42 U.S.C. § 7701 — Congressional findings

Page 7471 TITLE 42—THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE § 7701 1 So in original. described in subparagraph (A), no State or political subdivision of a State may en- force a statute or administrative action restricting the management or use of the regulated substance within that exclusive use for the duration of that additional pe- riod. (ii) Limitation The period for which the limitation under clause (i) applies shall not exceed 5 years from the date on which the period described in subparagraph (A) ends. (Pub. L. 116–260, div. S, § 103, Dec. 27, 2020, 134 Stat. 2255.) Editorial Notes REFERENCES IN TEXT The Clean Air Act, referred to in subsecs. (d)(1)(B)(i) and (k)(1)(C), is act July 14, 1955, ch. 360, 69 Stat. 322, which is classified generally to this chapter. Title VI of the Act is classified generally to subchapter VI (§ 7671 et seq.) of this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 7401 of this title and Tables. CODIFICATION Section was enacted as the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020, and also as part of the Con- solidated Appropriations Act, 2021, and not as part of the Clean Air Act which comprises this chapter. CHAPTER 86—EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION Sec. 7701. Congressional findings. 7702. Congressional statement of purpose. 7703. Definitions. 7704. National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Pro- gram. 7704a. Report on seismic safety property standards. 7705, 7705a. Repealed. 7705b. Seismic standards. 7705c. Acceptance of gifts. 7705d. Repealed. 7705e. Post-earthquake investigations program. 7706. Authorization of appropriations. 7707. Advanced National Seismic System. 7708. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simula- tion. 7709. Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory Com- mittee. § 7701. Congressional findings The Congress finds and declares the following: (1) All 50 States, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, are vulnerable to the hazards of earthquakes, and at least 39 of them are sub- ject to major or moderate seismic risk, includ- ing Alaska, California, Hawaii, Illinois, Massa- chusetts, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, South Carolina Tennessee,,1 Utah, and Washington. A large portion of the population of the United States lives in areas vulnerable to earthquake haz- ards. (2) Earthquakes have caused, and can cause in the future, enormous loss of life, injury, de- struction of property, and economic and social disruption. With respect to future earth- quakes, such loss, destruction, and disruption can be substantially reduced through the de- velopment and implementation of earthquake hazards reduction measures, including (A) im- proved design and construction methods and practices, (B) land-use controls and redevelop- ment, (C) early-warning systems, (D) coordi- nated emergency preparedness plans, and (E) public education and involvement programs. (3) An expertly staffed and adequately fi- nanced earthquake hazards reduction pro- gram, based on Federal, State, local, and pri- vate research, planning, decisionmaking, and contributions would reduce the risk of such loss, destruction, and disruption in seismic areas by an amount far greater than the cost of such program. (4) A well-funded seismological research pro- gram could provide the scientific under- standing needed to fully implement an effec- tive earthquake early warning system. (5) The geological study of active faults and features can reveal how recently and how fre- quently major earthquakes have occurred on those faults and how much risk they pose. Such long-term seismic risk assessments are needed in virtually every aspect of earthquake hazards management, whether emergency planning, public regulation, detailed building design, insurance rating, or investment deci- sion. (6) The vulnerability of buildings, lifeline in- frastructure, public works, and industrial and emergency facilities can be reduced through proper earthquake resistant design and con- struction practices. The economy and efficacy of such procedures can be substantially in- creased through research and development. (7) Programs and practices of departments and agencies of the United States are impor- tant to the communities they serve; some functions, such as emergency communications and national defense, and lifeline infrastruc- ture, such as dams, bridges, and public works, must remain in service during and after an earthquake. Federally owned, operated, and influenced structures and lifeline infrastruc- ture should serve as models for how to reduce and minimize hazards to the community. (8) The implementation of earthquake haz- ards reduction measures would, as an added benefit, also reduce the risk of loss, destruc- tion, and disruption from other natural haz- ards and manmade hazards, including hurri- canes, tornadoes, accidents, explosions, land- slides, building and structural cave-ins, and fires. (9) Reduction of loss, destruction, and dis- ruption from earthquakes will depend on the actions of individuals, and organizations in the private sector and governmental units at Federal, State, and local levels. The current capability to transfer knowledge and informa- tion to these sectors is insufficient. Improved mechanisms are needed to translate existing information and research findings into reason- able and usable specifications, criteria, and practices so that individuals, organizations, and governmental units may make informed decisions and take appropriate actions. (10) Severe earthquakes are a worldwide problem. Since damaging earthquakes occur Page 7472 TITLE 42—THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE § 7702 infrequently in any one nation, international cooperation is desirable for mutual learning from limited experiences. (11) An effective Federal program in earth- quake hazards reduction will require input from and review by persons outside the Fed- eral Government expert in the sciences of earthquake hazards reduction and in the prac- tical application of earthquake hazards reduc- tion measures. (12) The built environment has generally been constructed and maintained to meet the needs of the users under normal conditions. When earthquakes occur, the built environ- ment is generally designed to prevent severe injuries or loss of human life and is not ex- pected to remain operational or able to re- cover under any specified schedule. (13) The National Research Council pub- lished a study on reducing hazards and risks associated with earthquakes based on the goals and objectives for achieving national earthquake resilience described in the stra- tegic plan entitled ‘‘Strategic Plan for the Na- tional Earthquake Hazards Reduction Pro- gram’’. The study and an accompanying report called for work in 18 tasks focused on re- search, preparedness, and mitigation and an- nual funding of approximately $300,000,000 per year for 20 years. (Pub. L. 95–124, § 2, Oct. 7, 1977, 91 Stat. 1098; Pub. L. 101–614, § 2, Nov. 16, 1990, 104 Stat. 3231; Pub. L. 115–307, § 2(a), Dec. 11, 2018, 132 Stat. 4408.) Editorial Notes AMENDMENTS 2018—Par. (1). Pub. L. 115–307, § 2(a)(1), inserted ‘‘, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,’’ after ‘‘States’’, ‘‘Oregon,’’ after ‘‘New York,’’, and ‘‘Tennessee,’’ after ‘‘South Carolina’’. Par. (2)(C). Pub. L. 115–307, § 2(a)(2), struck out ‘‘pre- diction techniques and’’ before ‘‘early-warning sys- tems,’’. Par. (4). Pub. L. 115–307, § 2(a)(3), added par. (4) and struck out former par. (4) which read as follows: ‘‘A well-funded seismological research program in earth- quake prediction could provide data adequate for the design, of an operational system that could predict ac- curately the time, place, magnitude, and physical ef- fects of earthquakes in selected areas of the United States.’’ Pars. (6), (7). Pub. L. 115–307, § 2(a)(4), substituted ‘‘lifeline infrastructure’’ for ‘‘lifelines’’ wherever ap- pearing. Pars. (12), (13). Pub. L. 115–307, § 2(a)(5), added pars. (12) and (13). 1990—Pars. (5) to (11). Pub. L. 101–614 added pars. (5) to (7), struck out former pars. (5) and (6), and redesig- nated former pars. (7) to (10) as (8) to (11), respectively. Prior to amendment, pars. (5) and (6) read as follows: ‘‘(5) An operational earthquake prediction system can produce significant social, economic, legal, and polit- ical consequences. ‘‘(6) There is a scientific basis for hypothesizing that major earthquakes may be moderated, in at least some seismic areas, by application of the findings of earth- quake control and seismological research.’’ Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries SHORT TITLE OF 2018 AMENDMENT Pub. L. 115–307, § 1, Dec. 11, 2018, 132 Stat. 4408, pro- vided that: ‘‘This Act [amending this section and sec- tions 7702 to 7704, 7705b, 7705c, and 7705e to 7707 of this title and enacting provisions set out as a note under section 7704 of this title] may be cited as the ‘National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Reauthoriza- tion Act of 2018’.’’ SHORT TITLE OF 2004 AMENDMENT Pub. L. 108–360, title I, § 101, Oct. 25, 2004, 118 Stat. 1668, provided that: ‘‘This title [amending sections 7703, 7704, and 7706 to 7708 of this title] may be cited as the ‘National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Re- authorization Act of 2004’.’’ SHORT TITLE OF 2000 AMENDMENT Pub. L. 106–503, title II, § 201, Nov. 13, 2000, 114 Stat. 2304, provided that: ‘‘This title [enacting sections 7707 to 7709 of this title, amending sections 7703, 7704, and 7706 of this title, repealing section 7705d of this title, enacting provisions set out as a note under this sec- tion, and amending provisions set out as a note under section 7704 of this title] may be cited as the ‘Earth- quake Hazards Reduction Authorization Act of 2000’.’’ SHORT TITLE OF 1990 AMENDMENT Pub. L. 101–614, § 1, Nov. 16, 1990, 104 Stat. 3231, pro- vided that: ‘‘This Act [enacting sections 7705a to 7705e, amending this section and sections 7702 to 7705, and 7706 of this title, and enacting provisions set out as notes under sections 7704, 7705b, and 7705e of this title] may be cited as the ‘National Earthquake Hazards Reduc- tion Program Reauthorization Act’.’’ SHORT TITLE Pub. L. 95–124, § 1, Oct. 7, 1977, 91 Stat. 1098, provided: ‘‘That this Act [enacting this chapter] may be cited as the ‘Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977’.’’ REPORT ON AT-RISK POPULATIONS Pub. L. 106–503, title II, § 207, Nov. 13, 2000, 114 Stat. 2307, required the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to transmit to Congress a report no later than 1 year after Nov. 13, 2000, describing the elements of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduc- tion Program that specifically addressed the needs of at-risk populations. Executive Documents DELEGATION OF FUNCTIONS Functions of President under Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 delegated, transferred, or reas- signed to Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to sections 1–104 and 4–204 of Ex. Ord. No. 12148, July 20, 1979, 44 F.R. 43239, as amended, set out as a note under section 5195 of this title. § 7702. Congressional statement of purpose It is the purpose of the Congress in this chap- ter to reduce the risks of life and property from future earthquakes and increase the resilience of communities in the United States through the establishment and maintenance of an effec- tive earthquake hazards reduction program. The objectives of such program shall include— (1) the education of the public, including State and local officials, as to earthquake phe- nomena, the identification of locations and structures which are especially susceptible to earthquake damage, ways to reduce the ad- verse consequences of an earthquake to indi- viduals and the communities, and related mat- ters; (2) the development of technologically and economically feasible design and construction methods and procedures to make new and ex-