Implementation of Model Rules, Regulations, Processes, and Procedures

Each of the models developed in the Streamlining project have been prepared for implementation and use by one or more levels of government: federal, regional, state, and local (county, municipal, township).

Under the laws of this nation, these models can be implemented by two different methods: legislative or administrative.  Each of the models contained in the What Works section of this web site includes a narrative Implementation Plan section developed by the National Streamlining Implementation Committee describing

1. Levels of government at which the model might most appropriately be used,

2. The major stakeholders impacted by the model,

3. Whether the model could be adopted administratively or by legislation, and

4. Recommendations as to how a jurisdiction (local, regional, state, or national) could go about adopting and implementing the model.

The Implementation Plans for each model are then linked back to the For More Information or Assistance in Considering the Use of this Model, Please Contact section of the Executive Summary. This crosslink provides you, the reviewer of the model, access to:

• An individual, often the person who submitted the original program upon which the model is based, or
• A key contact person who can answer questions you may have concerning how their program works, and
• Access to a member of the NCSBCS staff or of the National Streamlining Implementation Committee who can assist you with understanding the proposed Implementation Plan for that model.

Go to the Streamlining Definitions page.  CLICK HERE

The remainder of this portion of our Web site provides useful basic background information on how a jurisdiction might go about adopting and/or implementing one or more streamlined models. The background found here supplements the basic background information found under the Building Codes 101 Primer portion of this Web site.

OVERVIEW OF THE STREAMLINING PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS

UNDERSTANDING THE U.S. SYSTEM--DIVERSITY OF STRUCTURE
One of the most commonly cited strengths of the political system in the United States is its diversity. As laboratories of democracy, each state, under the police powers reserved to states by Article X of the Constitution, has developed or evolved its own set of police powers and mechanisms for adopting rules, regulations, processes, and procedures covering various aspects of the siting, design, and construction of buildings.

No two states have developed the same powers, duties, or lines of authority between themselves and their local units of government. Some states, for example home rule states, have only those specific powers provided by the state constitution and all other powers and duties reside in the hands of local units of government (counties or municipalities). Other states hold all power except for those powers and duties that the state constitution or other state legislation specifically delegates to their local governments. Both systems have relative strengths and weaknesses.

Reflecting such diversity at the state level, local governments likewise have evolved a diverse array of powers and duties and organizational, administrative, and legal structures. In some states, for example, counties have evolved to hold the most local authority over the siting, design, and construction of buildings. In other states all such authority resides purely at the township or municipal level. In still other states--Virginia, for example--the public has assigned some counties total authority over construction regulation, while denying such power to other counties and keeping authority at the municipal or township level.

Even areas such as, disaster mitigation, manufactured housing, and wetlands, which the federal government has preemptive national regulatory authority, no two federal agencies administer such programs in a similar fashion. While the Federal Administrative Procedures Act brings uniformity in how rules, regulations, processes, and procedures are developed and approved at the federal level, the actual administration of federal programs varies. There are a number of reasons for this. Some diversity comes from the nature of the federal enabling legislation, some from the nature of the area being regulated itself (wetlands, for example, cannot be regulated the same way as manufactured home design and construction), and some of the diversity comes from either the individual federal agencies themselves or the regulatory philosophy of the current administration in the White House.

Reflecting this diversity, each model developed in this project will require some tailoring of its adoption, administration, and use.

GROWING COMMONALITY OF INTEREST

Regardless of where regulatory power lies each level of government is concerned with the built environment from several perspectives.

1. Are our citizens safe? Is the public's health, welfare, and life safety secure from commonly understood hazards which exist in our jurisdiction? (Fire, flood, windstorm, seismic, snow load, structural, environmental, etc.)

a. Are the people in our nation, region, state, county, city, municipality, or township safe in the buildings which exist or are being built in our jurisdiction?

b. Are the people who live, work, or recreate in buildings which this governmental jurisdiction builds, funds, owns, or operates safe from commonly recognized health, welfare, and life safety problems?

c. Does the siting and construction of buildings in our jurisdiction protect the public's health, welfare, and life safety from known hazards?

2. Is our jurisdiction's economic viability supported by the laws, rules, regulations, processes, and procedures which govern the built environment in our community?

a. In addition to ensuring public safety, do the rules, regulations, processes, and procedures governing the siting, design, and construction of buildings within this jurisdiction support the economic development goals of our community?

1) Can we attract and/or retain jobs in our community? Does our regulatory system promote or hinder economic development?

2) Can our citizens afford to live in our community?

3) Can our government afford to build, own, operate, or maintain the buildings for which we are responsible?

b. If our jurisdiction was struck by a natural or man made disaster beyond the current design limitations of our existing regulatory system, how soon could our jurisdiction recover and become economically viable once again?

In a time when each level of government in our nation is going through serious manpower and budgetary constraints, and voters and elected officials are increasingly more concerned about both public safety and economic viability, there is a growing commonality of public and private sector interest in the smooth and efficient adoption, administration, and enforcement of rules, regulations, processes, and procedures which govern the built environment.

As envisioned by several national initiatives, including the Clinton Administration's National Performance Review, and countless state and local government regulatory reform initiatives, the era of regulatory overlap, duplication, and inefficiency is at an end in this nation. It is this commonality of interest that forms the heart of a successful program to gain the adoption, implementation and use of any of the models developed in the streamlining initiative.

Return to the main page.  CLICK HERE