Purpose and Roles of the Uniform Building Code Commission
By Josh Blazzard, SEAU UBCC Delegate
For the last 8 years I have been privileged to be a member of the Utah Uniform Building Code Commission (UBCC). Since many people may not be aware of what the UBCC is and its purpose, I thought I would provide some background and information regarding the critical role this commission plays in Utah.
The UBCC is a statutorily authorized body responsible for reviewing and recommending building codes to the legislature that will be used across Utah. These codes cover a wide array of areas, including structural safety, fire protection, energy efficiency, plumbing, mechanical systems, and accessibility standards.
The UBCC comprises 13 appointed members who serve a maximum of (2) four-year terms, with staggered appointments to ensure continuity. The composition of the commission outlined by state code includes:
- HVAC Contractor
- Building Inspector
- Professional Engineer
- Architect
- Residential Architect or Home Designer
- Building Owners Association Member
- Fire Official
- (2) General Contractors (one of whom specializes in residential construction)
- Electrical Contractor
- Plumbing Contractor
- Public Member – This is someone from the general public with no affiliation with the construction or real estate development industries.
- Facilities Construction Representative – (DFCM Representative)
The purpose of the Utah Uniform Building Code Commission (UBCC) is to ensure that building construction throughout the state adheres to safe, consistent, and up-to-date standards. The UBCC plays a central role in the adoption, modification, and interpretation of construction codes. Some of the key responsibilities the commission is tasked with are outlined below:
- UBCC provides recommendations to the state legislature regarding the adoption of building codes (such as the International Building Code, Electrical Code, Plumbing Code, etc.) with modifications suited to Utah’s specific needs.
- The commission reviews and proposes amendments to current codes, often based on input from advisory committees, contractors and professionals in the building construction industry.
- It advises the Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing (DOPL) on matters related to building construction standards and regulation enforcement.
- The UBCC may act as an appeals board for disputes involving building code interpretations and enforcement actions by local jurisdictions or inspectors.
- It creates and oversees advisory peer committees (e.g., Structural, Plumbing, Electrical) that provide expert input on specialized areas of the codes.
To accomplish these tasks, the UBCC is assisted by several advisory committees. These committees are composed of experts from across the building industry and related disciplines. Each committee focuses on a specific aspect of the building code and provides technical insight, evaluates proposed changes, and advises the Commission accordingly. Some of these committees include:
- Structural Advisory Committee
- Plumbing and Health Advisory Committee
- Mechanical Advisory Committee
- Electrical Advisory Committee
- Fire Protection Advisory Committee
- Architectural Advisory Committee
The Structural Advisory Committee is one of the key technical groups that support the UBCC. Its primary focus is on building design and structural integrity. The committee evaluates proposed changes to the structural provisions of the International Building Code (IBC), International Residential Code (IRC), International Existing Building Code (IEBC) and ASCE 7 – Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures.
The committee comprises seven members who are appointed based on their expertise and experience in the field. Per state statute the committee is to be comprised of the following individuals:
- (4) Professional Engineers
- Building Official
- Building Inspector
- Member of the Home Builders Association
To accomplish its work, the structural advisory committee utilizes other engineering groups and organizations for input and recommendations, particularly SEAU and its committees. Throughout the years SEAU has provided opinions, recommendations and submitted amendments to the structural advisory committee for review and recommendations to the UBCC. This particular year, the SEAU codes committee has been very busy reviewing updates to the provisions of the new ASCE 7-22. As part of this process, they have submitted recommendations and amendment updates for multiple areas of the code, particularly regarding the new snow load provisions.
If you want to get involved in the code adoption process you are welcome to attend any of the meetings for the structural advisory committee and UBCC. All of these meeting are open to the public and you are welcome to provide input on any of the items being discussed.
For more information on the Utah Uniform Building Code Commission, including meeting schedules and how to participate in the code adoption process, visit the Utah Department of Commerce – Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing (DOPL).
Thoughts on the SE Exam: A Message to Firm Leadership
By Nick Markosian, SEAU Member
As structural engineers, our careers are marked by a series of milestones — graduation from an accredited program, passage of the Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) exam, and eventual licensure as a Professional Engineer (PE). For many, this is enough to build a fulfilling and successful career designing safe, efficient buildings and infrastructure.
But for those of us aspiring to the highest levels of technical leadership and responsibility, the Structural Engineering (SE) license represents the next step. It is a respected credential — one that opens doors to complex projects, senior roles, and broader influence within our firms and the profession at large.
From the start of my career, I’ve viewed the SE license as a personal and professional goal. Many of the leaders at my firm — and our peers across the industry — hold this credential. It sets a high bar and signals deep expertise and dedication to public safety.
Yet, as the format and delivery of the SE exam evolve, particularly with its transition to computer-based testing (CBT), the path to licensure has become more challenging in ways that don’t always reflect an engineer’s real-world competence.
The process has tested my resilience more than my engineering knowledge. Setbacks, long study hours, and unclear testing limitations have led to moments of deep doubt. Like many others, I’ve questioned whether I should continue — not because I lack motivation or ability, but because the experience itself can feel disconnected from the work we actually do.
Licensure itself does not make a competent engineer. We all know team members who bring value to projects daily through sound judgment, creative thinking, and technical rigor — with or without a specific credential. We should not discourage those who do not pass their exams on the first try. The ability to persist and grow through the process should be acknowledged, not penalized.
This is not a call to lower standards. The stakes of our work are high, and public safety must remain the foundation of our profession. But we must ask: Are we assessing engineering competence, or are we simply filtering for test-taking endurance and familiarity with restrictive software?
As firm leaders, you play a critical role in shaping how licensure is viewed and pursued within your organizations. You can offer support through mentorship, financial backing, and — just as importantly — understanding. Recognize that your younger staff may be navigating an exam process that looks very different from the one you experienced.
Retention, morale, and professional growth all intersect here. If the process becomes so grueling that it deters promising engineers from pursuing or completing licensure, our entire profession stands to lose. We risk creating a bottleneck of talent at a time when the industry needs more licensed engineers, not fewer. When engineers walk away from the process due to burnout, expense, or frustration with the system — not because they lack ability — we all lose. The long-term consequences may include decreased participation in licensure and a shrinking pool of qualified SEs at a time when our industry can least afford it.
My hope is that leadership teams will remain engaged in these conversations, advocate for improvements where appropriate, and continue to support the next generation as they navigate this demanding path.
Let’s ensure that licensure remains a meaningful, attainable goal — one that builds up our engineers rather than burning them out.
