Cheat Sheet

December 4, 2025

Hardwood Economic Impact Data Finalized:  In 2019, member associations of the Hardwood Federation came together to fund and  released the first national survey of the economic impact of the U.S. Hardwood Industry.  Based on 2016-2017 data, the most recent available at the time, the report showed the significant impact generated by the domestic manufacture of hardwood products. 

Thanks to significant financial support from the U.S. Endowment for Forests and Families, as well as generous contributions from 10 Federation members, these reports have now been now been updated using 2022 federal economic census data; again the most recently available data.  As in 2019, the data showed significant economic impact of the industry on the national as a whole as well as in individual states. (2022 Report)

To reflect the realities of our current time, this work was supplemented by a look at the impacts of these challenges between 2022 and 2025.  The Supplemental Report may be viewed here. SP Global conducted the analysis.

The Hardwood Federation extends our sincerest thanks to the U.S. Endowment and to the following Hardwood Federation member associations:  The Appalachian Hardwood Manufacturers, Inc., the Hardwood Manufacturers Association, the Maple Flooring Manufacturers Association, the National Hardwood Lumber Association, the National Wood Flooring Association, the Northeast Loggers Association, the Ohio Forestry Association, the West Virginia Forestry Association, and the Wood Components Manufacturing Association. This work would not have been completed without their valuable support and input.

More Progress on EUDR Delay: Last week, the European Parliament voted on and approved a proposal to delay the EU Deforestation Regulation for an additional 12 months. The proposal still needs to be negotiated and officially passed by the end of the year, but this is an important step in another year’s delay to the EUDR. Although there had been hope that some simplification of requirements would be agreed to for exporters to the EU., simplification changes only apply to EU-based companies (see below). Key elements of the Parliament position include:

• Delay of enforcement. It has proposed a one-year delay covering all EU operators until 30 December 2026, with micro and small operators (with less than 50 employees and turnover not exceeding €10 million) given an additional six months until 30 June 2027.
• Simplification of Due Diligence requirements. The obligation to submit due diligence statements (DDS) would fall only on businesses that first place regulated products onto the EU market, and not on downstream operators and traders inside the EU or, by implication, on EU exporters. Micro and small “primary operators” (i.e. forest owners and farmers inside the EU) would now only have to submit a one-off simplified declaration rather than a DDS for each shipment. They can also provide a postal address as an alternative to geolocation of land plots. However, no simplifications are offered for products imported from non-EU countries.
• Review clause. The Commission shall carry out a simplification review of the Regulation by April 30, 2026, and on this basis present a report to the European Parliament and the Council accompanied, where appropriate, by an additional legislative amendment proposal.

EPA and Fine Particulates: Last week just before the Thanksgiving break, EPA asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to strike down the current National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size, known as PM 2.5. Recall that the Biden Administration ratcheted down the standard from 12 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m³) to 9 µg/m³. The tightening of the standard threatens to bring virtually the entire country into non-attainment for the pollutant. This was a major loss for heavy manufacturing last year as the larger trade associations like the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Chemistry Council highly prioritized keeping the PM 2.5 level at 12.

EPA’s filing argues that the Biden administration took a “regulatory shortcut” by adopting the stricter annual standard without first conducting the “thorough review” required by the Clean Air Act. The filing also urges a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit to rule before Feb. 7, when EPA is statutorily required to issue a first round of decisions on what parts of the country are failing the 9 µg/m³ threshold.