7 U.S.C. § 519a

Regulations

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 7 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) In general

The Secretary may promulgate such regulations as are necessary to implement this title 11 See References in Text note below. and the amendments made by this title.1

(b) ProcedureThe promulgation of the regulations and administration of this title 1 and the amendments made by this title 1 shall be made without regard to—(1) the notice and comment provisions of section 553 of title 5;(2) the Statement of Policy of the Secretary of Agriculture effective July 24, 1971 (36 Fed. Reg. 13804), relating to notices of proposed rulemaking and public participation in rulemaking; and(3) chapter 35 of title 44 (commonly known as the “Paperwork Reduction Act”).(c) Congressional review of agency rulemaking

In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall use the authority provided under section 808 of title 5.

(Pub. L. 108–357, title VI, § 642, Oct. 22, 2004, 118 Stat. 1535.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

This title, referred to in subsecs. (a) and (b), means title VI of Pub. L. 108–357, which enacted this chapter, amended sections 609, 1282, 1301, 1303, 1314h, 1361, 1371, 1373, 1375, 1378, 1379, 1428, 1433c–1, and 1441 of this title and section 714c of Title 15, Commerce and Trade, repealed sections 511r, 515 to 515k, 625, 1311 to 1314, 1314–1, 1314b, 1314b–1, 1314b–2, 1314c to 1314j, 1315, 1316, 1445, 1445–1, and 1445–2 of this title, enacted provisions set out as notes under sections 515 and 518 of this title, and repealed provisions set out as a note under section 1314c of this title. For complete classification of title VI to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 518 of this title and Tables.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Section applicable to the 2005 and subsequent crops of tobacco, see section 643 of Pub. L. 108–357, set out as a note under section 518 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2009–2013 · leading case: Single Stick, Inc. v. Johanns, 601 F. Supp. 2d 307 (D.D.C. 2009).
Single Stick, Inc. v. Johanns, 601 F. Supp. 2d 307 (D.D.C. 2009). “Single Stick’s claims that the USDA’s implementation of the Tobacco Reform Act is impermissible amount to assertions that: (1) the USDA was not authorized to assess Single Stick on a per-stick basis, but rather was required by the statute to consider “the disparity in gross…”
United States v. Prime Time Int'l Co., 930 F. Supp. 2d 240 (D.D.C. 2013). · cites it 2× “§ 518 (b)(1), (c)(3), (g)(1); 7 U.S.C. § 519a. Under Chevron step 1, the court of appeals has found the relevant provisions of FETRA are ambiguous and susceptible to more than one interpretation.”
Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Vilsack, 896 F. Supp. 2d 512 (E.D. Va. 2012). · cites it 2× “7 U.S.C. § 519a(a). In making the first year calculations, Congress determined the assessments by multiplying the volume of taxable units of product removed into domestic commerce by manufacturers and importers in each class by the 2005 maximum FET rate for that class.”
— 7 U.S.C. § 519a(a) — 2 cases
Single Stick, Inc. v. Johanns, 601 F. Supp. 2d 307 (D.D.C. 2009). “Single Stick’s claims that the USDA’s implementation of the Tobacco Reform Act is impermissible amount to assertions that: (1) the USDA was not authorized to assess Single Stick on a per-stick basis, but rather was required by the statute to consider “the disparity in gross…”
Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Vilsack, 896 F. Supp. 2d 512 (E.D. Va. 2012). “7 U.S.C. § 519a(a). In making the first year calculations, Congress determined the assessments by multiplying the volume of taxable units of product removed into domestic commerce by manufacturers and importers in each class by the 2005 maximum FET rate for that class.”
— 7 U.S.C. § 519a(b)(1) — 1 case
United States v. Prime Time Int'l Co., 930 F. Supp. 2d 240 (D.D.C. 2013). “§ 518 (b)(1), (c)(3), (g)(1); 7 U.S.C. § 519a. Under Chevron step 1, the court of appeals has found the relevant provisions of FETRA are ambiguous and susceptible to more than one interpretation.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.