Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/442/347/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 16:27:48+00:00

Document:
Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires environmental impact statements (EIS's) to be included in recommendations or reports of federal agencies on "proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment." Contending that § 102(2)(C) requires federal agencies to prepare EIS's to accompany appropriation requests, respondents, three organizations with interests in the preservation of the environment, brought suit in Federal District Court against petitioners, the Secretary of the Interior and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Respondents alleged that proposed curtailments in the budget of the National Wildlife Refuge System would significantly affect the quality of the human environment, and hence should have been accompanied by an EIS prepared both by the Department of the Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service, which administers the Refuge System, and by OMB. The District Court granted summary judgment for respondents and ordered petitioners to prepare EIS's on annual proposals for financing the Refuge System. The District Court's holding was modified by the Court of Appeals, which concluded that while § 102(2)(C) has no application to a routine appropriation request for continuance of an ongoing program, an EIS is required when an appropriation request accompanies a proposal for taking new action that significantly changes the status quo, or when the request "ushers in a considered programmatic course following a programmatic review."
Held: Section 102(2)(C) does not require federal agencies to prepare EIS's to accompany appropriation requests. Pp. 355-365.
(a) Appropriation requests, even those which are the result of an agency's "painstaking review" of an ongoing program, are not "proposals for legislation" within the meaning of § 102(2)(C). NEPA makes no distinction between "proposals for legislation" that are the result of "painstaking review," and those that are merely "routine"; and the interpretation of NEPA by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) under its current mandatory regulations which specify that "legislation" does not include appropriation requests, is entitled to substantial deference even though the regulations reverse CEQ's interpretation under earlier advisory guidelines that were in effect at the time of the Court of Appeals' decision. Moreover, CEQ's current interpretation is consistent with the traditional distinction which Congress has drawn between "legislation" and "appropriation," the rules of both Houses prohibiting "legislation" from being added to an appropriation bill. Pp. 356-361.
(b) Nor do appropriation requests constitute "proposals for . . . major Federal actions" for purposes of § 102(2)(C). Appropriation requests do not "propose" federal actions at all, but instead fund actions already proposed. Thus, § 102(2)(C) is best interpreted as applying to those recommendations or reports that actually propose programmatic actions, rather than to those which merely suggest how such actions may be funded. Even if changes in agency programs occur because of budgetary decisions, an EIS at the appropriation stage would only be repetitive of the EIS that must accompany any proposed changes in the agency's programs that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Pp. 361-364.
189 U.S.App.D.C. 117, 581 F.2d 895, reversed.
John M. Harmon, Washington, D. C., for petitioners.
James H. Cohen, Washington, D. C., for respondents.
The question for decision is whether § 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 83 Stat. 853, 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C), requires federal agencies to prepare environmental impact statements (EIS's) to accompany appropriation requests. We hold that it does not.
"(v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented." 83 Stat. 853, 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C) (emphasis supplied).
The District Court agreed with respondents' contentions. Relying on provisions of the then applicable CEQ guidelines, 10 and on the Department of the Interior's Manual, 11 the District Court held that "appropriation requests are 'proposals for legislation' within the meaning of NEPA," and also that "annual proposals for financing the Refuge System are major Federal actions which clearly have a significant effect on the environment." Sierra Club v. Morton, 395 F.Supp. 1187, 1188, 1189 (1975). The District Court granted respondents' motion for summary judgment, and provided declaratory and injunctive relief. It stated that the Department of the Interior and OMB were required "to prepare, consider, and disseminate environmental impact statements on annual proposals for financing the National Wildlife Refuge System." 12 App. to Pet. for Cert. 61a.
We granted certiorari, 439 U.S. 1065, 99 S.Ct. 829, 59 L.Ed.2d 30 (1979), and we now reverse.
NEPA requires EIS's to be included in recommendations or reports on both "proposals for legislation . . . significantly affecting the quality of the human environment" and "proposals for . . . major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment." 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C). See CEQ regulations, 43 Fed.Reg. 56001 (1978) (to be codified at 40 CFR § 1506.8(a)). Petitioners argue, however, that the requirements of § 102(2)(C) have no application to the budget process. The contrary holding of the Court of Appeals rests on two alternative interpretations of § 102(2)(C). The first is that appropriation requests which are the result of "an agency's painstaking review of an ongoing program," 189 U.S.App.D.C., at 125, 581 F.2d, at 903, are "proposals for legislation" within the meaning of § 102(2)(C). The second is that appropriation requests which are the reflection of "new" agency initiatives constituting "major Federal actions" under NEPA, are themselves "proposals for . . . major Federal actions" for purposes of § 102(2)(C). We hold that neither interpretation is correct.
We note initially that NEPA makes no distinction between "proposals for legislation" that are the result of "painstaking review," and those that are merely "routine." When Congress has thus spoken "in the plainest of words," TVA v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 194, 98 S.Ct. 2279, 2301, 57 L.Ed.2d 117 (1978), we will ordinarily decline to fracture the clear language of a statute, even for the purpose of fashioning from the resulting fragments a rule that "accords with 'common sense and the public weal.' " Id., at 195, 98 S.Ct. at 2302. Therefore, either all appropriation requests constitute "proposals for legislation," or none does.
There is no direct evidence in the legislative history of NEPA that enlightens whether Congress intended the phrase "proposals for legislation" to include requests for appropriations. At the time of the Court of Appeals' decision, however, CEQ guidelines provided that § 102(2)(C) applied to "recommendations or favorable reports relating to legislation including requests for appropriations." 40 CFR § 1500.5(a)(1) (1977). 15 At that time CEQ's guidelines were advisory in nature, and were for the purpose of assisting federal agencies in complying with NEPA. § 1500.1(a).
In 1977, however, President Carter, in order to create a single set of uniform, mandatory regulations, ordered CEQ, "after consultation with affected agencies," to "issue regulations to Federal agencies for the implementation of the procedural provisions" of NEPA. Exec. Order No. 11991, 3 CFR 124 (1978). The President ordered the heads of federal agencies to "comply with the regulations issued by the Council . . . ." Ibid. CEQ has since issued these regulations, 43 Fed.Reg. 55978-56007 (1978), 16 and they reverse CEQ's prior interpretation of § 102(2)(C). The regulations provide specifically that " 'legislation' includes a bill or legislative proposal to Congress . . . but does not include requests for appropriations." 43 Fed.Reg. 56004 (1978) (to be codified at 40 CFR § 1508.17). (Emphasis supplied.) CEQ explained this reversal by noting that, on the basis of "traditional concepts relating to appropriations and the budget cycle, considerations of timing and confidentiality, and other factors, . . . the Council in its experience found that preparation of EISs is ill-suited to the budget preparation process." 17 43 Fed.Reg., at 55989. CEQ's interpretation of NEPA is entitled to substantial deference. See Warm Springs Dam Task Force v. Gribble, 417 U.S. 1301, 1309-1310, 94 S.Ct. 2542, 2547, 41 L.Ed.2d 654 (1974) (Douglas, J., in chambers). The Council was created by NEPA, and charged in that statute with the responsibility "to review and appraise the various programs and activities of the Federal Government in the light of the policy set forth in . . . this Act . . ., and to make recommendations to the President with respect thereto." 83 Stat. 855, 42 U.S.C. 4344(3).
It is true that in the past we have been somewhat less inclined to defer to "administrative guidelines" when they have "conflicted with earlier pronouncements of the agency." General Electric Co. v. Gilbert, 429 U.S. 125, 143, 97 S.Ct. 401, 411, 50 L.Ed.2d 343 (1976). But CEQ's reversal of interpretation occurred during the detailed and comprehensive process, ordered by the President, of transforming advisory guidelines into mandatory regulations applicable to all federal agencies. See American Trucking Assns. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 387 U.S. 397, 416, 87 S.Ct. 1608, 1618, 18 L.Ed.2d 847 (1967). A mandatory requirement that every federal agency submit EIS's with its appropriation requests raises wholly different and more serious issues "of fair and prudent administration," ibid., than does nonbinding advice. This is particularly true in light of the Court of Appeals' correct observation that "a rule requiring preparation of an EIS on the annual budget request for virtually every ongoing program would trivialize NEPA." 189 U.S.App.D.C., at 125, 581 F.2d, at 903. The Court of Appeals accurately noted that such an interpretation of NEPA would be a "reductio ad absurdum . . . . It would be absurd to require an EIS on every decision on the management of federal land, such as fluctuation in the number of forest fire spotters." Id., at 124, 581 F.2d, at 902. Even respondents do not now contend that NEPA should be construed so that all appropriation requests constitute "proposals for legislation." Brief for Respondents 13 n. 6, 55-61.
CEQ's interpretation of the phrase "proposals for legislation" is consistent with the traditional distinction which Congress has drawn between "legislation" and "appropriation." 18 The rules of both Houses "prohibit 'legislation' from being added to an appropriation bill." L. Fisher, Budget Concepts and Terminology: The Appropriations Phase, in 1 Studies in Taxation, Public Finance and Related SubjectsA Compendium 437 (Fund for Public Policy Research 1977). See Standing Rules of the United States Senate, Rule 16(4) ("No amendment which proposes general legislation shall be received to any general appropriation bill . . ."); Rules of the House of Representatives, 96th Cong., 1st Sess., Rule XXI (2) (1979); 19 7 C. Cannon Precedents of the House of Representatives §§ 1172, 1410, 1443, 1445, 1448, 1459, 1463, 1470, 1472 (1935). The distinction is maintained "to assure that program and financial matters are considered independently of one another. This division of labor is intended to enable the Appropriations Committees to concentrate on financial issues and to prevent them from trespassing on substantive legislation." House Budget Committee, Congressional Control of Expenditures 19 (Comm. Print 1977). House and Senate rules thus require a "previous choice of policy . . . before any item of appropriations might be included in a general appropriations bill." United States ex rel. Chapman v. FPC, 345 U.S. 153, 164 n. 5, 73 S.Ct. 609, 616, 97 L.Ed. 918 (1953). Since appropriations therefore "have the limited and specific purpose of providing funds for authorized programs," TVA v. Hill, 437 U.S., at 190, 98 S.Ct., at 2299-2300 and since the "action-forcing" provisions of NEPA are directed precisely at the processes of "planning and . . . decisionmaking," 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(A), which are associated with underlying legislation, we conclude that the distinction made by CEQ's regulations is correct and that "proposals for legislation" do not include appropriation requests.
The Court of Appeals' alternative interpretation of NEPA is that appropriation requests constitute "proposals for . . . major Federal actions." 20 But this interpretation distorts the language of the Act, since appropriation requests do not "propose" federal actions at all; they instead fund actions already proposed. Section 102(2)(C) is thus best interpreted as applying to those recommendations or reports that actually propose programmatic actions, rather than to those which merely suggest how such actions may be funded. Any other result would create unnecessary redundancy. For example, if the mere funding of otherwise unaltered agency programs were construed to constitute major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, the resulting EIS's would merely recapitulate the EIS's that should have accompanied the initial proposals of the programs. And if an agency program were to be expanded or revised in a manner that constituted major federal action significantly affecting the quality of human environment, 21 an EIS would have been required to accompany the underlying programmatic decision. 22 An additional EIS at the appropriation stage would add nothing.
Even if changes in agency programs occur because of budgetary decisions, an EIS at the appropriation stage would only be repetitive. For example, respondents allege in their complaint that OMB required the Fish and Wildlife Service to decrease its appropriation request for the NWRS, and that this decrease would alter the operation of the NWRS in a manner that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment. See n. 9, supra. But since the Fish and Wildlife Service could respond to OMB's budgetary curtailments in a variety of ways, see United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Final Environmental Statement: Operation of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Nov. 1976), it is impossible to predict whether or how any particular budget cut will in fact significantly affect the quality of the human environment. OMB's determination to cut the Service's budget is not a programmatic proposal, and therefore requiring OMB to include an EIS in its budgetary cuts would be premature. See Aberdeen & Rockfish R. Co. v. SCRAP, 422 U.S. 289, 320, 95 S.Ct. 2336, 2355, 45 L.Ed.2d 191 (1975). And since an EIS must be prepared if any of the revisions the Fish and Wildlife Service proposes in its ongoing programs in response to OMB's budget cuts would significantly affect the quality of the human environment, requiring the Fish and Wildlife Service to include an EIS with its revised appropriation request would merely be redundant. Moreover, this redundancy would have the deleterious effect of circumventing and eliminating the careful distinction Congress has maintained between appropriation and legislation. It would flood House and Senate Appropriations Committees with EIS's focused on the policy issues raised by underlying authorization legislation, 23 thereby dismantling the "division of labor" so deliberately created by congressional rules.
We conclude therefore, for the reasons given above, that appropriation requests constitute neither "proposals for legislation" nor "proposals for . . . major Federal actions," and that therefore the procedural requirements of § 102(2)(C) have no application to such requests. 24 The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
"(6) enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable recycling of depletable resources." 83 Stat. 852, 42 U.S.C. 4331(b).
Of course, an EIS need not be promulgated unless an agency's planning ripens into a "recommendation or report on proposals for legislation [or] other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment." 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C). See Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390, 96 S.Ct. 2718, 49 L.Ed.2d 576 (1976). Moreover, although NEPA requires compliance "to the fullest extent possible," we have held that the duty to prepare an EIS must yield before "a clear and unavoidable conflict in statutory authority." Flint Ridge Development Co. v. Scenic Rivers Assn., 426 U.S. 776, 788, 96 S.Ct. 2430, 2438, 49 L.Ed.2d 205 (1976).
CEQ regulations state that "[t]he primary purpose of an environmental impact statement is to serve as an action-forcing device to insure that the policies and goals defined in [NEPA] are infused into the on-going programs and actions of the Federal Government. . . . An environmental impact statement is more than a disclosure document. It shall be used by Federal officials in conjunction with other relevant material to plan actions and make decisions." 43 Fed.Reg. 55994 (1978) (to be codified at 40 CFR § 1502.1).
"(a) For projects directly undertaken by Federal agencies the environmental impact statement shall be prepared at the feasibility analysis (go-no go) stage and may be supplemented at a later stage if necessary. . . ." 43 Fed.Reg. 55995 (1978) (to be codified at 40 CFR § 1502.5).
Respondents are the Sierra Club, the National Parks and Conservation Association, and the Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
CEQ regulations define an "environmental impact statement" to mean "a detailed written statement as required by Sec. 102(2)(C) of [NEPA]." 43 Fed.Reg. 56004 (1978) (to be codified at 40 CFR § 1508.11).
See United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Final Environmental Statement: Operation of the National Wildlife Refuge System I-8 to I-9 (Nov. 1976).
The System is administered according to the provisions of several statutes. The most significant of these are the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 401, as amended, 72 Stat. 563, 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.; the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, 70 Stat. 1119, 16 U.S.C. 742a et seq.; the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, ch. 257, 45 Stat. 1222, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 715 et seq.; and the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 87 Stat. 884, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.
Respondents brought suit on behalf of themselves, claiming that they had organizational interests in monitoring and publicizing the management of the NWRS, and on behalf of their members, alleging that the latter used the NWRS for recreational and other purposes and would be affected by the proposed budget curtailments.
Respondents alleged that OMB had "significantly reduced the Interior Department's request for appropriations for the operation of the National Wildlife Refuge System during fiscal year 1974 and during other years without preparing or considering the environmental-impact statement required by NEPA." Complaint ¶ 25.
Respondents also contended that § 102(2)(B) of NEPA required OMB to develop procedures to assure consideration of environmental factors in the budget process. Section 102(2)(B) requires all federal agencies to "identify and develop methods and procedures, in consultation with the Council on Environmental Quality established by title II of this Act, which will insure that presently unquantified environmental amenities and values may be given appropriate consideration in decisionmaking along with economic and technical considerations." 83 Stat. 853, 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(B).
At that time, CEQ was authorized by Exec. Order No. 11514, § 3(h), to issue nonbinding "guidelines to Federal agencies for the preparation of detailed statements on proposals for legislation and other Federal actions affecting the environment." 3 CFR 904 (1966-1970 Comp.). These guidelines stated that the "major Federal actions" to which § 102(2)(C) applied included "[r]ecommendations or favorable reports relating to legislation including requests for appropriations." 40 CFR § 1500.5(a)(1) (1974). See § 1500.3.
"(1) Recommendations or favorable reports to the Congress relating to legislation, including appropriations." Department of the Interior Manual, § 516.5, 36 Fed.Reg. 19344 (1971).
Without additional discussion, the District Court also stated that the Director of OMB was required "to develop formal methods and procedures which will, with respect to [OMB]'s own administrative actions and proposals, identify those agency actions requiring environmental statements to be prepared, considered, and disseminated." App. to Pet. for Cert. 62a. See n. 9, supra.
Respondents do not now challenge this holding.
The Court of Appeals also affirmed what it took to be the District Court's declaratory relief requiring OMB "to adopt procedures and appropriate regulations to comply with the obligations NEPA imposes on the budget process . . . ." 189 U.S.App.D.C., at 127, 581 F.2d, at 905. See n. 12, supra.
CEQ had taken this position from the first draft of its guidelines. CEQ was required by President Nixon to issue guidelines on March 5, 1970. See Exec. Order No. 11514, 3 CFR 902 (1966-1970 Comp.). On April 30, 1970, CEQ promulgated interim guidelines which provided that "major Federal actions" included "[r]ecommendations or reports relating to legislation and appropriations." Council on Environmental Quality, First Annual Report: Environmental Quality 288 (1970). On April 23, 1971, the guidelines were revised to state that "major Federal actions" included "[r]ecommendations or favorable reports relating to legislation including that for appropriations." 36 Fed.Reg. 7724 (1971). On August 1, 1973, the guidelines were once again revised, this time to the form noted by the Court of Appeals. 38 Fed.Reg. 20551 (1973).
Relying on the CEQ guidelines, two prior decisions by Courts of Appeals have both interpreted "proposals for legislation" to include appropriation requests. See Environmental Defense Fund v. TVA, 468 F.2d 1164, 1181 (CA6 1972); Scientists' Institute for Public Information, Inc. v. Atomic Energy Comm'n, 156 U.S.App.D.C. 395, 404, 481 F.2d 1079, 1088 (1973).
These regulations become effective July 30, 1979. 43 Fed.Reg. 55978 (1978).
The CEQ also noted that "[n]othing in the Council's determination, however, relieves agencies of responsibility to prepare statements when otherwise required on the underlying program or other actions." Id., at 55989.
"Basic substantive legislation enacted by Congress which sets up or continues the legal operation of a Federal program or agency either indefinitely or for a specific period of time or sanctions a particular type of obligation or expenditure within a program. Such legislation is normally a prerequisite for subsequent appropriations or other kinds of budget authority to be contained in appropriations acts. It may limit the amount of budge authority to be provided subsequently or may authorize the appropriation of 'such sums as may be necessary.' " Comptroller General of the United States, Terms Used in the Budgetary Process 4 (1977).
"An authorization by an act of the Congress that permits Federal agencies to incur obligations and to make payments out of the Treasury for specified purposes. An appropriation usually follows enactment of authorizing legislation. . . . Appropriations do not represent cash actually set aside in the Treasury for purposes specified in the appropriation act; they represent limitations of amounts which agencies may obligate during the time period specified in the respective appropriations acts." Id., at 3.
"(B) the estimated appropriation required on account of such proposal in each of the four fiscal years, immediately following that ensuing fiscal year during which such proposal is to be in effect . . . ." As added, 84 Stat. 1169, 31 U.S.C. 11(a)(12) (emphasis supplied).
See also 18 U.S.C. 1913; 22 U.S.C. 2394(c).
"If, in addition to the regular appropriation requests, it appears probable that proposals for new legislation may require a further budget request or result in a change in revenues or outlays, a tentative forecast of the supplemental estimate will be set forth separately. . . . Such proposed supplementals must be consistent with items appearing in the agency's legislative program as required by OMB Circular No. A-19 . . . ."
L. Deschler, Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives § 26-1.2 (1977) states that "[l]anguage in an appropriation bill changing existing law is legislation and not in order." Conversely, "[r]estrictions against the inclusion of appropriations in legislative bills are provided for by House rule . . . ." Id., § 25-3.1.
cials fail to act and that failure to act is reviewable by courts or administrative tribunals under the Administrative Procedure Act or other applicable law as agency action.
"(a) Actions include new and continuing activities, including projects and programs entirely or partly financed, assisted, conducted, regulated, or approved by federal agencies; new or revised agency rules, regulations, plans, policies, or procedures; and legislative proposals . . . .
"(1) Adoption of official policy, such as rules, regulations, and interpretations adopted pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.; treaties and international conventions or agreements; formal documents establishing an agency's policies which will result in or substantially alter agency programs.
"(2) Adoption of formal plans, such as official documents prepared or approved by federal agencies which guide or prescribe alternative uses of federal resources, upon which future agency actions will be based.
"(3) Adoption of programs, such as a group of concerted actions to implement a specific policy or plan; systematic and connected agency decisions allocating agency resources to implement a specific statutory program or executive directive.
"(4) Approval of specific projects, such as construction or management activities located in a defined geographic area. Projects include actions approved by permit or other regulatory decision as well as federal and federally assisted activities." 43 Fed.Reg. 56004-56005 (1978) (to be codified at 40 CFR § 1508.18).
"[M]ajor Federal actions" include the "expansion or revision of ongoing programs." S.Rep. No. 91-296, p. 20 (1969).
For example, if an agency were to seek an appropriation to initiate a major new program that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment, or if it were to decline to ask for funding so as to terminate a program with a similar effect, the agency would have been required to include EIS's in the recommendations or reports on the proposed underlying programmatic decisions.
The Court of Appeals held that EIS's need be included in appropriation requests for "major Federal actions" only if major changes that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment are proposed in the underlying programs for which funding is sought. See 189 U.S.App.D.C., at 125, 581 F.2d, at 903. But an appropriation request applies not only to major changes in a federal program, but also to the entire program it is designed to fund. Without appropriations, the underlying program would cease to exist. Therefore, if the existence vel non of that program is a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, the Court of Appeals' alternative interpretation of NEPA would require an EIS to be included in the concomitant appropriation request.
It is important to note that CEQ regulations provide that the adjective "major" in the phrase "major Federal actions" "reinforces but does not have a meaning independent of [the adverb] significantly" in the phrase "significantly affecting the quality of the human environment." 43 Fed.Reg. 56004 (1978) (to be codified at 40 CFR § 1508.18). See n. 20, supra. As a consequence, the Court of Appeals' holding that certain appropriation requests are "proposals for . . . major Federal actions" is operationally identical to its holding that certain appropriation requests constitute "proposals for legislation." Both holdings would require EIS's to accompany funding requests for every federal program that significantly affects the quality of the human environment. Thus, not only do both holdings run the same dangers of "trivializing" NEPA, but also the same "traditional concepts relating to appropriations and the budget cycle, considerations of timing and confidentiality," 43 Fed.Reg. 55989 (1978), which led CEQ to distinguish "appropriations" from "legislation," would require appropriations to be distinguished from "proposals for . . . major Federal actions."
Because we conclude that § 102(2)(C) has no application to appropriation requests, it is clear that the Court of Appeals was incorrect in requiring OMB "to adopt procedures and appropriate regulations to comply with the obligations NEPA imposes on the budget process . . . ." 189 U.S.App.D.C., at 127, 581 F.2d, at 905. See n. 14, supra.

References: § 102
 § 102
 § 102
 § 102
 § 102
 § 102
 v. 
 § 1506
 § 102
 § 102
 § 102
 § 102
 v. 
 § 102
 § 1500
 § 1500
 § 102
 § 1508
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 102
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1502
 § 1502
 § 1508
 § 102
 § 3
 § 102
 § 1500
 § 1500
 § 516
 v. 
 v. 
 § 26
 § 25
 § 1508
 § 1508
 § 102