• Atkinson, G. M., and D. M. Boore, Evaluation of models for earthquake source spectra in eastern North America, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 88, 917934, 1998.
  • Bakun, W H., and A. McGarr, Differences in attenuation among the stable continental regions, Geophysical Res. Lett., 2923212110.1029/2002GL015457, 2002.
  • , Building Seismic Safety Council, NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures, 1997 edition, Part 1 (Provisions) and Part II (Commentary), FEMA 302/303, Washington, D. C., 1998.
  • Cornell, C. A., Engineering seismic risk analysis, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 58, 1581606, 1968.
  • Cramer, C. H., and M. A. Kumar, The 2001 Gujurat, India earthquake and eastern North America ground-motion attenuation and magnitude-area relations: Impact on seismic hazard, Seismol. Res. Lett., 73, 238, 2002.
  • , FEMA, HAZUS 99 Estimated Annualized Losses for the United States366FEMA, Washington, D. C., 2000.
  • Frankel, A. D., Implications of felt area-magnitude relations for earthquake scaling and the average frequency of perceptible ground motion, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 84, 462465, 1994.
  • Frankel, A., et al., National seismic-hazard maps: Documentation June 1996Open File Rep., 96-532, 110U. S. Geol. Surv., Reston, Va., 1996.
  • Frankel, A., et al., USGS national seismic hazard maps, Earthquake Spectra, 16, 119, 2000.
  • Frankel, A. D., et al., Documentation for the 2002 update of the national seismic hazard mapsOpen File Rep., 02–240U. S. Geol. Surv., Reston, Va., 2002.
  • Hough, S. E., J. G. Armbruster, L. Seeber, and J. FHough, On the Modified Mercalli intensities and magnitudes of the 1811-12 New Madrid earthquakes, J. Geophys. Res., 10523, 83923864, 2000.
  • Hough, S. E., S. Martin, R. Bilham, and G. M. A tkinson, The 26 January 2001 M 7.6 Bhuj, India, earthquake: Observed and predicted ground motions, Bull. Seismol Soc. Am., 92, 20612079, 2002.
  • , International Code Council (ICC), International Building Code, Building Officials and Code Administrators International, IncInternational Conference of Building Officials, and Southern Building Code Congress International, IncBirmingham, Ala., 2000.
  • Johnston, A. C., Seismic moment assessment of stable continental earthquake, III, 1811–1812 New Madrid, 1886 Charleston, and 1755 Lisbon, Geophys. J. Int., 126, 314344, 1996.
  • Kenner, S. J., and P. Segall, A mechanical model for intraplate earthquakes, application to the New Madrid seismic zone, Science, 289, 23292332, 2000.
  • Nuttli, O. W., The Mississippi Valley earthquakes of 1811 and 1812: Intensities, ground motions, and magnitudes, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 63, 227248, 1973.
  • Stein, S., J. Tomasello, and A. Newman, Should Memphis build for California's earthquakes?, Eos, Trans. AGU, 84177, 184185, 2003.
  • Toro, G. R., N. A. Abrahamson, and J. FSchneider, Model of strong ground motions from earthquakes in central and eastern North America: Best estimates and uncertainties, Seismol. Res. Lett., 68, 4157, 1997.
  • Tuttle, M. P., E. S. Schweig, J. D. Sims, R. H. Lafferty, L. W. Wolf, and M. L. Haynes, The earthquake potential of the New Madrid seismic zone, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 92, 20802089, 2002.
  • , Earthquake hazard in the heart of the homelandFact Sheet FS-131-02U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Va., 2002.
  • Wheeler, R. L., and D. M. Perkins, Research, methodology, and applications of probabilistic seismic-hazard mapping of the central and eastern United States - Minutes of a workshop on 13–14 June, 2000, at Saint Louis UniversityOpen File Rep., 00-0390U.S. Geol. Surv., 2000.
  • , Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, Earthquake probabilities in the San Francisco Bay region: 2002–2031Open File Rep., 03-214U.S. Geol. Surv., 2003.