The Japanese medical device Quality Management System requirements are stipulated in MHLW Ministerial Ordinance No. 169 (2004) titled "the Ministerial Ordinance on Standards for Manufacturing Control and Quality Control for Medical Devices and In-Vitro Diagnostics" (hereinafter refered to as MHLW MO169). MHLW MO169 was initially established in 2004 in order to make the medical device QMS requirements harmonized with international standard, ISO13485:2003. The ordinace has been revised several times since its establishment (see the following).
Among the numerous lessons learned over the past decade of GEJE reconstruction and analysis, we highlight three common themes that have emerged repeatedly through the examples of good practices gathered across various sectors. First is the importance of planning. Even though disasters will always be unexpected, if not unprecedented, planning for disasters has benefits both before and after they occur. Second is that resilience is strengthened when it is shared. After a decade since GEJE, to strengthen the resilience of infrastructure, preparedness, and finance for the next disaster, throughout Japan national and local governments, infrastructure developers and operators, businesses and industries, communities and households are building back better systems by prearranging mechanisms for risk reduction, response and continuity through collaboration and mutual support. Third is that resilience is an iterative process. Many adaptations were made to the policy and regulatory frameworks after the GEJE. Many past disasters show that resilience is an interactive process that needs to be adjusted and sustained over time, especially before a disaster strikes.
Schools are also critical infrastructures, for their education and community roles, and also because they are commonly used as evacuation centers. Japan has updated seismic resilience standards for schools over time, integrating measures against different risks and vulnerabilities revealed after each disaster, as documented in the report Making Schools Resilient at Scale. After the 2011 GEJE, there was very little earthquake-related damage; rather, most damage was caused by the tsunami. However, in some cases damages to nonstructural elements like suspending ceilings in school gymnasiums limited the possibility of using these spaces after the disaster. After the disaster, a major update was made to the policies on the safety of nonstructural elements in schools, given the need for higher resilience standards for their function as post-disaster evacuation centers[xiii].
Similarly, for building regulations, standards and professional training modules were updated taking the lessons learned from GEJE. The Converting Disaster Experience into a Safer Built Environment: The Case of Japan report highlights that, legal framework like, The Building Standard Law/Seismic Retrofitting Promotion Law, was amended further enhance the structural resilience of the built environment, including strengthening structural integrity, improving the efficiency of design review process, as well as mandating seismic diagnosis of large public buildings. Since the establishment of the legal and regulatory framework for building safety in early 1900, Japan continued incremental effort to create enabling environment for owners, designers, builders and building officials to make the built environment safer together.
Effective engagement of various stakeholders is also important to preparedness mapping and other disaster preparedness activities. This means engaging and empowering diverse groups including women, the elderly, children, and the private sector. Elders are a particularly important demographic in the context of the GEJE, as the report Elders Leading the Way to Resilience illustrates. Tohoku is an aging region, and two-thirds of lives lost from the GEJE were over 60 years old. Research shows that building trust and social ties can reduce disaster impacts- after GEJE, a study found that communities with high social capital lost fewer residents to the tsunami.[xxi] Following the megadisaster, elders in Ofunato formed the Ibasho Cafe, a community space for strengthening social capital among older people. The World Bank has explored the potential of the Ibasho model for other contexts, highlighting how fueling social capital and engaging elders in strengthening their community can have benefits for both normal times and improve resilience when a disaster does strike.
Construction Codes have become an important issue for Georgia's local governments, building professionals and citizens alike. The following is a general overview of Georgia's Construction Code Program, including enforcement, local amendments, current codes, and whom to call if you have questions regarding construction codes and related issues in Georgia.
As noted above, the building, one and two family dwelling residential, fire, plumbing, mechanical, gas, electrical, energy, and swimming pool codes are mandatory codes, meaning that under Georgia law, any structure built in Georgia must comply with these codes, whether or not the local government chooses to locally enforce these codes.
In order to properly administer and enforce the state minimum standard codes, local governments must adopt reasonable administrative provisions. The power to adopt these administrative procedures is set forth in O.C.G.A. Section 8-2-26(a)(1). These provisions should include procedural requirements for the enforcement of the codes, provisions for hearings, provisions for appeals from decisions of local inspectors, and any other procedures necessary for the proper local administration and enforcement of the state minimum standard codes. These powers include:
DCA periodically reviews, amends and/or updates the state minimum standard codes. If a local government chooses to locally enforce any of these codes, it must enforce the latest editions and the amendments adopted by DCA.
The Uniform Codes Act provides that local governments may, under certain conditions, adopt local amendments to the state minimum standard codes. Please note that DCA does not approve or disapprove any local amendment. The department provides a recommendation only. However, in order to enforce any local amendment, the local government must submit the proposed amendment to DCA for review (O.C.G.A. Section 8-2-25(c)).
In this paper, we review the progress made by the government in its drive to promote earthquake-resistant housing. We also aim to clarify the issues surrounding earthquake-resistant building codes revealed by the damage caused to residences by the Kumamoto Earthquake that occurred in April 2016. The earthquake-resistant building codes in Japan are based on the Building Standard Law, including the amendments effected in 1981. Some provisions were strengthened in 2000, particularly those regarding residential buildings made of wood (2000 standards). By supporting residents in conducting earthquake-proofing examinations and in bearing retrofitting costs, the government's drive toward making residences earthquake-resistant is clear; however, the results achieved have plateaued at only approximately 82% as of 2013, with the government aiming to raise it to 95% by 2020. In the discussions on the damage caused to residences by the 2016 Kumamoto Earthquake, revising the Building Standard Law was postponed as the current building codes to make residences earthquake-resistant were found effective. A policy to promote earthquake-proofing examinations and retrofitting of residences that do not meet the 2000 standards is being put forward, and further government support is desired.
In December 2017, Montgomery County declared a climate emergency and accelerated our community-wide climate goals to be carbon neutral by 2035. The residential and commercial building sectors combine to contribute 50% of greenhouse gas emissions in Montgomery County. The County is proposing a variety of programs and policies to mitigate emissions in new and existing buildings, including a Building Energy Performance Standard for commercial and multifamily buildings.Download the BEPS one-pager (PDF 1.4MB) or BEPS Frequently Asked Questions (PDF 376KB) for an overview.
The Baltimore City Green Construction Code has been in place since April 2015, when Council Bill 14-0413 amended the City's existing mandatory green building law for commercial and multi-family residential buildings.
Green building is on the rise nationally and internationally because of the long-term benefits to owners, occupants, and society as a whole. In the United States, buildings alone account for almost 40 percent of CO2 emissions. High-density urban areas like Baltimore have an opportunity to reduce those emissions by mandating more efficient building practices. In addition to reducing emissions, green buildings tend to be more cost-effective to operate, use less water, produce less waste, provide healthier occupant conditions than traditional buildings, have higher occupancy rates, and be more valuable in the real estate marketplace.
In accordance with the Baltimore City Building, Fire and Related Code, Part XI (Baltimore City Green Construction Code), all design, construction, addition, alteration, change of occupancy, relocation, replacement, repair, equipment, building site, maintenance, removal, and demolition of every structure and any appurtenances connected or attached to a structure and to the site on which the structure is located (except as otherwise exempted), must comply with the 2012 International Green Construction Code, as adopted by Ordinance 20-361, effective May 18, 2020, and subsequently amended.
All permits for commercial and certain multi-family residential buildings are required to complete Tab 3 on the IgCC Checklist to determine code applicability and identify a green building compliance path. 2b1af7f3a8