EPA Revisits Formaldehyde Standards Amid Evolving Domestic and International Requirements

The review, which is expected to conclude by December of this year, could have important implications for manufacturers, importers, suppliers, and other entities that have spent nearly a decade complying with Title VI of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

View the Federal Register notice here.

The Rule Under Review

Finalized in December 2016, EPA’s rule implements Title VI of TSCA and establishes formaldehyde emission standards for hardwood plywood, medium-density fiberboard (MDF) and particleboard, as well as finished goods containing these materials that are manufactured, imported, sold, or supplied in the United States. The rule also created a third-party certification program, imposed labeling and chain-of-custody documentation requirements, and established provisions for laminated products and products manufactured with no-added formaldehyde or ultra-low emitting formaldehyde resins.

Since its promulgation, EPA has amended the rule several times, including revisions in 2019 intended to further align federal requirements with California’s program and updates in 2018 and 2023 to incorporate voluntary consensus standards.

What Is Section 610 Review?

Section 610 review is a periodic reassessment required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). Under the provision, federal agencies must review rules that have, or may have, a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within 10 years of the rule’s promulgation. The purpose is to determine whether a rule should be continued without change, amended to reduce burdens on small businesses, or rescinded altogether.

EPA’s review appears to be driven by these statutory obligations under the RFA rather than by any predetermined decision regarding the substance of the formaldehyde standards. Although a Section 610 review is not a rulemaking proceeding and does not itself alter regulatory requirements, its findings can help shape future agency actions.

Why This Review Matters

In conducting the review, EPA will solicit public comment on five factors specified by the RFA: 

1. The continued need for the rule.

2. The nature of comments or complaints received from the public.

3. The rule’s complexity.

4. The extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates, or conflicts with other federal, state, or local requirements.

5. Whether technological, economic, or other changes have affected the rule since its adoption.

For an industry that has spent nearly a decade investing in compliance infrastructure, including emissions testing, third-party certification, recordkeeping systems, and supply-chain documentation, the review presents an opportunity to reassess whether the existing framework continues to strike an appropriate balance between regulatory objectives and compliance burdens.

Stakeholders are also likely to focus on several recurring issues, including the costs associated with third-party certification and recordkeeping requirements, the continued alignment between EPA and California standards, the treatment of imported products, and whether advances in testing methods and manufacturing technologies warrant modifications to existing compliance obligations. Several of these issues — particularly the continued alignment with California and the treatment of imports — take on added significance when viewed against the backdrop of parallel regulatory developments outside the federal framework

A Broader Regulatory Landscape

EPA’s review does not occur in a vacuum. The formaldehyde regulatory environment has evolved since 2016, and developments in both California and the European Union provide important context.

California’s Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) Phase II program, which predates the federal rule and served as its model, establishes formaldehyde emission limits for hardwood plywood, particleboard, and MDF through a mandatory third-party certification system. EPA intentionally harmonized its federal standards with California’s approach to reduce compliance burdens for manufacturers serving both markets.

The European Union’s (EU) REACH Annex XVII, Entry 77, which became effective this August, takes a different regulatory approach. Rather than focusing on emissions from composite wood panels at the point of manufacture, Entry 77 establishes a formaldehyde emission limit for articles placed on the EU market and evaluates emissions under conditions intended to reflect actual indoor use. The restriction applies broadly to a wide range of products capable of emitting formaldehyde into indoor environments and places greater emphasis on emissions from finished articles as consumers encounter them.

Together, these frameworks illustrate an evolving international regulatory landscape for formaldehyde emissions. While California and EPA have historically focused on panel-level emissions and certification requirements, the EU has emphasized emissions from finished products in use. If the review’s findings inform subsequent rulemaking, EPA will need to consider whether federal standards should evolve in parallel with these international frameworks or chart an independent course — a decision with significant consequences for companies managing compliance across multiple jurisdictions

What Comes Next

Stakeholders have until October 13, to submit comments to Docket ID EPA-HQ-OPPT-2025-2433 through Regulations.gov. Given the rule’s broad reach across wood product manufacturers, furniture manufacturers, cabinetry producers, construction firms, importers, distributors, retailers, and third-party certifiers, stakeholder participation will play an important role in shaping the administrative record EPA develops during the review.

While Section 610 reviews do not typically result in immediate regulatory changes, they provide agencies with an opportunity to reassess longstanding compliance frameworks and evaluate whether existing regulations continue to achieve their intended objectives. For companies operating throughout the composite wood products supply chain, early engagement in EPA’s review process offers the best opportunity to influence the future direction of federal formaldehyde regulation.

Whether the review ultimately supports maintaining the current framework or identifies areas for further refinement, it marks an important inflection point in the ongoing evolution of US formaldehyde regulation, one that will be closely watched by regulated industries, public health stakeholders, and international trading partners alike.