Relating to a lumber grading training program.
SB 1061 creates a pilot program at Oregon State University Extension Service to train and certify individuals in basic lumber grading. The program must be offered annually, include at least eight instructional hours with hands-on practice, and cover species identification, moisture content, and visual grading criteria for structural dimension lumber. The bill also sets standards for instructor qualifications and requires recertification every five years.
The measure then directs the Department of Consumer and Business Services to adopt rules allowing builders, designers, or owners to use lumber that has been tested and approved by a person certified through the pilot program. The bill limits that process to structures covered by the Oregon Residential Specialty Code, requires written disclosure at permit application, and makes the disclosure part of the permanent deed record. It also requires the lumber to come from a known source and bars the process from creating any new state building-code grade or design value. A liability shield is included for manufacturers, distributors, wholesalers, retailers, and graders of third-party graded lumber when self-graded lumber is used in the same structure, and the pilot program sunsets in 2033.
SB 1061 amends Oregon’s building and lumber-grading framework by creating a state-recognized pathway for self-grading lumber through certification, while preserving the existing building code structure. It affects Oregon State University Extension Service, the Department of Consumer and Business Services, local building inspectors, county clerks, builders, design professionals, homeowners, and participants in the lumber supply chain. The bill does not authorize new building-code grades, but it does create a regulated process for limited residential use of self-graded lumber and adds disclosure and recordkeeping requirements tied to building permits and property records.
The bill appears to have received generally favorable support, passing both chambers with comfortable margins and no recorded opposition in the final Senate concurrence vote. Committee votes were also positive, though not unanimous, suggesting some members had reservations or sought amendments. Overall, the voting pattern indicates broad legislative approval for the training-and-certification approach and the limited expansion of lumber-use options.
The main points of contention likely centered on safety, code integrity, and liability. The bill restricts self-graded lumber to residential specialty code structures, requires disclosure and deed recording, and expressly prohibits new state building-code grades or design values, which suggests concern about maintaining building standards. The liability provision protecting third-party graded lumber stakeholders from defects in self-graded lumber may also have been important to industry interests and a possible source of debate. Supporters likely emphasized workforce training, local lumber use, and practical access to certified grading, while skeptics may have focused on whether self-graded lumber can be reliably used in residential construction.