to identify and mitigate unacceptable seismic risks in their owned or leased buildings. The order set forth a framework for enhancing the safety of facilities built without adequate seismic standards and was instrumental in promoting the welfare of federal employees and the general public by ensuring safer federal buildings.

The mandate led agencies such as the Department of Defense and the General Services Administration to review and update their building inventories and seismic mitigation plans. Through this directive, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) were tasked with providing guidance, technical assistance, and reporting on progress to Congress. This facilitated a proactive approach to earthquake preparedness, fostering collaboration across various governmental levels to address seismic hazards.

The executive order also influenced broader policy by propelling awareness regarding the need for seismic safety. It ensured that federal properties adhered to a consistent set of seismic standards, which resonated with the objectives of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977. This helped in fortifying public trust by showing the government's commitment to safety, which likely influenced local and state governments to prioritize seismic evaluations and retrofitting of their own buildings.

Reason for Revocation

The decision to revoke the seismic safety executive order in 2016 by President Obama occurred within a broader context of regulatory reform aimed at eliminating perceived redundancies and inefficiencies. This revocation could be seen as an attempt to streamline government operations and reduce overlapping mandates that may have become obsolete due to technological advances or evolved policy frameworks since 1994.

Under Obama's administration, there was a concerted effort to embrace a regulatory philosophy that encouraged flexibility and modern best practices. This approach likely viewed the seismic safety guidelines as potentially outdated or in need of integration with more comprehensive emergency management strategies that had evolved over the intervening decades. The administration's broader initiative often sought to bolster efficiency by revisiting older mandates, merging with newer, more agile policies that reflect current infrastructure and technological capabilities.

Moreover, this action could have been aligned with efforts to shift more responsibilities to individual federal agencies, empowering them to adopt seismic safety standards independently based on agency-specific needs. Such decentralization might have provided agencies with the flexibility to innovate beyond a one-size-fits-all requirement, allowing them to respond more robustly to their unique operational contexts and leveraging advancements in seismic assessment technology.

Ultimately, while some might posit that the revocation reflected an economic motive to reduce federal expenditures, it seemingly placed emphasis on optimizing resource allocation across a range of federal safety mandates. The move signified an ideological pivot towards a streamlined federal landscape where mandates of the past needed revisiting within a contemporary framework.

Winners

The construction industry and contractors specializing in federal infrastructure stand to benefit with the revocation. By removing prescriptive measures, companies gained more room to innovate with seismic safety technologies and methods tailored to individual projects rather than conforming to a uniform standard. This could also open opportunities for emerging firms to enter the market with new solutions and approaches that might not have conformed to previous codified standards.

Additionally, federal agencies that perceived compliance costs as burdensome may see an alleviation of administrative obligations and potentially a reduction in retrofitting expenses. This could free up budgetary allocations for other pressing priorities, aligning resource deployment more in line with current agency missions. In this context, agencies may redirect funds towards modernization initiatives, IT upgrades, or other safety measures aligned with present-day threat assessments.

Technology companies providing advanced seismic monitoring and prediction services may benefit from agencies seeking cutting-edge solutions to tackle seismic risks in a manner that is tailored and specific rather than standardized. These companies may stand to gain as government entities look to integrate more sophisticated technologies into their safety protocols, offering bespoke services that address the unique vulnerabilities associated with different building types or construction functions.

Losers

Communities in seismic-prone regions could be adversely affected by the revocation. The executive order had established a uniform baseline for seismic safety, and its revocation might lead to discrepancies in the safety standards employed by different federal agencies. This could, in turn, increase the risk to populations near federally owned or leased buildings, as varying degrees of adherence to seismic safety could proliferate.

Non-profits and advocacy groups focused on natural disaster preparedness and infrastructure resilience may also view the repeal of the regulatory framework as a setback. For these organizations, the elimination of standardized federal safety requirements might equate to a reduced emphasis on seismic safety, conflicting with their continued advocacy for robust infrastructure safeguards and continuous advancements in public safety norms.

Moreover, the federal employees working in buildings that were previously mandated to be evaluated and updated for seismic resilience might feel less secure in their work environments. Without the executive order's mandatory compliance, some agencies might deprioritize safety evaluations due to funding limitations or shifting priorities, potentially leaving employees vulnerable to risks in inadequately assessed structures.