USDA Determines the Cotton Research and Promotion Order Does Not Need to be Modified to Minimize Impact on Small Entities
The USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has issued a notice stating that based upon the results of a review, it has determined that the Cotton Research and Promotion Order (Cotton Order) should be continued without change.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
According to AMS, the review was undertaken to determine whether the Cotton Order should be continued without change, amended, or rescinded (consistent with the objectives of the Cotton Research and Promotion Act of 1966 (Act)) to minimize the impacts on small entities. APHIS explains that the goal of the evaluation is to assure that the Cotton Order and the regulations implemented under it fit the needs of the industry and are consistent with the Act.
AMS states that, currently, there are approximately 21,000 producers, 300 first handlers, and 12,000 importers covered under the Cotton Order.
In addition, the current assessment is $1.00 per bale plus five-tenths of one percent of the value of the bales and is collected on every bale of cotton harvested and ginned in the U.S. and on imported raw cotton and on the non-U.S. cotton content of imported textile and apparel products.
AMS Receives No Complaints on Order, But its Constitutionality is Being Litigated
AMS states that with the exception of challenges concerning the constitutionality of assessments used for generic advertising under the Cotton Order, AMS has not received complaints about this order. AMS notes that it is currently defending these constitutionality challenges.
(Various U.S. courts have ruled that other research and promotion programs (e.g. the pork, beef, and mushroom programs and associated fees) are unconstitutional in that they violate the First Amendment. See ITT's Online Archives or 10/29/03 news, 03102999 1, for BP summary of an appeals court decision upholding the unconstitutionality of the Pork Checkoff Program.)
(See ITT's Online Archives or 09/02/03 news, 03090240, for BP summary of AMS' request for comments for this review.)
- interested persons may obtain a copy of the review by submitting requests to the AMS Contact listed below.
AMS Contact - Whitney Rick (202) 690-1718
AMS notice (D/N CN-03-003, FR Pub 02/09/04) available athttp://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2004/pdf/04-2697.pdf