author: Justice Powell

text:
    UNITED STATES v. PTASYNSKI et al.
    No. 82-1066.
    Argued April 27, 1983
    Decided June 6, 1983
    Powell, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

      Acting Solicitor General Wallace argued the cause for the United States. With him on the briefs were Acting Assistant Attorney General Murray, Stuart A. Smith, Gary R. Allen, and Kristina E. Harrigan.

      Stephen F. Williams argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief for appellees Ptasynski et al. were William H. Brown, Michael J. Sullivan, Robert F. Nagel, and Michael Boudin. Harold B. Scoggins, Jr., and Gary C.

      Randall filed a brief for appellees Independent Petroleum Association et al. Jim Mattox, Attorney General, David R. Richards, Executive Assistant Attorney General, and Cynthia Marshall Sullivan, Walter Davis, and James R. Meyers, Assistant Attorneys General, filed a brief for appel-lee State of Texas. Gene W. Lafitte, George J. Domas, Deborah Bahn Price, David B. Kennedy, William H. Mellor III, and Gale A. Norton filed a brief for appellee State of Louisiana.

      Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed by Matthew J. Zinn for Atlantic Richfield Co.; by Jerry N. Gauche and Terrence G. Perris for Standard Oil Co.; by Norman C. Gorsuch, Attorney General, and Deborah Vogt, Assistant Attorney General, for the State of Alaska; and by Representative Silvio 0. Conte, pro se.

      Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed by John J. Rade-macher for the American Farm Bureau Federation et al.; by Wilkes C. Robinson for the Gulf & Great Plaines Legal Foundation of America et al.; by David Crump for the Legal Foundation of America et al.; and by Daniel J. Popeo for Senator Don Nickles et al.

   Justice Powell

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The issue is whether excluding a geographically defined class of oil from the coverage of the Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act violates the Uniformity Clause.

h — H

During the 1970’s the Executive Branch regulated the price of domestic crude oil. See H. R. Rep. No. 96-304, pp. 4-5 (1979). Depending on its vintage and type, oil was divided into differing classes or tiers and assigned a corresponding ceiling price. Initially, there were only two tiers, a lower tier for “old oil” and an upper tier for new production. As the regulatory framework developed, new classes of oil were recognized.

In 1979, President Carter announced a program to remove price controls from domestic oil by September 30, 1981. See id., at 5. By eliminating price controls, the President sought to encourage exploration for new oil and to increase production of old oil' from marginally economic operations. See H. R. Doc. No. 96-107, p. 2 (1979). He recognized, however, that deregulating oil prices would produce substantial gains (referred to as “windfalls”) for some producers. The price of oil on the world market had risen markedly, and it was anticipated that deregulating the price of oil already in production would allow domestic producers to receive prices far in excess of their initial estimates. See ibid. Accordingly, the President proposed that Congress place an excise tax on the additional revenue resulting from decontrol.

Congress responded by enacting the Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act of 1980, 94 Stat. 229, 26 U. S. C. § 4986 et seq. (1976 ed., Supp. V). The Act divides domestic crude oil into three tiers and establishes an adjusted base price and a tax rate for each tier. See §§4986, 4989, and 4991. The base prices generally reflect the selling price of particular categories of oil under price controls, and the tax rates vary according to the vintages and types of oil included within each tier. See Joint Committee on Taxation, General Explanation of the Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act of 1980, 96th Cong., 26-36 (Comm. Print 1981). The House Report explained that the Act is “designed to impose relatively high tax rates where production cannot be expected to respond very much to further increases in price and relatively low tax rates on oil whose production is likely to be responsive to price.” H. R. Rep. No. 96-304, at 7; see S. Rep. No. 96-394, p. 6 (1979).

The Act exempts certain classes of oil from the tax, 26 U. S. C. § 4991(b) (1976 ed., Supp. V), one of which is “exempt Alaskan oil,” § 4991(b)(3). It is defined as:

“any crude oil (other than Sadlerochit oil) which is produced—
“(1) from a reservoir from which oil has been produced in commercial quantities through a well located north of the Arctic Circle, or
“(2) from a well located on the northerly side of the divide of the Alaska-Aleutian Range and at least 75 miles from the nearest point on the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System.” § 4994(e).

Although the Act refers to this class of oil as “exempt Alaskan oil,” the reference is not entirely accurate. The Act exempts only certain oil produced in Alaska from the windfall profit tax. Indeed, less than 20% of current Alaskan production is exempt. Nor is the exemption limited to the State of Alaska. Oil produced in certain offshore territorial waters — beyond the limits of any State — is included within the exemption.

The exemption thus is not drawn on state political lines. Rather it reflects Congress’ considered judgment that unique climatic and geographic conditions require that oil produced from this exempt area be treated as a separate class of oil. See H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 96-817, p. 103 (1980). As Senator Gravel explained, the development and production of oil in arctic and subarctic regions is hampered by “severe weather conditions, remoteness, sensitive environmental and geological characteristics, and a lack of normal social and industrial infrastructure.” 125 Cong. Rec. 31733 (1979). These factors combine to make the average cost of drilling a well in Alaska as much as 15 times greater than that of drilling a well elsewhere in the United States. See 126 Cong. Rec. 5846 (1980) (remarks of Sen. Gravel). Accordingly, Congress chose to exempt oil produced in the defined region from the windfall profit tax. It determined that imposing such a tax “would discourage exploration and development of reservoirs in areas of extreme climatic conditions.” H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 96-817, at 103.

Six months after the Act was passed, independent oil producers and royalty owners filed suit in the District Court for the District of Wyoming, seeking a refund for taxes paid under the Act. On motion for summary judgment, the District Court held that the Act violated the Uniformity Clause, Art. I, § 8, cl. I. 550 F. Supp. 549, 553 (1982). It recognized that Congress’ power to tax is virtually without limitation, but noted that the Clause in question places one specific limit on Congress’ power to impose indirect taxes. Such taxes must be uniform throughout the United States, and uniformity is achieved only when the tax “ ‘operates with the same force and effect in every place where the subject of it is found.’” Ibid, (quoting Head Money Cases, 112 U. S. 580, 594 (1884)).

Because the Act exempts oil from certain areas within one State, the court found that the Act does not apply uniformly throughout the United States. It recognized that Congress could have “a rational justification for the exemption,” but concluded that “[distinctions based on geography are simply not allowed.” 550 F. Supp., at 553. The court then found that the unconstitutional provision exempting Alaskan oil could not be severed from the remainder of the Act. Id., at 554. It therefore held the entire windfall profit tax invalid. Id., at 555.

We noted probable jurisdiction, 459 U. S. 1199 (1983), and now reverse.

II

Appellees advance two arguments in support of the District Court’s judgment. First, they contend that the constitutional requirement that taxes be “uniform throughout the United States” prohibits Congress from exempting a specific geographic region from taxation. They concede that Congress may take geographic considerations into account in deciding what oil to tax. Brief for Taxpayer Appellees 6-7. But they argue that the Uniformity Clause prevents Congress from framing, as it did here, the resulting tax in terms of geographic boundaries. Second, they argue that the Alaskan oil exemption was an integral part of a compromise struck by Congress. Thus, it would be inappropriate to invalidate the exemption but leave the remainder of the tax in effect. Because we find the Alaskan exemption constitutional, we do not consider whether it is severable.

A

The Uniformity Clause conditions Congress’ power to impose indirect taxes. It provides that “all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.” Art. I, §8, cl. 1. The debates in the Constitutional Convention provide little evidence of the Framers’ intent, but the concerns giving rise to the Clause identify its purpose more clearly. The Committee of Detail proposed as a remedy for interstate trade barriers that the power to regulate commerce among the States be vested in the National Government, and the Convention agreed. See 2 M. Farrand, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, p. 308 (1911); C. Warren, The Making of the Constitution 567-570 (1928). Some States, however, remained apprehensive that the regionalism that had marked the Confederation would persist. Id., at 586-588. There was concern that the National Government would use its power over commerce to the disadvantage of particular States. The Uniformity Clause was proposed as one of several measures designed to limit the exercise of that power. See 2 M. Farrand, supra, at 417-418; Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41, 103-106 (1900). As Justice Story explained:

“[The purpose of the Clause] was to cut off all undue preferences of one State over another in the regulation of subjects affecting their common interests. Unless duties, imposts, and excises were uniform, the grossest and most oppressive inequalities, vitally affecting the pursuits and employments of the people of different States, might exist. The agriculture, commerce, or manufactures of one State might be built up on the ruins of those of another; and a combination of a few States in Congress might secure a monopoly of certain branches of trade and business to themselves, to the injury, if not to the destruction, of their less favored neighbors.” 1 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States § 957 (T. Cooley ed. 1873).

See also 3 Annals of Cong. 378-379 (1792) (remarks of Hugh Williamson); Address of Luther Martin to the Maryland Legislature (Nov. 29, 1787), reprinted in 3 M. Farrand, supra, at 205.

This general purpose, however, does not define the precise scope of the Clause. The one issue that has been raised repeatedly is whether the requirement of uniformity encompasses some notion of equality. It was settled fairly early that the Clause does not require Congress to devise a tax that falls equally or proportionately on each State. Rather, as the Court stated in the Head Money Cases, 112 U. S., at 594, a “tax is uniform when it operates with the same force and effect in every place where the subject of it is found.”

Nor does the Clause prevent Congress from defining the subject of a tax by drawing distinctions between similar classes. In the Head Money Cases, supra, the Court recognized that in imposing a head tax on persons coming into this country, Congress could choose to tax those persons who immigrated through the ports, but not those who immigrated at inland cities. As the Court explained, “the evil to be remedied by this legislation has no existence on our inland borders, and. immigration in that quarter needed no such regulation. ” Id., at 595. The tax applied to all ports alike, and the Court concluded that “there is substantial uniformity within the meaning and purpose of the Constitution.” Ibid. Subsequent cases have confirmed that the Framers did not intend to restrict Congress’ ability to define the class of objects to be taxed. They intended only that the tax apply wherever the classification is found. See Knowlton v. Moore, supra, at 106; Nicol v. Ames, 173 U. S. 509, 521-522 (1899).

The question that remains, however, is whether the Uniformity Clause prohibits Congress from defining the class of objects to be taxed in geographic terms. The Court has not addressed this issue squarely. We recently held, however, that the uniformity provision of the Bankruptcy Clause did not require invalidation of a geographically defined class of debtors. See Regional Rail Reorganization Act Cases, 419 U. S. 102, 161 (1974). In that litigation, creditors of bankrupt railroads challenged a statute that was passed to reorganize eight major railroads in the northeast and midwest regions of the country. They argued that the statute violated the uniformity provision of the Bankruptcy Clause because it operated only in a single statutorily defined region. The Court found that “[t]he uniformity provision does not deny Congress power to take into account differences that exist between different parts of the country, and to fashion legislation to resolve geographically isolated problems.” Id., at 159. The fact that the Act applied to a geographically defined class did not render it unconstitutional. We noted that the Act in fact had operated uniformly throughout the United States. During the period in which the Act was effective, no railroad reorganization proceeding had been pending outside the statutorily defined region. Id., at 160.

In concluding that the uniformity provision had not been violated, we relied in large part on the Head Money Cases, supra, where the effect of the statute had been to distinguish between geographic regions. We rejected the argument that “the Rail Act differs from the head tax statute because by its own terms the Rail Act applies only to one designated region .... The definition of the region does not obscure the reality that the legislation applies to all railroads under reorganization pursuant to § 77 during the time the Act applies.” 419 U. S., at 161 (emphasis added).

B

With these principles in mind, we now consider whether Congress’ decision to treat Alaskan oil as a separate class of oil violates the Uniformity Clause. We do not think that the language of the Clause or this Court’s decisions prohibit all geographically defined classifications. As construed in the Head Money Cases, the Uniformity Clause requires that an excise tax apply, at the same rate, in all portions of the United States where the subject of the tax is found. Where Congress defines the subject of a tax in nongeographic terms, the Uniformity Clause is satisfied. See Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S., at 106. We cannot say that when Congress uses geographic terms to identify the same subject, the classification is invalidated. The Uniformity Clause gives Congress wide latitude in deciding what to tax and does not prohibit it from considering geographically isolated problems. See Head Money Cases, supra, at 595. This is the substance of our decision in the Regional Rail Reorganization Act Cases, 419 U. S., at 156-161. But where Congress does choose to frame a tax in geographic terms, we will examine the classification closely to see if there is actual geographic discrimination. See id., at 160-161.

In this case, we hold that the classification is constitutional. As discussed above, Congress considered the windfall profit tax a necessary component of its program to encourage the exploration for and production of oil. It perceived that the decontrol legislation would result — in certain circumstances — in profits essentially unrelated to the objective of the program, and concluded that these profits should be taxed. Accordingly, Congress divided oil into various classes and gave more favorable treatment to those classes that would be responsive to increased prices.

Congress clearly viewed “exempt Alaskan oil” as a unique class of oil that, consistent with the scheme of the Act, merited favorable treatment. It had before it ample evidence of the disproportionate costs and difficulties — the fragile ecology, the harsh environment, and the remote location — associated with extracting oil from this region. We cannot fault its determination, based on neutral factors, that this oil required separate treatment. Nor is there any indication that Congress sought to benefit Alaska for reasons that would offend the purpose of the Clause. Nothing in the Act’s legislative history suggests that Congress intended to grant Alaska an undue preference at the expense of other oil-producing States. This is especially clear because the windfall profit tax itself falls heavily on the State of Alaska. See n. 5, supra.

H hH

Had Congress described this class of oil m nongeographic terms, there would be no question as to the Act’s constitutionality. We cannot say that identifying the class in terms of its geographic boundaries renders the exemption invalid. Where, as here, Congress has exercised its considered judgment with respect to an enormously complex problem, we are reluctant to disturb its determination. Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is

Reversed.

       In addition to lower- and upper-tier oil, the Federal Energy Administration recognized essentially four other classes of crude oil: stripper oil, Alaska North Slope oil, oil produced on the Naval Petroleum Reserve, and incremental tertiary oil. See H. R. Rep. No. 96-304, p. 12 (1979). Alaska North Slope oil was considered a separate class of oil because its disproportionately high transportation costs forced producers to keep the wellhead price well below the ceiling price. See 42 Fed. Reg. 41566-41568 (1977).

       These tiers incorporate to a large extent the categories of oil developed under the Federal Energy Administration’s crude-oil pricing regulations. Tier two, for example, includes stripper-well oil and oil from a national petroleum reserve held by the United States. See 26 U. S. C. § 4991(d) (1976 ed., Supp. V).

       Generally, the windfall profit is the difference between the current wellhead price of the oil and the sum of the adjusted base price. See 26 U. S. C. § 4988(a) (1976 ed., Supp. V). The amount of the tax is calculated by multiplying the resulting difference by the applicable rate. § 4987(a). The tax on each barrel of oil thus varies according to the adjusted base price and rate, both of which are established by the tier into which the oil is placed.

       These classes are defined both by the identity of the producer and the nature of the oil. Section 4991(b)(1), for example, exempts oil produced “from a qualified governmental interest or a qualified charitable interest.” Congress determined that because the revenues from this oil would be used by nonprofit entities, it was appropriate to exempt them from the tax. See S. Rep. No. 96-894, pp. 60-61 (1979). The Act also exempts types of oil, such as front-end oil. § 4991(b)(4). Subject to certain conditions, front-end oil is oil that is sold to finance tertiary recovery projects. See § 4994(c).

       Of the total amount of oil currently produced in Alaska, 82.6% is subject to the windfall profit tax, 12.4% is exempt from the tax because it is produced from a “qualified governmental interest,” see n. 4, supra, and 5.1% is exempt because it is “exempt Alaskan oil.” Brief for State of Alaska as Amicus Curiae 7.

       A particular problem results from the presence of permafrost, which exists throughout the exempt area. Permafrost is ground that remains frozen continuously, but which will thaw and subside if the surface vegetation insulating it is disturbed. See University of Alaska, Alaska Regional Profiles, Yukon Region 98-100. To protect the surface vegetation, the Alaska Department of Natural Resources limits the use of vehicles and machinery to those months when the surface is frozen and covered with snow. Thus, construction and seismic activities are restricted primarily to periods when the climate is at its harshest. Temperatures of - 40 to - 50 degrees Fahrenheit are not uncommon, see id., at 15-16, and what normally might be accomplished with relative ease becomes a demanding task.

       The American Petroleum Institute reported comparative costs for drilling wells in Alaska, California, Louisiana, and Texas. The average cost of an onshore Alaskan well was $3,181,000. See American Petroleum Institute, 1976 Joint Association Survey on Drilling Costs 12 (1977). The next highest cost was $292,000 in Louisiana. See id., at 28-29. See also Standard & Poor’s Industry Surveys, Oil-Gas Drilling and Services, Vol. 150, No. 40, Sec. 1 (Oct. 7, 1982). Although not identical to Senator Gravel’s figures, these sources indicate that the cost of developing oil in Alaska far exceeds that in other parts of the country. Moreover, because these figures represent the cost of an average Alaskan well, they reflect the lower expenses incurred in developing oil in nonexempt areas. They thus understate the costs of drilling in the exempt region.

       Article I, §8, cl. 1, provides:
      “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”

       Article I, §9, cl. 4, provides that direct taxes shall be apportioned among the States by population. Indirect taxes, however, are subject to the rule of uniformity. See Hylton v. United States, 3 Dall. 171, 176 (1796) (opinion of Paterson, J.).

       The Clause was proposed on August 25 and adopted on August 31 without discussion. See 2 M. Farrand, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, pp. 417-418, 481 (1911). When the Committee of Style reported the final draft of the Constitution on September 12, it failed to include the Clause. Id., at 594 (Clause interlined by James Madison). This omission was corrected two days later by appending the Clause to Art. I, § 8, cl. 1. Id., at 614.
      The origins of the Uniformity Clause are linked to those of the Port Preference Clause, Art. I, §9, cl. 6. The two were proposed together, id.,
        at 417-418, and reported out of a special committee as an interrelated limitation on the National Government’s commerce power, see id., at 437; Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41, 103-106 (1900). They were separated without explanation on September 14 when the Convention remedied their omission from the September 12 draft.

         Knowlton v. Moore represents the Court’s most detailed consideration of the Uniformity Clause. See 178 U. S., at 83-106. The issue in Knowlton, however, only presented a variation on the question addressed in the Head Money Cases, 112 U. S. 580 (1884). Rather than distinguishing between port and inland cities, the statute at issue in Knowlton imposed a progressive tax on legacies and varied the rate of the tax among classes of legatees. The argument was that Congress could not distinguish among legacies or people receiving them; it was required to tax all legacies at the same rate or none. See Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S., at 83-84. In rejecting this argument, the Court reaffirmed its conclusion in the Head Money Cases that Congress may distinguish between similar classes in selecting the subject of a tax. 178 U. S., at 106.
      Since Knowlton, the Court has not had occasion to consider the Uniformity Clause in any detail. See, e. g., Florida v. Mellon, 273 U. S. 12, 17 (1927); LaBelle Iron Works v. United States, 256 U. S. 377, 392 (1921).

       In Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 244 (1901), the Court considered whether Congress could place a duty on merchandise imported from Puerto Rico. The Court assumed that if Puerto Rico were part of the United States, the duty would be unconstitutional under the Uniformity Clause or the Port Preference Clause. Id., at 249. It upheld the duty because it found that Puerto Rico was not part of the country for the purposes of either Clause. Id., at 287.

       Article I, § 8, cl. 4, provides that Congress shall have power “To establish . . . uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States.” Although the purposes giving rise to the Bankruptcy Clause are not identical to those underlying the Uniformity Clause, we have looked to the interpretation of one Clause in determining the meaning of the other. See Regional Rail Reorganization Act Cases, 419 U. S. 102, 160-161 (1974).

        Railway Labor Executives’ Assn. v. Gibbons, 455 U. S. 457 (1982), is not to the contrary. There we held that a statute designed to aid one bankrupt railroad violated the uniformity provision of the Bankruptcy Clause. We stated: “The conclusion is . . . inevitable that [the statute] is not a response either to the particular problems of major railroad bankruptcies or to any geographically isolated problem: it is a response to the problems caused by the bankruptcy of one railroad.” Id., at 470 (emphasis in original). It is clear that in this case Congress sought to deal with a geographically isolated problem.

       Congress’ view that oil from this area of Alaska merits separate treatment is consistent with the actions of both the Federal Energy Administration, see n. 1, supra, and the President, see H. R. Doc. No. 96-107, p. 3 (1979). See also Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, The Design of a Windfall Profit Tax 20-23 (Comm. Print 1979).


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Justice O’Connor

license: Public Domain

text:
    BALTIMORE GAS & ELECTRIC CO. et al. v. NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC.
    No. 82-524.
    Argued April 19, 1983
    Decided June 6, 1983

      O’CONNOR, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which all other Members joined, except Powell, J., who took no part in the consideration or decision of the cases.

      David A. Strauss argued the cause for petitioners in all cases. With him on the briefs for petitioners in No. 82-545 were Solicitor General Lee, Assistant Attorney General Dinkins, Deputy Solicitor General Claiborne, John H. Garvey, Jacques B. Gelin, and E. Leo Slaggie. Henry V. Nickel, F. William Brownell, and George C. Freeman, Jr., filed briefs for petitioners in No. 82-524. James P. McGranery, Jr., and Michael I. Miller filed briefs for petitioners in No. 82-551. Raymond M. Momboisse, Sam Kazman, Ronald A. Zumbrun, and Robert K. Best filed a brief for respondent Pacific Legal Foundation in support of petitioners.

      Timothy B. Atkeson argued the cause for respondents in all cases and filed a brief for respondent Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. Robert Abrams, Attorney General, Ezra I. Bialik, Assistant Attorney General, and Peter H. Schiff filed a brief for respondent State of New York.

      Together with No. 82-545, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission et al. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., et al.; and No. 82-551, Commonwealth Edison Co. et al. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., et al., also on certiorari to the same court.

      Briefs of amicus curiae urging reversal were filed by Harold F. Reis and Linda L. Hodge for the Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc.; and by Wayne T. Elliott for Scientists and Engineers for Secure Energy, Inc.

        Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the State of Minnesota by Hubert H. Humphrey III, Attorney General, and Jocelyn Furtwangler Olson, Special Assistant Attorney General; for the State of Wisconsin et al. by Bronson C. La Follette, Attorney General of Wisconsin, and Carl A. Sinderbrand, Assistant Attorney General; Robert T. Stephan, Attorney General of Kansas, and Robert Vinson Eye, Assistant Attorney General; William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of Louisiana; Joseph I. Lieberman, Attorney General of Connecticut; John J. Easton, Jr., Attorney General of Vermont, and Merideth Wright, Assistant Attorney General; John Ashcroft, Attorney General of Missouri, and Robert Lindholm, Assistant Attorney General; William M. Leech, Jr., Attorney General of Tennessee; Mark V. Meierhenry, Attorney General of South Dakota; Paul G. Bardacke, Attorney General of New Mexico; Tany S. Hong, Attorney General of Hawaii; Chauncey H. Browning, Jr., Attorney General of West Virginia, and Leonard Knee, Deputy Attorney General; A. G. McClintock, Attorney General of Wyoming; Jim Mattox, Attorney General of Texas, and David Richards, Executive Assistant Attorney General; Janice E. Kerr and J. Calvin Simpson; for Kansans for Sensible Energy by John M. Simpson; and for Limerick Ecology Action, Inc., et al. by Charles W. Elliott.

   Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 83 Stat. 853, 42 U. S. C. §4332(2)(C) (NEPA), requires federal agencies to consider the environmental impact of any major federal action. As part of its generic rule-making proceedings to evaluate the environmental effects of the nuclear fuel cycle for nuclear powerplants, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Commission) decided that licensing boards should assume, for purposes of NEPA, that the permanent storage of certain nuclear wastes would have no significant environmental impact and thus should not affect the decision whether to license a particular nuclear power-plant. We conclude that the Commission complied with NEPA and that its decision is not arbitrary or capricious within the meaning of § 10(e) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U. S. C. §706.

The environmental impact of operating a light-water nuclear powerplant includes the effects of offsite activities necessary to provide fuel for the plant (“front end” activities), and of offsite activities necessary to dispose of the highly toxic and long-lived nuclear wastes generated by the plant (“back end” activities). The dispute in these cases concerns the Commission’s adoption of a series of generic rules to evaluate the environmental effects of a nuclear power-plant’s fuel cycle. At the heart of each rule is Table S-3, a numerical compilation of the estimated resources used and effluents released by fuel cycle activities supporting a year’s operation of a typical light-water reactor. The three versions of Table S-3 contained similar numerical values, although the supporting documentation has been amplified during the course of the proceedings.

The Commission first adopted Table S-3 in 1974, after extensive informal rulemaking proceedings. 39 Fed. Reg. 14188 et seq. (1974). This “original” rule, as it later came to be described, declared that in environmental reports and impact statements for individual licensing proceedings the environmental costs of the fuel cycle “shall be as set forth” in Table S-3 and that “[n]o further discussion of such environmental effects shall be required.” Id., at 14191. The original Table S-3 contained no numerical entry for the long-term environmental effects of storing solidified transuranic and high-level wastes, because the Commission staff believed that technology would be developed to isolate the wastes from the environment. The Commission and the parties have later termed this assumption of complete repository integrity as the “zero-release” assumption: the reasonableness of this assumption is at the core of the present controversy.

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a respondent in the present cases, challenged the original rule and a license issued under the rule to the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed Table S-3’s treatment of the “front end” of the fuel cycle, but vacated and remanded the portion of the rule relating to the “back end” because of perceived inadequacies in the rulemaking procedures. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. NRC, 178 U. S. App. D. C. 336, 547 F. 2d 633 (1976). Judge Tamm disagreed that the procedures were inadequate, but concurred on the ground that the record on waste storage was inadequate to support the zero-release assumption. Id., at 361, 547 F. 2d, at 658.

In Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 435 U. S. 519 (1978), this Court unanimously reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision that the Commission had used inadequate procedures, finding that the Commission had done all that was required by NEPA and the APA and determining that courts generally lack the authority to impose “hybrid” procedures greater than those contemplated by the governing statutes. We remanded for review of whether the original rule was adequately supported by the administrative record, specifically stating that the court was free to agree or disagree with Judge Tamm’s conclusion that the rule pertaining to the “back end” of the fuel cycle was arbitrary and capricious within the meaning of § 10(e) of the APA, 5 U. S. C. § 706. Id., at 536, n. 14.

While Vermont Yankee was pending in this Court, the Commission proposed a new “interim” rulemaking proceeding to determine whether to adopt a revised Table S-3. The proposal explicitly acknowledged that the risks from long-term repository failure were uncertain, but suggested that research should resolve most of those uncertainties in the near future. 41 Fed. Reg. 45850-45851 (1976). After further proceedings, the Commission promulgated the interim rule in March 1977. Table S-3 now explicitly stated that solidified high-level and transuranic wastes would remain buried in a federal repository and therefore would have no effect on the environment. 42 Fed. Reg. 13807 (1977). Like its predecessor, the interim rule stated that “[n]o further discussion of such environmental effects shall be required.” Id., at 13806. The NRDC petitioned for review of the interim rule, challenging the zero-release assumption and faulting the Table S-3 rule for failing to consider the health, cumulative, and socioeconomic effects of the fuel cycle activities. The Court of Appeals stayed proceedings while awaiting this Court’s decision in Vermont Yankee. In April 1978, the Commission amended the interim rule to clarify that health effects were not covered by Table S-3 and could be litigated in individual licensing proceedings. 43 Fed. Reg. 15613 et seq. (1978).

In 1979, following further hearings, the Commission adopted the “final” Table S-3 rule. 44 Fed. Reg. 45362 et seq. (1979). Like the amended interim rule, the final rule expressly stated that Table S-3 should be supplemented in individual proceedings by evidence about the health, socioeconomic, and cumulative aspects of fuel cycle activities. The Commission also continued to adhere to the zero-release assumption that the solidified waste would not escape and harm the environment once the repository was sealed. It acknowledged that this assumption was uncertain because of the remote possibility that water might enter the repository, dissolve the radioactive materials, and transport them to the biosphere. Nevertheless, the Commission predicted that a bedded-salt repository would maintain its integrity, and found the evidence “tentative but favorable” that an appropriate site would be found. Id., at 45368. The Commission ultimately determined that any undue optimism in the assumption of appropriate selection and perfect performance of the repository is offset by the cautious assumption, reflected in other parts of the Table, that all radioactive gases in the spent fuel would escape during the initial 6- to 20-year period that the repository remained open, ibid., and thus did not significantly reduce the overall conservatism of Table S-3. Id., at 45369.

The Commission rejected the option of expressing the uncertainties in Table S-3 or permitting licensing boards, in performing the NEPA analysis for individual nuclear plants, to consider those uncertainties. It saw no advantage in reassessing the significance of the uncertainties in individual licensing proceedings:

“In view of the uncertainties noted regarding waste disposal, the question then arises whether these uncertainties can or should be reflected explicitly in the fuel cycle rule. The Commission has concluded that the rule should not be so modified. On the individual reactor licensing level, where the proceedings deal with fuel cycle issues only peripherally, the Commission sees no advantage in having licensing boards repeatedly weigh for themselves the effect of uncertainties on the selection of fuel cycle impacts for use in cost-benefit balancing. This is a generic question properly dealt with in the rule-making as part of choosing what impact values should go into the fuel cycle rule. The Commission concludes, having noted that uncertainties exist, that for the limited purpose of the fuel cycle rule it is reasonable to base impacts on the assumption which the Commission believes the probabilities favor, i. e., that bedded-salt repository sites can be found which will provide effective isolation of radioactive waste from the biosphere. ” Id., at 45369.

The NRDC and respondent State of New York petitioned for review of the final rule. The Court of Appeals consolidated these petitions for all purposes with the pending challenges to the initial and interim rules. By a divided panel, the court concluded that the Table S-3 rules were arbitrary and capricious and inconsistent with NEPA because the Commission had not factored the consideration of uncertainties surrounding the zero-release assumption into the licensing process in such a manner that the uncertainties could potentially affect the outcome of any decision to license a particular plant. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. NRC, 222 U. S. App. D. C. 9, 685 F. 2d 459 (1982). The court first reasoned that NEPA requires an agency to consider all significant environmental risks from its proposed action. If the zero-release assumption is taken as a, finding that long-term storage poses no significant environmental risk, which the court acknowledged may not have been the Commission’s intent, it found that the assumption represents a self-evident error in judgment and is thus arbitrary and capricious. As the evidence in the record reveals and the Commission itself acknowledged, the zero-release assumption is surrounded with uncertainty.

Alternatively, reasoned the Court of Appeals, the zero-release assumption could be characterized as a decision-making device whereby the Commission, rather than individual licensing boards, would have sole responsibility for considering the risk that long-lived wastes will not be disposed of with complete success. The court recognized that the Commission could use generic rulemaking to evaluate environmental costs common to all licensing decisions. Indeed, the Commission could use generic rulemaking to balance generic costs and benefits to produce a generic “net value.” These generic evaluations could then be considered together with case-specific costs and benefits in individual proceedings. The key requirement of NEPA, however, is that the agency consider and disclose the actual environmental effects in a manner that will ensure that the overall process, including both the generic rulemaking and the individual proceedings, brings those effects to bear on decisions to take particular actions that significantly affect the environment. The Court of Appeals concluded that the zero-release assumption was not in accordance with this NEPA requirement because the assumption prevented the uncertainties — which were not found to be insignificant or outweighed by other generic benefits — from affecting any individual licensing decision. Alternatively, by requiring that the licensing decision ignore factors that are relevant under NEPA, the zero-release assumption is a clear error in judgment and thus arbitrary and capricious.

We granted certiorari. 459 U. S. 1034 (1982). We reverse.

h-4 I — I

We are acutely aware that the extent to which this Nation should rely on nuclear power as a source of energy is an important and sensitive issue. Much of the debate focuses on whether development of nuclear generation facilities should proceed in the face of uncertainties about their long-term effects on the environment. Resolution of these fundamental policy questions lies, however, with Congress and the agencies to which Congress has delegated authority, as well as with state legislatures and, ultimately, the populace as a whole. Congress has assigned the courts only the limited, albeit important, task of reviewing agency action to determine whether the agency conformed with controlling statutes. As we emphasized in our earlier encounter with these very proceedings, “[administrative decisions should be set aside in this context, as in every other, only for substantial procedural or substantive reasons as mandated by statute . . . , not simply because the court is unhappy with the result reached.” Vermont Yankee, 435 U. S., at 558.

The controlling statute at issue here is NEPA. NEPA has twin aims. First, it “places upon an agency the obligation to consider every significant aspect of the environmental impact of a proposed action.” Vermont Yankee, supra, at 553. Second, it ensures that the agency will inform the public that it has indeed considered environmental concerns in its decisionmaking process. Weinberger v. Catholic Action of Hawaii/Peace Education Project, 454 U. S. 139, 143 (1981). Congress in enacting NEPA, however, did not require agencies to elevate environmental concerns over other appropriate considerations. See Stryckers’ Bay Neighborhood Council v. Karlen, 444 U. S. 223, 227 (1980) (per curiam). Rather, it required only that the agency take a “hard look” at the environmental consequences before taking a major action. See Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U. S. 390, 410, n. 21 (1976). The role of the courts is simply to ensure that the agency has adequately considered and disclosed the environmental impact of its actions and that its decision is not arbitrary or capricious. See generally Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U. S. 402, 415-417 (1971).

In its Table S-3 rule here, the Commission has determined that the probabilities favor the zero-release assumption, because the Nation is likely to develop methods to store the wastes with no leakage to the environment. The NRDC did not challenge and the Court of Appeals did not decide the reasonableness of this determination, 222 U. S. App. D. C., at 28, n. 96, 685 F. 2d, at 478, n. 96, and no party seriously challenges it here. The Commission recognized, however, that the geological, chemical, physical, and other data it relied on in making this prediction were based, in part, on assumptions which involve substantial uncertainties. Again, no one suggests that the uncertainties are trivial or the potential effects insignificant if time proves the zero-release assumption to have been seriously wrong. After confronting the issue, though, the Commission has determined that the uncertainties concerning the development of nuclear waste storage facilities are not sufficient to affect the outcome of any individual licensing decision.

It is clear that the Commission, in making this determination, has made the careful consideration and disclosure required by NEPA. The sheer volume of proceedings before the Commission is impressive. Of far greater importance, the Commission’s Statement of Consideration announcing the final Table S-3 rule shows that it has digested this mass of material and disclosed all substantial risks. 44 Fed. Reg. 45367-45369 (1979). The Statement summarizes the major uncertainty of long-term storage in bedded-salt repositories, which is that water could infiltrate the repository as a result of such diverse factors as geologic faulting, a meteor strike, or accidental or deliberate intrusion by man. The Commission noted that the probability of intrusion was small, and that the plasticity of salt would tend to heal some types of intrusions. The Commission also found the evidence “tentative but favorable” that an appropriate site could be found. Table S-3 refers interested persons to staff studies that discuss the uncertainties in greater detail. Given this record and the Commission’s statement, it simply cannot be said that the Commission ignored or failed to disclose the uncertainties surrounding its zero-release assumption.

Congress did not enact NEPA, of course, so that an agency would contemplate the environmental impact of an action as an abstract exercise. Rather, Congress intended that the “hard look” be incorporated as part of the agency’s process of deciding whether to pursue a particular federal action. It was on this ground that the Court of Appeals faulted the Commission’s action, for failing to allow the uncertainties potentially to “tip the balance” in a particular licensing decision. As a general proposition, we can agree with the Court of Appeals’ determination that an agency must allow all significant environmental risks to be factored into the decision whether to undertake a proposed action. We think, however, that the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the Commission had not complied with this standard.

As Vermont Yankee made clear, NEPA does not require agencies to adopt any particular internal decisionmaking structure. Here, the agency has chosen to evaluate generically the environmental impact of the fuel cycle and inform individual licensing boards, through the Table S-3 rule, of its evaluation. The generic method chosen by the agency is clearly an appropriate method of conducting the “hard look” required by NEPA. See Vermont Yankee, 435 U. S., at 535, n. 13. The environmental effects of much of the fuel cycle are not plant specific, for any plant, regardless of its particular attributes, will create additional wastes that must be stored in a common long-term repository. Administrative efficiency and consistency of decision are both furthered by a generic determination of these effects without needless repetition of the litigation in individual proceedings, which are subject to review by the Commission in any event. See generally Ecology Action v. AEC, 492 F. 2d 998, 1002, n. 5 (CA2 1974) (Friendly, J.) (quoting Administrative Conference Proposed Recommendation 73-6).

The Court of Appeals recognized that the Commission has discretion to evaluate generically the environmental effects of the fuel cycle and require that these values be “plugged into” individual licensing decisions. The court concluded that the Commission nevertheless violated NEPA by failing to factor the uncertainty surrounding long-term storage into Table S-3 and precluding individual licensing decisionmakers from considering it.

The Commission’s decision to affix a zero value to the environmental impact of long-term storage would violate NEPA, however, only if the Commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously in deciding generically that the uncertainty was insufficient to affect any individual licensing decision. In assessing whether the Commission’s decision is arbitrary and capricious, it is crucial to place the zero-release assumption in context. Three factors are particularly important. First is the Commission’s repeated emphasis that the zero-release assumption — and, indeed, all of the Table S-3 rule — was made for a limited purpose. The Commission expressly noted its intention to supplement the rule with an explanatory narrative. It also emphasized that the purpose of the rule was not to evaluate or select the most effective long-term waste disposal technology or develop site selection criteria. A separate and comprehensive series of programs has been undertaken to serve these broader purposes. In the proceedings before us, the Commission’s staff did not attempt to evaluate the environmental effects of all possible methods of disposing of waste. Rather, it chose to analyze intensively the most probable long-term waste disposal method — burial in a bedded-salt repository several hundred meters below ground — and then “estimate its impacts conservatively, based on the best available information and analysis.” 44 Fed. Reg. 45863 (1979). The zero-release assumption cannot be evaluated in isolation. Rather, it must be assessed in relation to the limited purpose for which the Commission made the assumption.

Second, the Commission emphasized that the zero-release assumption is but a single figure in an entire Table, which the Commission expressly designed as a risk-averse estimate of the environmental impact of the fuel cycle. It noted that Table S-3 assumed that the fuel storage canisters and the fuel rod cladding would be corroded before a repository is closed and that all volatile materials in the fuel would escape to the environment. Given that assumption, and the improbability that materials would escape after sealing, the Commission determined that the overall Table represented a conservative (i. e., inflated) statement of environmental impacts. It is not unreasonable for the Commission to counteract the uncertainties in postsealing releases by balancing them with an overestimate of presealing releases. A reviewing court should not magnify a single line item beyond its significance as only part of a larger Table.

Third, a reviewing court must remember that the Commission is making predictions, within its area of special expertise, at the frontiers of science. When examining this kind of scientific determination, as opposed to simple findings of fact, a reviewing court must generally be at its most deferential. See, e. g., Industrial Union Dept. v. American Petroleum Institute, 448 U. S. 607, 656 (1980) (plurality opinion); id., at 705-706 (Marshall, J., dissenting).

With these three guides in mind, we find the Commission’s zero-release assumption to be within the bounds of reasoned decisionmaking required by the APA. We have already noted that the Commission’s Statement of Consideration detailed several areas of uncertainty and discussed why they were insubstantial for purposes of an individual licensing decision. The Table S-3 rule also refers to the staff reports, public documents that contain a more expanded discussion of the uncertainties involved in concluding that long-term storage will have no environmental effects. These staff reports recognize that rigorous verification of long-term risks for waste repositories is not possible, but suggest that data and extrapolation of past experience allow the Commission to identify events that could produce repository failure, estimate the probability of those events, and calculate the resulting consequences. NUREG-0116, at 4-86. The Commission staff also modeled the consequences of repository failure by tracing the flow of contaminated water, and found them to be insignificant. Id., at 4-89 through 4-94. Ultimately, the staff concluded that

“[t]he radiotoxic hazard index analyses and the modeling studies that have been done indicate that consequences of all but the most improbable events will be small. Risks (probabilities times consequences) inherent in the long term for geological disposal will therefore also be small.” Id., at 2-11.

We also find significant the separate views of Commissioners Bradford and Gilinsky. These Commissioners expressed dissatisfaction with the zero-release assumption and yet emphasized the limited purpose of the assumption and the overall conservatism of Table S-3. Commissioner Bradford characterized the bedded-salt repository as a responsible working assumption for NEPA purposes and concurred in the zero-release figure because it does not appear to affect Table S-3’s overall conservatism. 44 Fed. Reg. 45372 (1979). Commissioner Gilinsky was more critical of the entire Table, stating that the Commission should confront directly whether it should license any nuclear reactors in light of the problems of waste disposal, rather than hide an affirmative conclusion to this issue behind a table of numbers. He emphasized that the “waste confidence proceeding,” see n. 14, supra, should provide the Commission an appropriate vehicle for a thorough evaluation of the problems involved in the Government’s commitment to a waste disposal solution. For the limited purpose of individual licensing proceedings, however, Commissioner Gilinsky found it “virtually inconceivable” that the Table should affect the decision whether to license, and characterized as “naive” the notion that the fuel cycle effluents could tip the balance in some cases and not in others. 44 Fed. Reg. 45374 (1979).

In sum, we think that the zero-release assumption — a policy judgment concerning one line in a conservative Table designed for the limited purpose of individual licensing decisions — is within the bounds of reasoned decisionmaking. It is not our task to determine what decision we, as Commissioners, would have reached. Our only task is to determine whether the Commission has considered the relevant factors and articulated a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made. Bowman Transportation, Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc., 419 U. S. 281, 285-286 (1974); Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U. S. 402 (1971). Under this standard, we think the Commission's zero-release assumption, within the context of Table S-3 as a whole, was not arbitrary and capricious.

r-4 1 — 4 HH

As we have noted, n. 5, supra, Table S-3 describes effluents and other impacts in technical terms. The Table does not convert that description into tangible effects on human health or other environmental variables. The original and interim rules declared that “the contribution of the environmental effects of. . . fuel cycle activities . . . shall be as set forth in the following Table S-3 [and] [n]o further discussion of such environmental effects shall be required.” 39 Fed. Reg. 14191 (1974); 42 Fed. Reg. 13806 (1977). Since the Table does not specifically mention health effects, socioeconomic impacts, or cumulative impacts, this declaration does not clearly require or preclude their discussion. The Commission later amended the interim rule to clarify that health effects were not covered by Table S-3 and could be litigated in individual licensing proceedings. In the final rule, the Commission expressly required licensing boards to consider the socioeconomic and cumulative effects in addition to the health effects of the releases projected in the Table. 44 Fed. Reg. 45371 (1979).

The Court of Appeals held that the original and interim rules violated NEPA by precluding licensing boards from considering the health, socioeconomic, and cumulative effects of the environmental impacts stated in technical terms. As does the Commission, we agree with the Court of Appeals that NEPA requires an EIS to disclose the significant health, socioeconomic, and cumulative consequences of the environmental impact of a proposed action. See Metropolitan Edison Co. v. People Against Nuclear Energy, 460 U. S. 766 (1983); Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U. S., at 410; 40 CFR §§ 1508.7, 1508.8 (1982). We find no basis, however, for the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that the Commission ever precluded a licensing board from considering these effects.

It is true, as the Commission pointed out in explaining why it modified the language in the earlier rules, that the original Table S-3 rule “at least initially was apparently interpreted as cutting off” discussion of the effects of effluent releases. 44 Fed. Reg. 45364 (1979). But even the notice accompanying the earlier versions stated that the Table was “to be used as a basis for evaluating the environmental effects in a cost-benefit analysis for a reactor,” 39 Fed. Reg. 14190 (1974) (emphasis added), suggesting that individual licensing boards were to assess the consequences of effluent releases. And when, operating under the initial rule, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board suggested the desirability of discussing health effects for comparing nuclear with coal plants, In re Tennessee Valley Authority (Hartsville Nuclear Plant Units), 5 N. R. C. 92, 103, n. 52 (1977), the Commission staff was allowed to introduce evidence of public health consequences. Cf. In re Public Service Company of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station), 7 N. R. C. 179, 187 (1978).

Respondents have pointed to no case where evidence concerning health or other consequences of the data in Table S-3 was excluded from licensing proceedings. We think our admonition in Vermont Yankee applies with equal force here:

“[WJhile it is true that NEPA places upon an agency the obligation to consider every significant aspect of the environmental impact of a proposed action, it is still incumbent upon intervenors who wish to participate to structure their participation so that it is meaningful, so that it alerts the agency to the intervenors’ position and contentions.” 435 U. S., at 553.

In short, we find it totally inappropriate to cast doubt on licensing proceedings simply because of a minor ambiguity in the language of the earlier rule under which the environmental impact statement was made, when there is no evidence that this ambiguity prevented any party from making as full a presentation as desired, or ever affected the decision to license the plant.

IV

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is

Reversed.

Justice Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.

APPENDIX TO THE OPINION OF THE COURT

         Section 102(2)(C) provides:
      “The Congress authorizes and directs that, to the fullest extent possible ... (2) all agencies of the Federal Government shall—
      “(c) include in every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, a detailed statement by the responsible official on—
      “(i) the environmental impact of the proposed action,
      “(ii) any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented, [and]
      “(v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented.”

       The original Table S-3 rule was promulgated by the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). Congress abolished the AEC in the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974,42 U. S. C. § 5801 et seq., and transferred its licensing and regulatory functions to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The interim and final rules were promulgated by the NRC. This opinion will use the term “Commission” to refer to both the NRC and the predecessor AEC.

       Title 5 U. S. C. § 706 states in part:
      “The reviewing court shall—
      “(2) hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be—
      “(A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”

       A light-water nuclear powerplant is one that uses ordinary water (H20), as opposed to heavy water (D20), to remove the heat generated in the nuclear core. See Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia 1998, 2008 (D. Considine & G. Considine eds., 6th ed. 1983). The bulk of the reactors in the United States are light-water nuclear reactors. NRC Ann. Rep., Appendix 6 (1980).

       For example, the tabulated impacts include the acres of land committed to fuel cycle activities, the amount of water discharged by such activities, fossil fuel consumption, and chemical and radiological effluents (measured in curies), all normalized to the annual fuel requirement for a model 1,000 megawatt light-water reactor. See Table S-3, reprinted in the Appendix, infra.

       Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 68 Stat. 919, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 2011 et seq., a utility seeking to construct and operate a nuclear powerplant must obtain a separate permit or license at both the construction and the operation stage of the project. After the Commission’s staff has examined the application for a construction license, which includes a review of possible environmental effects as required by NEPA, a three-member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board conducts a public adjudicatory hearing and reaches a decision which can be appealed to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board and, in the Commission’s discretion, to the Commission itself. The final agency decision may be appealed to the courts of appeals. A similar procedure occurs when the utility applies for an operating license, except that a hearing need be held only in contested cases. See Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 435 U. S. 519, 526-527 (1978).

       High-level wastes, which are highly radioactive, are produced in liquid form when spent fuel is reprocessed. Transuranic wastes, which are also highly toxic, are nuclides heavier than uranium that are produced in the reactor fuel. See Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. NRC, 222 U. S. App. D. C. 9, 16, n. 11, 685 F. 2d, 459, 466, n. 11 (1982).

       In Vermont Yankee, we indicated that the Court of Appeals could consider any additions made to the record by the Commission, and could consolidate review of the initial review with review of later rules. 435 U. S., at 537, n. 14. Consistent with this direction, the parties stipulated that all three versions of the rule could be reviewed on the basis of the whole record. See 222 U. S. App. D. C., at 21, n. 39, 685 F. 2d, at 471, n. 39.

      Judge Bazelon wrote the opinion for the court. Judge Wilkey joined the section of the opinion that rejected New York’s argument that the waste-disposal technology assumed for calculation of certain effluent release values was economically infeasible. That issue is not before us. Judge Wilkey filed a dissenting opinion on the issues that are under review here. Judge Edwards of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation, joined these sections of Judge Bazelon’s opinion, and also filed a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting on the economic infeasibility issue.

       As the Court of Appeals recognized, 222 U. S. App. D. C., at 31, n. 118, 685 F. 2d, at 481, n. 118, the Commission became increasingly candid in acknowledging the uncertainties underlying permanent waste disposal. Because all three versions of Table S-3 use the same zero-release assumption, and the parties stipulated that the entire record be used in reviewing all three versions, see n. 8, supra, we need review only the propriety of the final Table S-3 rule. We leave for another day any general concern with an agency whose initial Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is insufficient but who later adequately supplements its consideration and disclosure of the environmental impact of its action.

       The record includes more than 1,100 pages of prepared direct testimony, two rounds of questions by participants and several hundred pages of responses, 1,200 pages of oral hearings, participants’ rebuttal testimony, concluding statements, the 137-page report of the hearing board, further written statements from participants, and oral argument before the Commission. The Commission staff has prepared three studies of the environmental effects of the fuel cycle: Environmental Survey of the Uranium Fuel Cycle, WASH-1248 (Apr. 1974); Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing and Waste Management Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle, NUREG-0116 (Supp. 1 to WASH-1248) (Oct. 1976) (hereinafter cited as NUREG-0116); and Public Comments and Task Force Responses Regarding the Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing and Waste Management Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle, NUREG-0216 (Supp. 2 to WASH-1248) (Mar. 1977).

       We are reviewing here only the Table S-3 rulemaking proceedings, and do not have before us an individual EIS that incorporates Table S-3. It is clear that the Statement of Consideration supporting the Table S-3 rule adequately discloses the environmental uncertainties considered by the Commission. However, Table S-3 itself refers to other documents but gives only brief descriptions of the environmental effects it encapsulates. There is some concern with an EIS that relies too heavily on separate documents rather than addressing the concerns directly. Although we do not decide whether they have binding effect on an independent agency such as the Commission, it is worth noting that the guidelines from the Council on Environmental Quality in effect during these proceedings required that “care should be taken to ensure that the statement remains an essentially self-contained instrument, capable of being understood by the reader without the need for undue cross reference.” 38 Fed. Reg. 20554 (1973), 40 CFR § 1500.8(b) (1974). The present regulations state that incorporation by reference is permissible if it will not “imped[e] agency and public review of the action. The incorporated material shall be cited in the statement and its content briefly described.” 40 CFR § 1502.21 (1982). The Court of Appeals noted that NEPA “requires an agency to do more than to scatter its evaluation of environmental damage among various public documents,” 222 U. S. App. D. C., at 34, 685 F. 2d, at 484, but declined to find that the incorporation of other documents by reference would invalidate an EIS that used Table S-3 to describe the environmental impact of the fuel cycle. The parties here do not treat this insufficient disclosure argument as a separate argument and, like the Court of Appeals, we decline to strike down the rule on this ground. We do not deny the value of an EIS that can be understood without extensive cross-reference. The staff documents referred to in Table S-3 are public documents, however, and we note that the Commission has proposed an explanatory narrative to accompany Table S-3, which would be included in an individual EIS, that may alleviate some of the concerns of incorporation. See n. 13, infra.

       In March 1981, the Commission submitted a version of the explanatory narrative for public comment as a proposed amendment to the final fuel cycle rule. 46 Fed. Reg. 15154 (1981). The Commission has not yet adopted a final narrative.

       In response to Minnesota v. NRC, 195 U. S. App. D. C. 234, 602 F. 2d 412 (1979), the Commission has initiated a "waste confidence” proceeding to consider the most recent evidence regarding the likelihood that nuclear waste can be safely disposed of and when that, or some other offsite storage solution, can be accomplished. 44 Fed. Reg. 61372 et seq. (1979). See id., at 45363. The recently enacted Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2201, 42 U. S. C. § 10101 et seq. (1982 ed.), has set up a schedule for identifying site locations and a funding mechanism for development of permanent waste repositories. The Environmental Protection Agency has also proposed standards for future waste repositories, 47 Fed. Reg. 58196 et seq. (1982).

       For example, Table S-3 assumes that plutonium will not be recycled. The Commission noted that, in response to a Presidential directive, it had terminated separate proceedings concerning the possibility of recyling plutonium in mixed oxide fuel. 44 Fed. Reg. 45369, n. 28 (1979). See In re Mixed Oxide Fuel, 6 N. R. C. 861 (1977); In re Mixed Oxide Fuel, 7 N. R. C. 711 (1978).

       The Commission also increased the overall conservatism of the Table by overestimating the amount of fuel consumed by a reactor, underestimating the amount of electricity produced, and then underestimating the efficiency of filters and other protective devices. See Conclusions and Recommendations of the Hearing Board Regarding the Environmental Effects of the Uranium Fuel Cycle, Docket No. Rm 50-3, App. to Pet. for Cert, in No. 82-524, pp. 282a-293a. Additionally, Table S-3, which analyzes both a uranium-recycle and no-recycle system, conservatively lists, for each effluent, the highest of the two releases that would be expected under each cycle. 41 Fed. Reg. 45849, 45850 (1976).

       The Court of Appeals recognized that the Commission could weigh certain generic costs and benefits of reactors against each other to produce a generic “net value” to be used in individual licensing proceedings. 222 U. S. App. D. C., at 32, 685 F. 2d, at 482. We see no reason why the Commission does not have equal discretion to evaluate certain environmental costs together to produce a generic net cost.

       For example, using this approach the staff estimated that a meteor the size necessary to damage a repository would hit a given square kilometer of the earth’s surface only once every 50 trillion years, and that geologic faulting through the Delaware Basin in southeast New Mexico (assuming that were the site of the repository) would occur once in 25 billion years. NUREG-0116, at 4-87. The staff determined that a surface burst of a 50 megaton nuclear weapon, far larger than any currently deployed, would not breach the repository. Ibid. The staff also recognized the possibility that heat generated by the waste would damage the repository, but suggested this problem could be alleviated by decreasing the density of the stored waste. In recognition that this suggestion would increase the size of the repository, the Commission amended Table S-3 to reflect the greater acreage required under these assumptions. See 44 Fed. Reg. 45369 (1979).

       Of course, just as the Commission has discretion to evaluate generically aspects of the environmental impact of the fuel cycle, it has discretion to have other aspects of the issue decided in individual licensing decisions.


author: Per Curiam. Justice White, Justice Brennan, Justice Marshall,

text:
    MAGGIO, WARDEN v. FULFORD
    No. 82-1408.
    Decided June 6, 1983
   Per Curiam.

Respondent John Fulford was found guilty of murder by a Louisiana jury in 1972. His conviction was affirmed on appeal to the Louisiana Supreme Court, State v. Nix, 327 So. 2d 301 (1975), and, after exhausting state postconviction remedies, he sought federal habeas corpus relief. The United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana denied relief, App. to Pet. for Cert. A-21, but the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that “we cannot, with the certitude befitting a federal court, affirm that Fulford possessed the mental competency to participate meaningfully in his trial.” 692 F. 2d 354, 361 (1982) (footnote omitted). We grant the motion of respondent for leave to proceed informa pauperis and the petition for cer-tiorari, and reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

The bone of contention in this case was respondent’s competency to stand trial more than 11 years ago. On the morning of trial respondent’s counsel moved to appoint a commission to inquire into respondent’s competency to stand trial. At the same time counsel moved for a severance. Neither counsel nor respondent had previously broached the question of competency, and nothing appears in the record which suggests that respondent had a history of mental or emotional difficulties. The sole evidence submitted in support of respondent’s motion for appointment of a competency commission was the testimony of one Dr. McCray, a local psychiatrist. Until the morning immediately preceding trial, McCray had never seen, nor, so far as the record reveals, heard of, respondent. Based upon a prison cell interview of approximately one hour the day before trial, McCray testified in the following fashion, as summarized by the Court of Appeals:

“Dr. McCray noted that an evaluation usually requires several sessions as well as a supporting evaluation from a clinical psychologist. Finding Fulford to be well oriented to time, place and person, Dr. McCray nevertheless testified that Fulford had paranoid delusions which rendered him incompetent to stand trial. Specifically, Fulford had told Dr. McCray that he was withholding the names of alibi witnesses who could prove his innocence for fear that they would be arrested and prevented from testifying in his behalf.” Id., at 360.

While the Court of Appeals was less explicit than it might have been on the issue, we think a fair reading of its opinion indicates that it concluded under 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d)(8) that the state court’s determination that respondent was competent to stand trial was not “fairly supported by the record.” See 692 F. 2d, at 360-361; Sumner v. Mata, 449 U. S. 539 (1981). We believe that, in reaching this conclusion, the Court of Appeals erroneously substituted its own judgment as to the credibility of witnesses for that of the Louisiana courts — a prerogative which 28 U. S. C. §2254 does not allow it. Marshall v. Lonberger, 459 U. S. 422 (1983).

The Louisiana trial judge explained his refusal to order a competency hearing in two per curiam opinions, which contained the following factual findings relevant to his decision. First, the trial judge was convinced that respondent was “oriented as to time, date and place and was cognizant of everything around him.” 692 F. 2d, at 360. The judge further noted that Fulford’s conduct during and after the trial “thoroughly convinced” him that respondent was competent and able to assist in his defense. The trial judge did not “deem it necessary to fill in all the other matters that appeared throughout the trial and all of the post-trial motions that have been filed because the record will adequately represent this fact.” 4 Record 953. As set out in the margin, there is substantial support for the trial judge’s statement. Third, the trial judge concluded that the only basis advanced by McCray -for his tentative conclusion that respondent suffered from paranoid delusions — respondent’s failure to inform his lawyers of the identities of two alibi witnesses — was unfounded. These two witnesses testified in respondent’s behalf less than a week after Fulford convinced McCray that he was withholding the identities of his alibi witnesses. As the Louisiana Supreme Court observed, “it is clear that Mr. Fulford did not withhold the names of his witnesses, and was able to assist his counsel in the preparation and conduct of his defense.” 327 So. 2d, at 324.

Most importantly for our purposes, the trial judge concluded that respondent’s surprise, llth-hour motion for appointment of a competency commission “was just a subterfuge on the part of this defendant to attempt to keep from going to trial so that he would be tried at a different time from the other defendants.” Ibid. The trial judge explained:

“During the course of the jury selection in this matter, for the two days that it took to select this jury, this Court noted that every time either counsel for defendants would approach defendant Fulford to converse with him concerning the jury selection, defendant Fulford would turn his head in the other direction. I got the distinct impression from what was going on that Mr. Fulford was attempting to play a game with the Court in order to try to get his case severed from the other defendants. I further gathered from the legal maneuverings that there was an attempt to sever Fulford from the other two defendants so that some additional legal maneuvering might be made at some later time. I might further add, that contrary to what the doctor testified at the hearing to determine whether Mr. Fulford was unable to assist counsel in his defense, that the alleged eye witnesses, which Mr. Fulford stated would prove his innocence, were called and did testify as to his alleged alibi. Throughout the entire trial Mr. Fulford was accorded a complete and full defense and I saw nothing from the beginning of the trial to the end that in any way detracted from any of Mr. Fulford’s rights. I hesitate to state but I do feel that this was a plan designed by Mr. Fulford to try to disrupt his trial and to prevent him from being tried with his co-defendants.” 5 Record 1024-1025.

Based upon these observations, the trial judge concluded that there was insufficient likelihood that respondent was incompetent to warrant appointment of a commission.

The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed, relying on the arguments advanced by the trial judge, and noting that his “findings are amply supported by the record.” 327 So. 2d, at 324. The Supreme Court of Louisiana also observed that the trial judge had the “ability ... to observe Mr. Fulford at length during the preliminary hearings and the trial of this case.” Ibid. It also took note of the “limited time” that Dr. McCray spent with respondent.

The Court of Appeals apparently found all of this unpersuasive. There is no dispute as to the proper legal standard to be applied for determining the correctness of the trial court’s actions, see Pate v. Robinson, 383 U. S. 375, 386 (1966); Drope v. Missouri, 420 U. S. 162 (1975). Thus, the three judges of the Court of Appeals appear to have differed from the Louisiana trial judge, the seven Justices of the Supreme Court of Louisiana, and the Federal District Judge, only with respect to evaluation of the evidence before the trial court. The principal explanation offered by the Court of Appeals for its refusal to accept the previous judicial assessments of this testimony are contained in the following excerpt from its opinion:

“The State urges that Fulford had the capability to assist his attorney but simply refused to do so. But if this refusal was based on his paranoid delusions, it cannot be successfully urged that Fulford was actually capable of assisting counsel.
“A more troubling aspect of the present issue is the trial court’s finding that Fulford was trying to delay the trial, and possibly obtain a severance. Given the timing of the motion, and a subsequent request by Fulford for a severance, we would uphold the trial court if it had been confronted by a barebones motion, with only the statement of Fulford’s attorney as support. That is not the present case. Dr. McCray’s testimony was unim-peached. His qualifications as a psychiatrist were unchallenged by the prosecution. Although his examination was brief, it was precisely because of this brevity that he suggested further evaluation was needed. On these facts, we believe that the state court committed constitutional error in not conducting further competency proceedings.” 692 F. 2d, at 361.

Before a federal habeas court undertakes to overturn factual conclusions made by a state court, it must determine that these conclusions are not “fairly supported by the record.” 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d)(8). Under this standard we have not the slightest hesitation in saying that the trial court’s conclusion as to Fulford’s competency was “fairly supported by the record.” The trial judge’s observation of Fulford’s conduct, both prior to and during trial; his observation of the testimony of Dr. McCray and the statements of respondent’s counsel regarding his refusal to cooperate with them; his inferences regarding the fact that Fulford’s alleged refusal to disclose his alibi witnesses either never occurred, or was remedied; the weight he attributed to the unannounced, last-minute timing of the motion for appointment of a competency commission; and the inferences to be drawn from the failure of the defense to pursue psychiatric examination beyond the “tentative” stage, despite ample time and opportunity to do so, all provide ample record support for the trial judge’s conclusion that there was insufficient question as to Fulford’s competence to warrant appointment of a commission.

The Court of Appeals apparently concluded that the trial judge was obligated to credit both the factual statements and the ultimate conclusions of Dr. McCray solely because he was “unimpeached.” 692 F. 2d, at 361. This is simply not the law.

“ ‘Face to face with living witnesses the original trier of the facts holds a position of advantage from which appellate judges are excluded. In doubtful cases the exercise of his power of observation often proves the most accurate method of ascertaining the truth. . . . How can we say the judge is wrong? We never saw the witnesses. . . .’” United States v. Oregon Medical Society, 343 U. S. 326, 339 (1952), quoted in Marshall v. Lonberger, 459 U. S., at 434.

We are convinced for the reasons stated above that the question whether the trial court’s conclusions as to respondent’s competency were “fairly supported by the record” must be answered in the affirmative.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is accordingly

Reversed.

Justice White,

concurring in the judgment.

The “fairly supported by the record” standard of 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d)(8) applies only to underlying questions of background fact. Questions of law, and mixed questions of law and fact, such as the “ultimate question as to the constitutionality of . . . pretrial identification procedures,” Sumner v. Mata, 455 U. S. 591, 597 (1982), or the question whether a guilty plea is voluntary for purposes of the Constitution, Marshall v. Lonberger, 459 U. S. 422, 431-432 (1983), may be reviewed more independently. In deciding such questions, “the federal court may give different weight to the facts as found by the state court and may reach a different conclusion in light of the legal standard.” Mata, 455 U. S., at 597. But only the “fact[s] that underlie th[e] ultimate conclusion” are governed by § 2254(d)(8). Ibid.

Our cases have treated the ultimate question whether a defendant is competent to stand trial as at least a mixed question of law and fact. Drope v. Missouri, 420 U. S. 162, 174-175, 175, n. 10 (1975); Pate v. Robinson, 383 U. S. 375, 385-386 (1966). See also White v. Estelle, 459 U. S. 1118 (1983) (Marshall, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari). Our precedents notwithstanding, the Court today reverses the Court of Appeals on the strength of the conclusion that “the trial court’s conclusion as to Fulford’s competency was ‘fairly supported by the record.’” Ante, at 117. But since competency is not a purely factual question, § 2254(d)(8) and its “fairly supported” standard are inapplicable. The Court offers no explanation whatsoever for the failure to follow Drope and Pate, and it would certainly not be appropriate to overrule these cases summarily. If there is any doubt as to the proper classification of the competency question, we should grant certiorari and set this case for oral argument.

Since the Court opts in favor of summary action, however, I cast my vote accordingly. Absent plenary reconsideration of Drope and Pate, I cannot agree with the Court that competency is a question of historical fact and is to be treated as such by the courts of appeals in reviewing district court judgments in criminal cases or by the district courts in federal habeas corpus proceedings involving state-court convictions. However, I agree with the Court’s ultimate conclusion that the judgment of the Court of Appeals must be reversed.

The Court details the undisputed background facts that support the trial judge’s conclusion that there was insufficient question as to Fulford’s competence to warrant appointment of a competency commission: “Fulford’s conduct, both prior to and during trial; . . . the fact that Fulford’s alleged refusal to disclose his alibi witnesses either never occurred, or was remedied;. . . the unannounced, last-minute timing of the motion for appointment of a competency commission; and . . . the failure of the defense to pursue psychiatric examination beyond the ‘tentative’ stage, despite ample time and opportunity to do so.” Ante, at 117. Dr. McCray’s testimony, on the other hand, indicated that there was a genuine doubt as to Fulford’s competency, but, as the Court points out, ante, at 117-118, the trial court was under no obligation to credit this testimony, and it did not do so. Hence, even considering the ultimate competency question as a freely reviewable pure question of law, I conclude that the trial judge’s refusal to appoint a commission did not deprive Fulford of his federal constitutional rights, and I therefore concur in the judgment.

Justice Brennan,

with whom Justice Stevens joins,

dissenting.

I agree with Justice White and Justice Marshall that § 2254(d) does not apply to questions of competency. I also agree with Justice Marshall that it is entirely inappropriate to dispose of this case on nothing more than the necessarily limited briefing filed by the parties to date. I do not agree, however, with Justice Marshall’s suggestion that we might decide the case with further briefing but not oral argument. Accepting the majority’s premise that this case merits this Court’s attention at all, I would grant the petition for certiorari and set the case for argument.

Justice Marshall,

dissenting.

I dissent.

The Court is simply wrong in assuming that 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d) applies to the question whether there is “a sufficient doubt of [the defendant’s] competence to stand trial to require further inquiry on the question.” Drope v. Missouri, 420 U. S. 162, 180 (1975). Our decisions clearly establish that whether a competence hearing should have been held is a mixed question of law and fact which is subject to full federal review. Id., at 174-175, 179-181; Pate v. Robinson, 883 U. S. 375, 385-386 (1966).

Even if the Court were correct in assuming that 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d)(8) applies, there would be no justification for the Court’s summary disposition of this case. This Court’s Rules governing petitions for certiorari were designed to help elicit the information necessary to decide whether review by cer-tiorari is warranted. They were not designed to permit a decision on the merits on the basis of the certiorari papers.

In particular, Rule 22.2 states that “a brief in opposition shall be as short as possible.” In compliance with this Rule the indigent respondent filed a mimeographed brief in opposition of seven pages, a substantial portion of which is devoted to the argument that the petition presents no question worthy of review by this Court — an argument that might well have been expected to prevail given the traditional learning that this Court “is not, and never has been, primarily concerned with the correction of errors in lower court decisions.” Only a few paragraphs of the brief in opposition discuss the record.

If the Court is to decide whether the record supports the trial court’s conclusion that no competence hearing was necessary, it should at least afford the parties a chance to brief that issue. This could be done by merely issuing an order (1) noting that the case will be disposed of without oral argument and (2) permitting both sides to file briefs on the merits. I do not think this is asking too much.

       Respondent’s request was apparently submitted pursuant to La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann., Art. 644 (West 1981), which empowers the trial court to appoint a commission of at least two qualified physicians to “examine and report upon the mental condition of a defendant.”
      Likewise, Art. 648 provides that the “trial court may, in the exercise of its sound discretion, order a mental examination of the defendant when it has reasonable ground to doubt the defendant’s mental capacity to proceed.”

       In his motion for appointment of a competency commission, respondent’s counsel alleged: “It has further been reported to counsel that the defendant has been placed before a lunacy commission in the State of Florida in 1953, and was declared a borderline case, . . . [T]he aforesaid report is of this date unconfirmed and counsel had requested a record check in the State of Florida to determine if such a hearing had been convened and the result thereof.” 4 Record 933. The record contains no other mention of this incident, much less confirmation of the allegation.

       For example, two days after he moved for appointment of a competency commission, respondent informed the trial judge that “I can defend myself, and that is the point I’d like to get across.” Likewise, at a sentencing hearing in January 1974 Fulford sought permission to pursue appeal of his conviction pro se. After the presiding judge expressed reluctance at permitting this, because of Fulford’s earlier assertion of incompetence, Fulford stated:
      “I gave this a great deal of thought prior to coming here ... I may talk funny, think I’m from the cotton patch and perhaps I am, but as far as protecting my own appeal that is my election and I believe I can do it artfully and I believe I will have a reversal in the Supreme Court and be awarded a new trial. And I have given this a great deal of thought and I have made the election, it is my right, it is my future, and if I blow it [no one] has blowed it but me, I fully understand my rights, I hilly understand what I am doing, what I am facing and the consequences of it and with that in mind I still elect to defend my own self on appeal and I ask you to grant that motion and grant me a constitutional right to do this.” 24 Record 2798-2794.
      The irony of respondent’s change of heart regarding his state of mind was not lost on him. In his habeas petition in District Court respondent noted: “It is awk[w]ard for petitioner to argue in this petition that he was unable to assist in his defense during trial, as attested by Dr. McCray,” and “then seek thé right to defend pro se during the course of trial.” Pet. for Habeas Corpus in No. 76-748 (WD La.), p. 16. The “awkwardness” of respondent’s position becomes even more apparent in light of the arguments advanced in support of his claim to a right to have proceeded pro se in trial court. Respondent argued that he “was denied the right to defend pro se with-out [sic] counsel by Judge Veron after petitioner voluntarily and intelligently elected to do so.” Id., at 16.
      As the pleadings and briefs filed by respondent in state and federal courts indicate, his legal abilities are scarcely those of a mental incompetent. As one member of the Louisiana Supreme Court has observed, respondent “has demonstrated skill and experience in criminal law in writ applications filed in this Court.” State v. Fulford, 299 So. 2d 789 (1974) (Nixon, J., dissenting).

       Address by Chief Justice Vinson Before American Bar Association, Sept. 7, 1949, 69 S. Ct. v, vi (1949).

       With the full resources of a sovereign State, petitioner filed a printed petition for certiorari plus a full printed appendix. Petitioner’s papers were signed by the State Attorney General, the District Attorney, and two Assistant District Attorneys.