‫ە‬Messages from Departments and Centers of NILIMThoughts on the debate over a
Building Fundamental Law– From a position of responsibility for technical standards
related to structural safety –NISHIYAMA Isao,
Director of the Building Department(Keywords)  Building Fundamental Law, technical standards
1. Introduction
Recently, trade journals have been busy with talk ofa “Building Fundamental Law”.
The “Review Group on the Revision of the BuildingStandards Law” (hereinafter “Review Group”), set up
in the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport andTourism and chaired by Professor Seiichi Fukao ofTokyo Metropolitan University, met 11 times between
March and October 2010. At those meetings, theReview Group discussed the system of judging
compliance with structural calculations, statutory
periods of building confirmation checks, and ways of
imposing more rigorous penalties (Reference 1)).
Based on the conclusions of this Review Group, a“Study Group on Building Legislation” (hereinafter“Study Group”) (chaired by Professor Tetsuo Kubo,
University of Tokyo)” first met on February 2nd, 2011.
It immediately made a start on organizing the basic
directions to be sought in building legislation as awhole, including the Building Standards Law, with aview to ensuring or improving the quality of buildings(Reference 2)).
While it is impossible to predict the future directionof this debate on the Building Fundamental Law, froma position of some responsibility for technicalstandards related to the structural safety of buildings, I
would like to consider what bearing it will have ontechnical standards.
2. Proposal of a Building Fundamental Law Council
It was in August 2003 that a “Building Fundamental
Law Council” (hereinafter “Council”) was set up byaround 30 volunteers involved in the construction
business (now around 240 members). The first draft ofa Building Fundamental Law (Reference 3, August2010) has since then been proposed by the Council. The
following is a brief summary of sections concerning thestructural safety of buildings in the roles of theBuilding Fundamental Law as stated there.
(1) Basic minimum requirements are essential as
minimum standards(2) Satisfying safety should be entrusted to professional
competence and private-sector standards
 Technical standards on the structural safety ofbuildings set specific methods of achieving minimum
standards determined in the Building Standards Law,but according to the above-mentioned proposal by theCouncil, these should be entrusted to professional
competence and private-sector standards; national
research institutions should not bear responsibility forthem.
The essence here, however, is surely not who should
create technical standards, but to specify whatever isnecessary in order to achieve good buildings.
3. Debate by the Council for Social Infrastructure Between September 2008 and February 2010,
measures for developing high-quality buildings weredebated by the Buildings Subcommittee of the Councilfor Social Infrastructure, and its opinions weresummarized by the Basic System Working Group(Reference 4)). In this debate, opinions and proposals
were voiced from a variety of angles, including theproposal of a Building Fundamental Law, and there
was no uniform direction. This could be said to reflect
the difficulty of this kind of basic debate. In this Study
Group, the aim is for the debate to include the BuildingStandards Law and others as actual regulations, and I
expect a more realistic debate to be pursued.
4. Formulation of building codes and standards (USexample)
In February 2001, I attended a conference in San
Francisco, where I had the opportunity to hear apresentation by the American construction engineer
James Robert Harris. He was involved in formulating
design load guidelines for buildings (ASCE 7), and histalk was entitled “The development and application ofaseismic building codes and standards”. The
presentation was accompanied by 49 slides, and can besummarized very briefly as follows.
(1) It is not the federal government but State
governments (and others) that decide architectural
codes that have legal binding force. Normally, the IBC(International Building Code) is adopted as a modelcode, this being re-determined every 3 to 6 years.
(2) IBC is revised every 3 years by the ICC(International Code Council). Anyone can propose a
draft amendment, and after receiving a hearing by ICC,
the change is decided by a ballot. The ICC is made up
of voluntary members including employees of State
governments.
(3) The standards form part of the Building Code, inthat the latter refer to them. There are 49 organizations‫ە‬Messages from Departments and Centers of NILIM

that provide standards referred to by the IBC. One ofthem is ASCE (the American Society of CivilEngineers), and ASCE 7 (standards) are formulated andrevised every 6 years by volunteer members. There areabout 55 members connected with earthquake
resistance, and many of them are practicing engineers.
(4) NEHRP (the National Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Program) is a federal organization
established by Congress, and the NEHRP Provisions(standards) formulated by it are designed to beincorporated in revisions of ASCE 7.
5. Who should create technical standards?
 As stated in section 4 above, in America,professional competence and private-sector standards
are adopted for building codes; even national
institutions prepare standards with the intention ofincorporating them in professional competence andprivate-sector standards. This is also consistent with thesystem envisaged in the proposal by the Council
mentioned in section 2.
What should not be forgotten here, however, is thatin the USA the standards are revised by volunteers, andmany of them are practicing engineers. Also, it is theState government that ultimately decides whether or
not to adopt a building code. In contrast, if we think ofprivate-sector standards in Japan’s building sector, thevarious design criteria and guidelines of theArchitectural Institution of Japan spring to mind.
However, the members involved in formulating these
are almost all academics (university). This iscompletely different to the situation in the USA.
In other words, the important point is how to create
the technical standards necessary for achieving goodquality buildings within an objective, impartial system.
6. What is expected of the Building FundamentalLaw?
One trade journal conducted a questionnaire under
the title “What sort of topics do you expect to be
discussed with a view to enacting a Building
Fundamental Law?” (Reference 5)).
Among the replies, the following were particularly
well supported: More rational and efficient application
procedures / Simplification of the Building Standards
Law / Clarification of the roles and responsibilities ofworks commissioners, the administration and experts /Revision of remuneration standards and otherimprovements to the working environment / Creationof a system of thorough quality checks all the way fromdesign to installation.
It is difficult to agree with a simplification of the
Building Standards Law if it would mean diluting thecontent of technical standards. To achieve structuralsafety in buildings, it goes without saying that safety
needs to be properly confirmed, and to this end, issues
that need to be studied must be studied properly. If
there is anything that could be simplified (omitted), itwould merely be to determine specifications in advanceso that structural safety is automatically assured, and tocreate buildings in a way that satisfies these.
Even with private-sector standards, there should beno thought of reducing the topics for which safety
needs to be confirmed (content remains undiluted).
7. Comprehensive approval (Article 38 of the oldlaw)
With the amendment of the Building Standards Law
in 1998, the regulation of performance was promoted
and various verification routes were highlighted. On
the other hand, the provisions for comprehensiveapproval under the former law (hereinafter “old Article38”) were removed.
The fact that base-isolated buildings have become sodiffused in Japan well ahead of other countries could
result from the system of ministerial approval under oldArticle 38. The same is true of concrete-filled steel
tubular structures. In other countries, I hear that it took
a long time before building codes could be adopted.
Although old Article 38 used the phrase “recognize
as being equivalent”, it was often the case that theperformance requirements in provisions subject tocomparison were not specified, and the performancerequirements to be ensured for buildings as a whole
were not clear. On the other hand, when new materials,
construction methods and others are adopted for aspecific building, one may imagine a situation in which
they would be difficult to handle with the present
combination of individual verification routes. In thatsense, I can understand why the Review Group
proposed the creation of a system of comprehensive
technical approval similar to the Ministerial approval
based on the provisions of old Article 38.
8. Conclusion
The future direction of the debate on Japan’s
Building Fundamental Law remains unclear, but it goes
without saying that its objective should lie in raising thequality of buildings. With the recent amendment to theAct on Architects and Building Engineers, ethicalprovisions were explicitly stated; but in a sense, it
should be a matter of course that anyone claiming to be
an expert in building, including ourselves, must
constantly strive to improve the quality of buildings
provided for the daily lives of many people, without
this having to be expressly stated in law.
From the standpoint of the safety of buildings, aswell as steadily pursuing technical reviews with a viewto promoting such objectives in future, I would like tobanish unpreparedness so that we can respond
appropriately, whatever the outcome of the review, byfirmly grasping the situations pertaining in othercountries, etc.
References
1) Review Group on the Revision of the BuildingStandards Law(http://www.mlit.go.jp/jutakukentiku/build/k99_kench‫ە‬Messages from Departments and Centers of NILIM

ikukijunminaoshi01.html)
2) Study Group on Building Legislation(http://www.mlit.go.jp/jutakukentiku/build/b99_kench
ikuhoutaikei01.html)
3) First draft of the Building Fundamental Law(http://www.kihonho.jp/pdf 2010/kihonho2010.pdf)
4) “Summary of views on measures for thedevelopment of high-quality buildings” (draft)(http://www.mlit.go.jp/common/000109585.pdf)
5) Nikkei Architecture “Special Feature: The Building
Fundamental Law Begins to Stir”, issued Feb. 25th,
2011