Government Regulation
February 16, 2026
EPA Formaldehyde Standards for Wood Composites
EPA’s proposed formaldehyde standards for composite wood products
By Larry Adams
February 13, 2026 | 12:22 pm CST
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to update several voluntary consensus standards in the Agency’s formaldehyde standards for composite wood products regulations under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). These new standards primarily update test methods, providing “manufacturers and testing laboratories with an additional, internationally recognized tool to help ensure consistent, high-quality emissions data across the industry.
EPA is also proposing to conform these updated standards to the scope and definitional sections in the final rule and to incorporate by reference a new small-scale quality control chamber test method, similar to the current methods already incorporated by reference.
The proposal was published in the Federal Register on Feb. 11. Comments regarding the proposal must be received on or before March 13, 2026, according to the publication in the Federal Register. Comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0245, can be submitted using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov.
Calculating the risk
In a formaldehyde-related announcement in December 2025, the EPA updated how it calculates risk to workers. The Draft Risk Calculation Memorandum for Formaldehyde under TSCA for Public Comment does not dispute that there is a formaldehyde health risk, but enhances the scientific rigor of the underlying information used to support the risk determination.
In a Jan. 30 letter to the Environmental Protection Agency, Keith Christman, president, Decorative Hardwoods Association, expressed the organization’s “strong support” for the Updated Draft Risk Calculation Memorandum for Formaldehyde, especially the EPA’s revision of its formaldehyde inhalation risk assessment toward a threshold-based risk assessment framework. DHA represents North American manufacturers of hardwood plywood, engineered wood floors and hardwood veneer.
“We commend EPA for its rigorous and transparent reassessment of formaldehyde risks,” Christman wrote. “We support EPA’s revision of its formaldehyde inhalation risk assessment to reflect the best available science.”
He said that the revised approach is grounded in the latest scientific evidence and stakeholder input. “We particularly support EPA’s reliance on controlled human exposure studies, which provide robust, directly relevant data for evaluating health effects. This evidence-based methodology ensures that regulatory decisions are anchored in real-world exposures and outcomes, fostering both health protection and regulatory credibility.”
The EPA, in the February Federal Register announcement, detailed the quality control test method it supports. The agency proposes to add ISO 12460-2:2024(en), Wood-based panels—Determination of Formaldehyde Release—Part 2: Small-scale Chamber Method (Ref. 13), as a quality control test method in 40 CFR 770.20(b)(1) and to IBR the standard in 40 CFR 770.99.
According to the Register, the standard was approved through ISO and describes the procedure for using a small-scale chamber test method to test formaldehyde emissions from wood products under defined test conditions of temperature, relative humidity, loading and air exchange rate by measuring the concentrations of formaldehyde in air from samples of a specified surface area. This standard is a small-scale quality control chamber test method that EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference as an allowable alternative quality control test method, due to its similarity to other standards currently incorporated by reference for quality control methods, and to allow regulated entities to make use of the wider range of analytical methods the standard allows, such as laser absorption spectroscopy.
Sensory irritation
In the December 2025 updated draft risk calculation for formaldehyde, the EPA proposed using acute sensory irritation (eye/throat irritation) as the most sensitive endpoint for setting safety standards, rather than cancer risk. The EPA suggests that keeping exposure levels low enough to prevent irritation if exposure levels are at 0.3 ppm or less, for “any duration,” individuals are protected “against all effects, including cancer.”
The DHA also voiced its support for the EPA’s selection of sensory irritation as the health-protective endpoint is fully justified by the scientific literature. “The weight of the scientific evidence demonstrates that sensory irritation is the most sensitive and biologically relevant endpoint for inhalation exposure to formaldehyde. Thus, protecting against sensory irritation is protective of downstream effects, including chronic non-cancer and cancer outcomes, under a threshold mode of action. EPA’s revised framework appropriately reflects these conclusions and aligns with recommendations from EPA’s own scientific advisory bodies,” according to the letter.
Sidebar: Voluntary consensus standards included in the proposal:
- ANSI A190.1-2022, Product Standard for Structural Glued Laminated Timber (ANSI)
- ASTM D5582-22, Standard Test Method for Determining Formaldehyde Levels from Wood Products Using a Desiccator (ASTM)
- ASTM D6007-22, Standard Test Method for Determining Formaldehyde Concentrations in Air from Wood Products Using a Small-Scale Chamber (ASTM)
- ASTM E1333-22, Standard Test Method for Determining Formaldehyde Concentrations in Air and Emission Rates from Wood Products Using a Large Chamber (ASTM)
- BS EN ISO 12460-3:2023, Wood-based panels—Determination of formaldehyde release—Part 3: Gas analysis method (BSI)
Wood-based panels—Determination of formaldehyde release—Part 3: Gas analysis method (BS EN ISO)
PS 1-22, Structural Plywood (NIST)
February 11, 2026
Indian ADD for TDI 80
Government Extends Anti-Dumping Duty on TDI Imports from EU, Saudi Arabia
Custom Duty | Notifications ADD, Notifications/Circulars The Ministry of Finance has issued Notification No. 03/2026-Customs (ADD) dated 10 February 2026, imposing anti-dumping duty on imports of Toluene Di-Isocyanate (TDI) having isomer content in the ratio of 80:20, classified under tariff item 2929 10 20, originating in or exported from the European Union and Saudi Arabia. The decision follows final findings of the designated authority dated 12 November 2025, which concluded that cessation of existing anti-dumping duty would likely lead to continuation of dumping and injury to the domestic industry.
Exercising powers under Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and relevant rules, the Government has specified producer-wise duty rates ranging from US$ 102.05 to US$ 344.33 per metric tonne. The duty will remain effective for five years unless earlier revoked or amended and shall be payable in Indian currency based on the exchange rate notified under the Customs Act.
MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department of Revenue) Notification No. 03/2026-Customs (ADD) | Dated: 10th February, 2026 G.S.R. 121(E).— Whereas, in the matter of “Toluene Di-Isocyanate (TDI) having isomer content in the ratio of 80:20” (hereinafter referred to as the subject goods) falling under tariff item 2929 10 20 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) (hereinafter referred to as the Customs Tariff Act), originating in or exported from European Union and Saudi Arabia (hereinafter referred to as the subject countries), and imported into India, the designated authority in its final findings, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part I, section 1 vide notification No. 7/14/2024-DGTR, dated the 12th November, 2025 has inter alia come to the conclusion that there is a likelihood of continuation of dumping and consequent injury to the domestic industry in case of cessation of anti-dumping duty in force, and has recommended continued imposition of anti-dumping duty on imports of the subject goods originating in or exported from the subject countries.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (1) and (5) of section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act read with rules 18, 20 and 23 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No. 28/2021-Customs (ADD), dated the 27th April, 2021, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, section 3, sub-section (i) vide number G.S.R. 297(E), dated the 27th April, 2021, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the Central Government, after considering the aforesaid final findings of the designated authority, hereby imposes on the subject goods, the description of which is specified in column (3) of the Table below, falling under tariff item of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act as specified in the corresponding entry in column (2), originating in the countries as specified in the corresponding entry in column (4), exported from the countries as specified in the corresponding entry in column (5), produced by the producers as specified in the corresponding entry in column (6), and imported into India, an anti-dumping duty at the rate equal to the amount specified in corresponding entry in column (7), in the currency as specified in the corresponding entry in column (9) and as per the unit of measurement as specified in the corresponding entry in column (8) of the said Table, namely:−
Customs classification is only indicative and not binding on the scope of the subject goods. ** The subject goods in the present investigation concerns TDI having isomer content in the ratio of (80:20). All other grades are beyond the scope of subject goods. 2.
The anti-dumping duty imposed under this notification shall be effective for a period of five years (unless revoked, superseded, or amended earlier) from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette and shall be payable in Indian currency.
Explanation. – For the purposes of this notification, the rate of exchange applicable for the purposes of calculation of such anti-dumping duty shall be the rate which is specified in the notification of the Government of India, in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), issued from time to time, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), and the relevant date for the determination of the rate of exchange shall be the date of presentation of the bill of entry under section 46 of the said Act. [F. No. 190349/6/2026-TRU] DHEERAJ SHARMA, Under Secy.
Read more at: https://taxguru.in/custom-duty/government-extends-anti-dumping-duty-tdi-imports-eu-saudi-arabia.html
February 1, 2026
Class Action Update
2 Foreign Cos. Escape Pa. Polyurethane Price-Fixing MDL
By Lauren Berg · Listen to article
Law360(January 29, 2026, 8:23 PM EST)– A Pennsylvania federal judge on Thursday unsealed his opinion from earlier this month dismissing two parent companies in Germany and China from multidistrict antitrust litigation that accuses several companies of conspiring to manipulate the prices of two chemicals used to make polyurethane, saying the court doesn’t have jurisdiction.
After the parties agreed it could be unsealed, U.S. District Judge W. Scott Hardy made public his Jan. 8 opinion granting renewed motions to dismiss by Covestro AG, headquartered in Leverkusen, Germany, and Wanhua Chemical Group Co. Ltd., headquartered in Yantai, China, agreeing that his court “is unable to exercise general or specific personal jurisdiction over” the foreign parent companies.
“In the court’s estimation, plaintiffs fail to establish that Covestro AG and Wanhua China had sufficient minimum contacts evidencing they do business in the United States to be ‘found’ here, nor do they establish that these defendants availed themselves of the privileges of American law or otherwise reasonably could anticipate being involved in litigation in the United States,” the judge said.
Judge Hardy dismissed the claims against Covestro AG and Wanhua China with prejudice, but the companies’ domestic subsidiaries, Covestro LLC and Wanhua Chemical America Co. Ltd., remain in the case.
The Pittsburgh-based multidistrict litigation accuses several companies — including BASF Corp., The Dow Chemical Co. and Huntsman Corp. — of using plant closures and limited supplies to drive up the prices of methylene diphenyl diisocyanate and toluene diisocyanate.
The class action generally alleges that the chemical companies reacted to a period of low MDI and TDI prices in 2014 and 2015 by limiting production and artificially inflating the prices for manufacturers of polyurethane plastic products, including plaintiffs such as Rhino Linings Corp. and Elliott Co. of Indianapolis.
According to the complaints, the defendant companies conspired through trade groups and took advantage of the difficulty that competitors would face when entering the market for the chemicals, known as diisocyanates and isocyanates, along with their control over most of the supply and the fact that the chemicals can’t be replaced with substitutes.
In March 2020, U.S. District Judge Donetta Ambrose denied the defendants’ joint motion to dismiss the case, finding the allegations in the complaint were sufficiently supported to move the case ahead. She also denied a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction brought by foreign-based corporations BASF SE, Covestro AG, Mitsui Chemicals, MCNS and Wanhua China.
But following jurisdictional discovery, Covestro AG in July 2022 and Wanhua China in February 2023 renewed their motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, and Judge Hardy granted both on Jan. 8, according to the docket.
In his opinion, unsealed Thursday, Judge Hardy first determined that the “foreign corporations with a headquarters and a principal place of business in other countries are not ‘at home’ in the United States,” meaning his court cannot exercise general personal jurisdiction over the companies.
The court also doesn’t have specific personal jurisdiction over Covestro AG and Wanhua China under both the traditional three-step analysis known as the “minimum contacts” test or under the “Calder effects test” laid out in the 1984 U.S. Supreme Court case Calder v. Jones , which can be used when an intentional tort is alleged, the order said.
“As to both Covestro AG and Wanhua China, the record makes clear that personal jurisdiction does not lie under the traditional test because neither foreign defendant ‘purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities’ in the United States,” Judge Hardy said, noting that neither company has manufactured or sold MDI or TDI in the U.S.
Turning to the Calder test, Judge Hardy determined that the plaintiffs have not alleged the crucial third factor — that Covestro AG and Wanhua China “expressly aimed tortious conduct at the United States such that it can be said to be the focal point of the tortious activity,” according to the order.
“Given that Covestro AG is a German holding company which does not manufacture or sell MDI or TDI, or otherwise perform any operational functions … it strains credulity that it expressly aimed the tortious conduct at issue here at the United States,” Judge Hardy said.
As for Wanhua China, the plaintiffs “inaccurately contend” that the company is involved in setting a floor price for sales of MDI through its American subsidiary and that it controlled the subsidiary by having Wanhua China members on the subsidiary’s board of directors, the order states.
The judge also rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that Wanhua China’s announcement and subsequent cancellation of an MDI plant in the U.S. “would have constrained the market by boosting supply expectations and then not delivering,” according to the order.
“Plaintiffs’ purely speculative argument on this point is wholly insufficient to establish Calder’s express aiming prong,” Judge Hardy said, likewise rejecting the plaintiffs’ “contention that Wanhua China engaged directly with United States customers by attending meetings, hosting visits at its plant in China, or engaging with them on technical issues and providing updates on research and development” would establish that it expressly aimed tortious conduct at the U.S.
The judge also rejected the plaintiffs’ argument for express aiming based on their claim that Wanhua China shipped diisocyanates into the U.S., saying in the opinion that this argument “obscures the fact that although the vast majority of the MDI that [Wanhua Chemical America Co.] sells in the United States comes from Wanhua China, WCA, not Wanhua China, sells MDI and TDI” to U.S. customers.
“Even in instances where WCA offered ‘China Direct’ shipping for customers to save on overall supply chain logistics and costs, customers contracted and interacted with WCA, not Wanhua China,” the judge said.
Craig Seebald of Vinson & Elkins LLP, an attorney for Wanhua, told Law360 Thursday, “We are pleased with the court’s decision and its thorough consideration of the jurisdictional record. With the jurisdictional motion decided, we can move forward with the litigation and look forward to filing our summary judgment motion.”
Counsel for the plaintiffs and Covestro did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The plaintiffs’ interim co-lead counsel are Megan E. Jones of Hausfeld LLP and Jason S. Hartley of Hartley LLP, and their interim liaison counsel is William Pietragallo II of Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti LLP.
Wanhua is represented by Craig P. Seebald, Adam Hudes, Brian Schnapp, Charles L. Wesley and Nicole Castle of Vinson & Elkins LLP.
Covestro is represented by John F. Terzaken, Abram J. Ellis and Avia Gridi of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP.
The case is In re: Diisocyanates Antitrust Litigation, case number 2:18-mc-01001, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
January 25, 2026
Plywood Anti-Dumping Update
Commerce Department rules in favor of preliminary countervailing duties in hardwood plywood cases
By Larry Adams
January 22, 2026 | 8:49 am CST
Prevailing countervailing duties on hardwood plywood imports from China, Indonesia and Vietnam have been calculated.
On January 16, the U.S. Department of Commerce released its preliminary affirmative countervailing duty findings on hardwood and decorative plywood after identifying significant subsidies provided by the governments of China, Indonesia, and Vietnam, reports the Decorative Hardwoods Association.
Commerce calculated preliminary countervailing duties of 81.34% on imports from China, 2.40% to 128.66% on imports from Indonesia, and 4.37% to 26.75% on imports from Vietnam. These rates will be added to existing tariffs on products from these countries and will be charged as soon as the decision is published in the Federal Register.
In addition, preliminary antidumping rates are scheduled to be announced in late February 2026. Final rulings are expected in early May.
The Coalition for Fair Trade in Hardwood Plywood (Coalition), representing a substantial majority of the American hardwood and decorative plywood industry, commends Commerce for its decision to impose these preliminary duties to remedy the unfair trade practices of China, Indonesia, and Vietnam.
“The domestic hardwood and decorative plywood industry has been harmed for decades by unfairly traded imports from China, Indonesia, and Vietnam. Friday’s decision by the Department of Commerce is another critical step in leveling the playing field for American hardwood and decorative plywood manufacturers,” said Timothy C. Brightbill, lead counsel to the Coalition and co-chair of Wiley’s International Trade Practice.
As soon as Commerce’s preliminary determination is published in the Federal Register, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will begin collecting preliminary duties on entries of hardwood and decorative plywood from China, Indonesia, and Vietnam. Commerce also found that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of hardwood and decorative plywood from China. As a result, duties will be collected on entries of hardwood and decorative plywood from China that were entered on or after 90 days before publication of the preliminary determination.
Commerce’s countervailing duty investigations will continue over the coming months, with the agency further investigating subsidies—including newly alleged subsidy programs—received by the Chinese, Indonesian, and Vietnamese industries. Commerce’s final determination is currently scheduled for early May 2026. Commerce is also simultaneously investigating antidumping duty allegations on hardwood and decorative plywood from China, Indonesia, and Vietnam. The preliminary antidumping rates are scheduled to be announced in late February 2026.
The duties that will now be imposed are assessed on the importer of record of the covered merchandise. Duty evasion, absorption, and circumvention are illegal and closely monitored by CBP, in conjunction with the Commerce Department. Counsel for the Coalition is working closely with U.S. Customs and Border Protection to share evidence of duty evasion, which is leading to heightened scrutiny of imports.
January 13, 2026
China Reducing VAT Rebate for Exports of Polyol
Export Tax Rebate Adjustment on Photovoltaic Products & Polyether Polyols
PUdaily | Updated: January 12, 2026
For the polyurethane industry, the update is particularly relevant because it captures product classifications that may apply to polyether materials commonly traded as polyether polyols (depending on the exporter’s declared HS code and customs classification). As a result, affected exporters may face higher effective export costs after April 1, 2026, which could translate into adjustments in export offers and contract pricing discussions.
Market participants should monitor potential impacts on export netbacks and shipment planning. As rebate removal typically increases the effective export cost for in-scope products, exporters and buyers may also reassess shipment schedules and commercial terms ahead of the implementation date where feasible.
https://www.pudaily.com/Home/NewsDetails/61866
Key Policy Shift: China’s Polyether Polyols VAT Export Rebates Cancelled from April 2026
January 13, 2026
China’s Ministry of Finance and State Taxation Administration have announced the removal of VAT export rebates for polyether polyols (HS 39072990), effective April 1, 2026. This marks a pivotal moment for an industry where export dependency has reached ~33%, with 2026 exports projected at 2M tons.
The change will reshape competitiveness in global markets and accelerate strategic reviews across the polyether-PO value chain.
Propylene Oxide (PO): A Short-Term Demand Pulse
A short-term demand surge is expected as exporters accelerate orders pre-deadline. While current PO operating rates are high, the demand pulse may tighten availability. PO prices have already begun rising (up ~RMB 200/ton in Jiangsu), with further increases anticipated.
Downstream Ripple Effect: Cost pressure will extend to key PO derivatives.
- Propylene Glycol (PG)
- Propylene Carbonate (PC)
- Dimethyl Carbonate (DMC)
Looking Ahead: With over 2.5M tons of new polyether and PO capacity scheduled through 2028—including multiple 2026 startups—the industry faces both policy-driven restructuring and expanding supply.
#PolyetherPolyols #PropyleneOxide #ChemicalIndustry #ExportPolicy #ChinaMarket #PG #PC #DMC #SupplyChain
Views are personal and not those of the company.
Linkedin.com
Everchem Updates Archive 
Sign Up for Email Updates