The comment period for the Hardwood Checkoff, set to end July 9, has been extended again and will not close until Sept. 7.
The Hardwood Checkoff, if implemented, would require sawmills and kiln operators of a certain size to pay an assessment per $1,000 in sales. The money would be used in industry-wide marketing campaigns, much like the “Got Milk” campaign.
More details on the checkoff program can be found in HF Green Blogger Elizabeth Baldwin’s blog on the Hardwood Checkoff, published yesterday, here.
The most recent revisions to the Hardwood Checkoff were published in June in the Federal Register.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture is seeking comments on any part of the Hardwood Checkoff, but is seeking answers to these questions specifically, as written in the Federal Register:
1. Hardwood Plywood: Several comments questioned the inclusion of hardwood plywood in the proposed program. Commenters opined that hardwood plywood competes with hardwood lumber, and that plywood is too different to include in the program. As USDA continues to evaluate the merits of including hardwood plywood in the proposed program, USDA seeks comments on the following questions:
a. What are the benefits and the drawbacks for including hardwood lumber and hardwood plywood together in the same research and promotion program?
b. How would the proposed program benefit the hardwood plywood sector of the industry?
c. What types of promotion programs could be envisioned by the industry for hardwood plywood and how would this impact the hardwood lumber sector of the industry?
d. What impact would excluding hardwood plywood have on the expected amount of assessments to be collected under the proposed program?
e. What impact would excluding hardwood plywood have on the proposed Board structure?
2. Assessments: As previously mentioned, several comments were received regarding the proposed assessment section. USDA has clarified the section in this supplemental proposed rule, but also seeks comments on the following questions:
a. Should the assessment computation be revised? If so, how should it be revised and what would be the impact on the projected amount of assessments to be collected under the proposed program?
b. Should the proposed rates of assessment on any of the four types of covered hardwood be revised? If so, to what level and what would be the impact on the projected amount of assessments to be collected under the proposed program?
