When It Comes to Building Codes, the Only Constant is Change

Every three years, the International Code Council (ICC) invites anyone to propose a code change for the next edition of the “I’ Code. This code development process has been in place since the three legacy model codes, The National Building Code by the Building Officials and Code Administrators International, Inc. (BOCA), the Uniform Building Code by International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), and the Standard Building Code by the Southern Building Code Congress International, Inc. (SBCCI) were formed. Those three groups combined to become the ICC in 1994. Code development is a consensus process that involves the best and brightest in the Architectural, Engineering, & Construction (AEC) industry to propose, review, discuss, debate, and decide which code changes will appear in the next edition of the code.

On 28 April 2025, I departed from Mitchell International Airport at 5:00 AM en route to Orlando, Florida, to participate in the ICC code change process. The temperature was a cool 50° F at that time of day. The red-eye flight was not my preferred time to go, but it was the only flight that would get me to Orlando in time to attend the scheduled 5:00 PM mandatory coordination meeting of the International Existing Building Code (IEBC) – Code Action Hearing Committee on which I had been selected to serve. I arrived in Orlando at 8:30 AM local time and met with a balmy 72° F.  After retrieving my luggage and an UBER ride to the hotel, I enjoyed some relaxation time under the Florida sunshine and palm trees poolside.

I also spent that time in preparation for the hearings that were to start on Tuesday afternoon on 29 April 2025. We, my fellow committee members and I, had been charged with reviewing the approximately 185 proposed code changes to the 2027 IEBC ahead of the Committee Action Hearings so that we were familiar and knowledgeable about each of them. I had been involved with the Building Code Action Committee (BCAC) IEBC Workgroup in the previous year and a half. During that time, I had been part of the code change proposal writing process, so I was very familiar with many of those code changes. Some of the code change proposals were from other interested parties from across the AEC industry, and I needed to review those as well.

At the appropriate time coordinates, I went to the room where the coordination meeting was to be held. After a round of introductions, we were informed that the committee reviewing the proposed code changes to the administrative sections of the “I” Codes had completed their work earlier than expected. We were to begin our committee hearings that evening at 5:45 PM; almost 24 hours sooner than originally scheduled! There we were, thrown off from the deep end!

As I joined my fellow committee members on the dais, the room filled with many individuals with some interest in the outcome of these hearings. We were flanked by two large monitors behind us with spotlights, microphones, speakers, and cameras that would capture the proceedings for posterity. I felt as though I was a contestant in a game show!

I have watched videos of these proceedings over the years, but nothing matches the experience in real time and space!

And so, it began. The moderator called out the first proposal to be decided upon. The proponent came up to the microphone to explain the proposed code change and was given 2 minutes to do so. Other supporters of the proposed code change are allowed up to the microphone if they have additional information or concepts to share. If they have no new information to present, a simple wave of their hand is recorded as a “me too” to save time and avoid repetition. Then, opponents are called to the microphone and given the same amount of time to express their reasons why they are against the proposed code change. The proponents are then invited back to offer any rebuttal to the opponent’s comments in one minute, and the opponents are given a minute to offer a rebuttal to the proponent’s statements.  During this time, questions from the committee members to, both proponents and opponents alike.

Once the testimony for and against a particular code change proposal is completed, the moderator then calls for a motion from the committee members to approve or disapprove the proposal. Once a motion is made, the committee votes on the proposal based on the motion. If that motion fails to obtain a second or is disapproved by a majority of the committee members, an alternate motion is that made and voted upon.

The committee member offering up the initial motion, after the vote, provides a reason statement for the decision.

This scenario then plays out for each code change proposal that has been received.

At times, an opponent to a particular code change proposal, or even a supporter who thinks the proposal could be improved, can offer a floor modification it has been properly submitted prior to the item going to a vote by committee. This concept introduces yet another layer of complexity to the code change process.

The first day of hearings for the proposed changes to the IEBC concluded around 7:00 PM. They resumed on Tuesday, 29 April 2025 at 8:00 AM and we completed the review of all the proposals around 4:00 PM that afternoon -- well ahead of the anticipated timeline.

Each of the proposals were either approved as submitted, approved as modified, or disapproved.

The results are then published and made available for public comment. Those that were approved as submitted or approved as modified may be impacted by those comments. Also, those that were disapproved may also be addressed by public comments. All proposals, approved or not, may be brought back to the floor during the next round of Committee Action Hearings scheduled for late October 2025 in Cleveland, OH.

For me, the experience was educational and enjoyable. I had submitted my first code change proposal with the endorsement of BCAC, and it was approved! I also enjoyed the opportunity to rub elbows with other people with the same passionate interest in building codes as I have. The discussions I had with architects, engineers, and code officials from across the country (and some from around the world) during the hearings were informative, and I gained additional insights into the code development process.

I encourage each of you to become familiar with the process, be involved with submitting code change proposals, offer comments during the public comment period, and be aware of the reasons for the code changes to fully understand the intent behind them. Understanding the code’s intent is critical to its correct application and interpretation.

Click here to learn more about The International Codes (I-Codes) on ICC's website.