# Regulatory Changes in Woodworking Methods



## bbrooks (Jan 3, 2007)

I was reading through Yahoo this morning, and found an article that should be of interest to those of us in California.

The article (here)
discusses how the State of California will be requiring the reduction of Formaldehyde from furniture and wood over the next few years. It will reduce the amount of formaldehyde by half within a few years. It will also require manufactures to obtain certification for the wood, maintain records and label wood to show it complies with this law.

This is the first I have heard about this, but probably not the last. As we move forward, there will probably be other changes to our business that we will need to follow.


----------



## oscorner (Aug 7, 2006)

Hi Bill, I saw a program a week ago that spoke of the fact that all the furniture buisiness that were in California left because of California's clean air laws (reduction of formaldehyde and other immissions from stains and other finishes). I didn't know that had happened. I have no problem with requiring less toxic materials to be used on wood because it helps all of us that work with it. Of course, someone in business will have a different view because such laws can and usually do increase cost. For the struggling woodworkers that can't sell their goods for what they are worth, it may bring them closer in cost as those imports and large manufacturers. Only time will tell.


----------



## bbrooks (Jan 3, 2007)

I do not mind the less toxic items either, and appreciate the environmental aspect. As usual, the problem is in the details. Depending on how much paperwork is required, it could add to a business cost without any benefit. But, we will wait and see.

It sounds like that was an interesting program. Many businesses are leaving California, and not just wood related ones, because of the regulations and clean air laws. For a large business, it might be a small percentage added to their price. For a small business, it might end their livelyhood. Again, time will tell.


----------



## oscorner (Aug 7, 2006)

I feel your pain, Bill. It's no different than all this hype about globla warming, but the government will not make it beneficial to the American public to buy electric cars(zero emissions), use solar energy, etc. There is a Canadian company that plans to sell a 1/2 ton pickup with a crew cab that will go 250 miles on a single charge. The cost, of course is high ($45,000), but with some incentive from the Feds (a reduction on taxes) it could be made more affordable until the production gets high enough to drop the cost.

In any event, I hope that the new regulations don't cause any small business to loose their livelyhood.


----------



## bbrooks (Jan 3, 2007)

Agreed Os. I try to be a responsible person, trying to follow proven techniques and safe practices. I guess this is just one more thing we have to live with.

Of course, sometimes I dream of moving to the Carolina's where the furniture making is centered. But, I guess the grass always looks greener somewhere else.


----------



## Chip (Mar 13, 2007)

Os, you touched on a sore point that has been sticking in my gut for a few years now.

Up until the end of 2005 the government was giving tax breaks on vehicles over 6,000lbs (around there anyway). So hundreds of thousands of people ran out and bought SUVs, Hummers, etc. that guzzled gas like a sponge. I know people who went out and bought expensive gas guzzling SUVs that cost $50,000 or $60,000 right before the tax law was repealed. Some even had weight ADDED to the darn things just to make sure they passed the code. My understanding is that the original provision was to help out contractors, farmers, etc. that had to buy heavy duty vehicles for their business. But as usual, people took advantage of the situation and the break was eliminated.

I guess my question is this. With gas now costing upwards around $3 a gallon, why can't the government pass the same kind of break for people to go out and buy hybrids, etc. All this talk about oil conservation and this just seems like a no-brainer that the government could do in a heart beat. Am I missing something here?

Anyway, I know this is off topic Bill (it doesn't even have to do with woodworking I know) and I apologize but Os's comment just got my dander up (in a good way Os cause I'm agreeing with you) so I just had to release some steam.


----------



## bbrooks (Jan 3, 2007)

Not in the least Chip. This is just one more of those "regulatory" items that affects our business. The tax codes are one of the biggest impacts on our business.

This year my accountant told me I should buy a vehicle in the 6000 lb category for my business. Since I do not have that income level yet, I have to pass. But, it is definitely a factor I have to consider. I was thinking of a small truck that gets decent mileage, but that might not qualify. So, now thanks to the tax code, I may be one of those gas guzzlers someday.

By the way, gas is averaging around $3.40 here in this area of California, with price increases expected for the summer season. One more "tax" on our business.


----------



## oscorner (Aug 7, 2006)

It is definitely a mess. I guess we need to get some of that air time that the law makers get and let the world know what Americans really think, not what some carefully designed poll says.


----------



## WayneC (Mar 8, 2007)

You can also add the gas companies making record profits into the equation. Feels like my income is going down every year…


----------



## Chipncut (Aug 18, 2006)

The only problem with the government giving tax incentives, is it increases the demand on products, & causes the price to increase. I remember back in the 70s when they gave homeowners tax incentives for home insulation. Shortly afterward the price of insulation doubled. Not a bit good for the little guy.
When they give the alcohol producer an cash incentive to produce alcohol, the little guy pays twice. When we buy the fuel, & pay our taxes.


----------



## dennis (Aug 3, 2006)

We add incentives for family farms that are reaped by "farmers" who employ 100+ people at minimum wage. Lobbyist and lawyers….

Some of the "bad" finishes are much more durable than the waterbased stuff. From an enviromental point of view I would rather see a quality kitchen with a outlawed finish rather than a cheap one ripped out every 15 years because the finish is failing.


----------



## oscorner (Aug 7, 2006)

Dick and Dennis, you both make good points. I guess this is why it is so hard to come up with a concensus as to what needs to be done to both protect workers and the enviorment and not cause a greater problem some where else.


----------



## Obi (Oct 19, 2006)

I just read the article and it looks like it is basically targeted at plywood, particle board and OSB. It will have very little effect on most fine furniture manufacturers. It looks good to me even though I can't stand having "Big Borther's" nose up my ass (a term referring to my mule). Up with hardwood, Down with particle board !!!

Looks like I'll be using more hard woods and less plywood. It will also make it better and more practicle, the use of solid wood shelving.


----------



## bbrooks (Jan 3, 2007)

I prefer to use solid wood to, but at times plywood is a great way to go. More stable, less expensive, easier to work with (sort of). Like all tools, it has its place in the shop as well.

Now particle board is something I avoid. If I had to use something, I would use the plywood instead of particle board, even if it costs more. I do not trust the particle board to hold up for the long term.

I expect there will be more regulations related to air quality soon. I am wondering how long it will be before we all have to have a spray booth with some air filtering to be able to finish our products. If that happens, many small businesses will fold. Reminds me, I better start checking the map for alternative locations…


----------

