Hi All. In California there is a board that has the sole responsibility of evaluating earthquake predictions and the indorsing there of if the prediction meets all of the criteria of a prediction. This board is known as the “California Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council” (CEPEC)

In California, the state Board for Geologists and Geophysicists was set up in 1968 to make sure that qualified people do some important jobs, such as:

• Inspecting the ground where construction is planned
• Mapping soils and rocks
• Detecting land at risk of landslides
• Finding and evaluating groundwater supplies
• Using satellite or aerial photos to investigate the structure of an area
• Investigating the subsurface with seismic methods
• Drilling boreholes and logging the rocks they penetrate
• Assessing mineral deposits

California's program is more elaborate than that of most states. It licenses geologists, geophysicists, engineering geologists, and hydrogeologists. Candidates for each specialty must pass the ASBOG exams plus California-specific tests, plus have 5 years of experience supervised by a licensed specialist.

Practicing without a license, or making mistakes while holding a license, is a misdemeanor violation of the Geologists and Geophysicists Act subject to fines and even imprisonment up to 3 months. Without going to court, the board can shut violators down and fine them $2500, and if offenders are listed in the phone book the board can order their phones turned off. (The law was written before the Web, so there is no remedy for a violating site.) It seems making earthquake predictions comes under the heading of geology and if the person making the prediction isn’t a licensed geologist in the State of California they are illegal. However I suspect there are gray areas in everything and one of those areas is creditability. If a scientist is well known and his program has been peer reviewed he may not have to be a licensed geologist in the State of California. I don’t know in fact that Keilis Borok isn’t a licensed geologist in California, but it seems almost a certainty that the people he works with at UCLA are.

In February, experts from U.S. Geological Survey, California Geological Survey, the Southern California Earthquake Center and others reviewed the Keilis-Borok prediction. Dr. Keilis-Borok and his colleagues presented their methods and findings and engaged in frank discussion with about 30 invited scientists and public officials. The California Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council attended and concluded that the Keilis-Borok methodology is a legitimate approach in earthquake prediction research, but that, while the prediction serves as a reminder for vigilance in earthquake-prone areas, “the results do not at this time warrant any special public policy actions in California.”
Anyway the gray area would be if a method was published in a reputable scientific
journal (i.e., peer reviewed) and then the authors used that method to
predict an earthquake. That's sort of what happened with the Keilis-Borok
predictions. The press gave the group credence, as they were primarily at
UCLA. Still, OES requested CEPEC to convene and deliberate. CEPEC felt the
evidence was insufficient at this time to endorse the prediction.

The way it’s supposed to work is that the individual making the prediction goes before the CEPEC and if that person can convince them of his/her statement they will in turn contact the Office of Emergency Services (OES) who in turn will contact the appropriate authorities who would in turn prepare for the quake. I recall two times in which this was done. This was for the two quakes that occurred 15 months and 2 months prior to the Loma Prieta quake. Of course as with anything else quakes don’t follow a schedule. They do their thing when ever they take a notion.

The OES got the chance to put into practice the method that was set for advising those who would be most likely affected by a large quake. At the time the National Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council was responsible for the making of quake predictions. To best of my knowledge they still are for the rest of the US.

“According to a recent review of the Parkfield experiment by a working group (B. Hager, Chair) of the National Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council [1993], the experiment has brought scientists together with state and local officials, emergency managers, and the news media, in a productive, mutually beneficial relationship. The State established the first scientifically-based State emergency management protocol for a specific predicted earthquake. The first A-level alert was issued on Oct. 22, 1992. The USGS notified the California Office of Emergency Services (OES) of an A-level alert triggered by the M=4.7 earthquake at Middle Mountain. Eight minutes later, OES broadcast the alert to State agencies and local governments over the California Warning System. Kern County was the first county to activate its Emergency Operation Center, 47 minutes after the OES alert. OES completed its alert of local government and response officials in less than one hour following the earthquake. It was a complete success on the part of transmitting earth science information to the public. The working group concluded that Parkfield remains the best identified location to trap an earthquake, and the experiment should be continued both for its geophysical and its public response benefits.” Take Care…Don in creepy town

http://www.cisn.org/news/cepec.04.03.02.html

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:uoiYGmS9hooJ:caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/42/chapters/86/sections/section_7704.html+National+Earthquake+Prediction+Evaluation+Council+&hl=en