Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): The USDA asserts authority to prescribe “restrictions on the use of a product,” including “limits on distribution of the product.” 9 C.F.R § 102.5(d). That regulation is the asserted basis for USDA’s decision to prohibit Creekstone’s “use” of a biological product for private BSE testing. Creekstone contends that USDA’s “use” regulation exceeds its authority to regulate “preparation, sale, barter, exchange, or shipment,” but Creekstone’s reading of the statute is too narrow. The principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius will not restrict the application of a statute that also contains expansive modifiers such as “as may be necessary to prevent” and “or otherwise to carry out this chapter.” Compare NLRB v. Beverly Enterprises-Massachusetts, Inc., 174 F.3d 13, 32 (1st Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>)(emphasis added). See also United States v. 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing equitable powers necessary and appropriate to carry out the provisions of this title (B) holding that 1 usc  1 does not apply except where it is necessary to carry out the evident intent of the statute (C) holding that the nlrb has the authority to interpret cbas in the first instance where its interpretation is for the purpose of enforcing a statutory right which congress considered necessary to allow labor and management to get on with the process of reaching fair terms and conditions of employment (D) holding grant of authority to an agency to adopt rules necessary to carry out this chapter clearly vested in the agency authority to interpret a statute (E) holding that terms of 29 usc  156 authorizing the nlrb to make such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of the act grant the nlrb broad rulemaking authority
Output (English): holding that 1 usc  1 does not apply except where it is necessary to carry out the evident intent of the statute