38256 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 146 / Friday, July 31, 2009 / Notices 

1On July 27, 2009, the Board issued a decision 

finding that RJCP does not need construction 

authority under 49 U.S.C. 10901 or 49 U.S.C. 10502 

to reactivate the rail banked Eastern Segment. 

Nevertheless, the environmental review process 

will encompass the entire 20 miles of proposed rail 

line (i.e., both the Eastern and Western Segments), 

for the reasons discussed in the Draft Scope of 

Study and the Board’s July 27th decision. See R.J. 

Corman Railroad Company/Pennsylvania Lines 

Inc.—Construction and Operation Exemption—In 

Clearfield County, PA, STB Finance Docket No. 

35116 (STB served July 27, 2009). 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

10. 

Estimated Number of Responses: 10. 

Annual Estimated Burden: 10 hours. 

Frequency of Collection: An 

applicant’s filing of an EEO employment 

complaint is solely voluntary. 

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether 

the proposed collection of information 

is reasonable for the proper performance 

of the EEO functions of the Department, 

and (b) the accuracy of the Department’s 

estimate of the burden of the proposed 

information collection, including the 

validity of methodology and 

assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance 

the quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected; and (d) 

ways to minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including the use of 

appropriate, automated, electronic, 

mechanical or other technology. 

Comments should be addressed to the 

address in the preamble. All responses 

to this notice will be summarized and 

included in the request for Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

approval. All comments will also 

become a matter of public record. 

Issued in Washington, DC on July 24, 2009. 

Patricia Lawton, 

DOT Paperwork Reduction Act Clearance 

Officer, Office of the Chief Information 

Officer. 

[FR Doc. E9–18238 Filed 7–30–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of the Secretary 

Notice of Applications for Certificates 

of Public Convenience and Necessity 

and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed 

Under Subpart B (Formerly Subpart Q) 

During the Week Ending July 18, 2009 

The following Applications for 

Certificates of Public Convenience and 

Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier 

Permits were filed under Subpart B 

(formerly Subpart Q) of the Department 

of Transportation’s Procedural 

Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 et. 

seq.). The due date for Answers, 

Conforming Applications, or Motions to 

Modify Scope are set forth below for 

each application. Following the Answer 

period DOT may process the application 

by expedited procedures. Such 

procedures may consist of the adoption 

of a show-cause order, a tentative order, 

or in appropriate cases a final order 

without further proceedings. 

Docket Number: DOT–OST–2009– 

0163. 

Date Filed: July 17, 2009. 

Due Date for Answers, Conforming 

Applications, or Motion to Modify 

Scope: August 7, 2009. 

Description: Application of TAP 

Portugal (‘‘TAP’’) requesting an 

amendment to its foreign air carrier 

permit so that the authority granted by 

such permit will reflect the full extent 

of the rights of Community airlines 

under the Air Transport Agreement 

between the United States and the 

European Community and the Member 

States of the European Community 

specifically, TAP seeks blanket open 

skies authority to enable TAP to engage 

in: (i) Scheduled and charter foreign air 

transportation of persons, property and 

mail from any point or points behind 

any Member State of the European 

Union via any point or points in any 

Member State and via intermediate 

points to any point or points in the 

United States and beyond; (ii) 

scheduled and charter foreign air 

transportation of persons, property and 

mail between any point or points in any 

member of the European Common 

Aviation Area and any point or points 

in the United States; (iii) scheduled and 

charter all-cargo foreign air 

transportation between any point or 

points in the United States and any 

other point or points; (iv) other charters 

subject to the Department’s regulations; 

(v) and transportation authorized by any 

additional route rights made available to 

European Community airlines in the 

future. TAP also requests exemption 

authority to the extent necessary to 

enable it to engage in the above 

described operations pending issuance 

of an amended foreign air carrier permit. 

Renee V. Wright, 

Program Manager, Docket Operations, 

Federal Register Liaison. 

[FR Doc. E9–18291 Filed 7–30–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Surface Transportation Board 

[STB Finance Docket No. 35116] 

R.J. Corman Railroad Company/ 

Pennsylvania Lines Inc.—Construction 

and Operation Exemption—In 

Clearfield County, PA 

ACTION: Notice of Availability of the 

Final Scope of Study for the 

Environmental Impact Statement. 

SUMMARY: On May 20, 2008, R.J. Corman 

Railroad Company/Pennsylvania Lines 

Inc. (RJCP) filed a petition with the 

Surface Transportation Board (Board) 

pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10502 for 

authority to construct and operate an 

abandoned 10.8-mile rail line between 

Wallaceton Junction and Winburne in 

Clearfield County, Pennsylvania (the 

Western Segment) and to reactivate a 

connecting 9.3-mile line between 

Winburne and Gorton in Clearfield and 

Centre Counties, Pennsylvania (the 

Eastern Segment) that is currently being 

used for interim trail use, subject to the 

possible restoration of rail service (rail 

banking) pursuant to the Trails Act, 16 

U.S.C. 1247(d). In total, the proposed 

project would involve the construction, 

rebuilding, and operation of 

approximately 20 miles of the former 

Beech Creek Rail Line to serve a new 

quarry, landfill, and industrial park 

being developed by Resource Recovery, 

LLC, near Gorton, Pennsylvania.1

Because this project has the potential 

to result in significant environmental 

impacts, the Board’s Section of 

Environmental Analysis (SEA) has 

determined that the preparation of an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

is appropriate pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq.). On January 8, 2009, SEA 

published a Notice of Intent (NOI) to 

prepare an EIS in the Federal Register 

announcing the start of the scoping 

process, the availability of the Draft 

Scope of Study, and the date/time/ 

location for a public scoping meeting. 

Invitation letters for the public scoping 

meeting were mailed to 31 federal, state, 

and local agencies, as well as local 

elected officials. Additionally, an 

advertisement was placed in two local 

area newspapers, the Centre Daily 

Times and the Progress News, to 

announce the public scoping meeting. 

Approximately 130 individuals 

attended the open-house scoping 

meeting held on February 10, 2009 at 

the Philipsburg-Osceola Area Senior 

High School in Philipsburg, 

Pennsylvania. In total, SEA received: 

• 100 comments from individuals 

attending the open house meeting; 

• 13 comment letters; and 

• 17 individual comments filed 

electronically on the Board’s Web site/ 

e-mail. 


PWALKER on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 146 / Friday, July 31, 2009 / Notices 38257 

Based on the comments received and 

further analysis, SEA has prepared the 

Final Scope of Study for the EIS, which 

is included in this notice. 

Address for Further Information: 

Written requests for further information 

on the proposed project should be 

directed to: Danielle Gosselin, Surface 

Transportation Board, 395 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20423. 

Electronic requests may be made via 

the Board’s Web site, http:// 

www.stb.dot.gov, by clicking on the 

‘‘E-FILING’’ link. Please refer to STB 

Finance Docket No. 35116 in all 

correspondence, including e-filings, 

addressed to the Board. 

Environmental Review Process: The 

NEPA environmental review process is 

intended to assist the Board and the 

public in identifying and assessing the 

potential environmental consequences 

of a proposed action before a decision 

on the proposed action is made. Based 

on the information provided in RJCP’s 

filing, and the project’s potential to 

result in significant environmental 

impacts, SEA (the office within the 

Board responsible for preparing the 

Board’s environmental documentation 

under NEPA, and related environmental 

statutes) has decided to prepare a full 

EIS. The EIS will include all of the 

environmental information necessary 

for the Board to take the hard look at 

environmental consequences required 

by NEPA. 

On January 8, 2009, SEA issued a NOI 

to individuals and agencies potentially 

interested in or affected by the proposed 

project informing them of the Board’s 

decision to prepare an EIS and to 

initiate the formal scoping process. In 

the NOI, SEA also made available the 

Draft Scope of Study and requested 

comments. A public scoping meeting 

was held and comments were received 

between January 8, 2009 and February 

24, 2009. After carefully reviewing the 

public comments, SEA is issuing this 

Final Scope of Study for the EIS. 

The Draft EIS will address the 

environmental issues and concerns 

identified during the scoping process 

and detailed in this Final Scope of 

Study. It will also include an analysis of 

project alternatives and preliminary 

recommendations for environmental 

mitigation measures. 

The Draft EIS will be made available 

upon its completion for review and 

comment by the public, government 

agencies, and other interested parties. A 

public meeting will be held during the 

comment period for the Draft EIS. The 

details of the public meeting, including 

the specific format, location, and date, 

will be available in the Draft EIS. SEA 

will then prepare a Final EIS that 

considers comments on the Draft EIS, 

sets forth any additional analyses, and 

makes final recommendations to the 

Board on appropriate mitigation 

measures. In reaching its decision in 

this case, the Board will take into 

account the full environmental record, 

including the Draft EIS, the Final EIS, 

and all timely environmental comments 

that are received. 

Discussion: The principal issues 

raised by commenters during scoping 

are briefly outlined and responded to 

below. Many of the comments 

submitted raised the same or similar 

issues. Thus, SEA has used the plural 

term, ‘‘commenters’’ to refer to all 

persons submitting comments, 

including individuals. 

Nature of the Public Scoping Meeting 

A number of comments were 

submitted relating to the format of the 

public scoping meeting held on 

February 10, 2009. Several commenters 

expressed disappointment in the openhouse/plans display meeting format 

used for the public scoping meeting. At 

the meeting, project personnel were 

staffed at display boards, and formal 

comment sheets were available. 

However, commenters indicated that 

they would have preferred a public 

meeting format with a formal project 

presentation followed by an audiencewide question and answer session. 

Many commenters noted that they did 

not feel as if they were able to 

effectively voice their concerns about 

the project. 

The open-house/plans display style of 

public meeting that was held in this 

case is often used in the early stages of 

project development to allow more 

individual interaction between the 

project study team and the public. The 

format used here is particularly 

appropriate for public scoping meetings, 

where one of the primary reasons for the 

meeting is for the project study team to 

gather important project-related 

information from the public, rather than 

to present the findings of detailed 

studies, which would not have occurred 

yet in the early stages of a project. SEA 

recognizes the importance of providing 

opportunities for public comment. All 

interested parties, agencies, government 

entities, and members of the general 

public will have the opportunity to 

submit written comments upon release 

of the Draft EIS and prior to issuance of 

the Final EIS and to participate at the 

additional public meeting that will be 

held in the project area when the Draft 

EIS has been issued. Therefore, 

attendees at the public scoping meeting 

who were disappointed with the 

scoping meeting format will have 

additional opportunities to express their 

views and concerns about this project as 

the environmental review process 

proceeds. 

Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Connected Action Issue 

Many of the concerns that emerged 

through the scoping process involved 

Resource Recovery’s proposed landfill, 

quarry and industrial park development 

near Gorton in Rush Township, Centre 

County, and the nature of the materials 

that would be transported by RJCP over 

the proposed rail line. In fact, the vast 

majority of comments received were 

related to Resource Recovery’s proposed 

landfill itself. Commenters indicated 

that they oppose the proposed landfill. 

In addition, a number of commenters 

requested that the Board expand the 

scope of the EIS to include the 

development of the landfill. These 

commenters argued that the proposed 

rail line and the landfill development 

should be considered connected actions 

under 40 CFR 1508.25. Commenters 

maintained that without the landfill, the 

rail line would not be commercially 

feasible. 

Based on the available information to 

date including additional information 

submitted by RJCP and information 

provided by the public, SEA has 

determined that expanding the scope of 

the EIS to include the landfill 

development as a connected action is 

not warranted. As indicated in the Draft 

Scope of Study, however, the landfill, 

quarry and industrial park will be 

appropriately examined in the Draft EIS 

as part of the cumulative impacts 

analysis for the proposed project. The 

Draft EIS will include further detailed 

discussion of this connected action 

issue as well. 

Alternate Route to Munson 

One commenter at the public scoping 

meeting suggested that an alternate 

route to Munson was available that 

would potentially avoid and minimize 

many of the socioeconomic, 

transportation and safety, noise, and 

land use impacts associated with RJCP’s 

proposed Western Segment, which 

stretches 10.8 miles between Wallaceton 

and Winburne. The alternate alignment, 

known as the Munson Alternative, 

would utilize approximately 7 miles of 

the former Conrail right of way last 

referred to as the Philipsburg Industrial 

Track. This route would extend south 

from Munson to a point near 

Philipsburg. Like the rest of the Western 

Segment, the Philipsburg Industrial 

Track was also part of the ‘‘Clearfield 

Cluster’’ abandoned by Conrail in 1995 


PWALKER on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
38258 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 146 / Friday, July 31, 2009 / Notices 

pursuant to ICC Docket No. AB–167 

(Sub-No. 1146X). The alternate 

alignment follows the Western Segment 

west from Winburne to Munson, but 

then heads south over the former 

Philipsburg Industrial Track. At the 

southern end of the Philipsburg 

Industrial Track, a new 2,500-foot 

connection would be constructed to tie 

into RJCP’s existing Wallaceton 

Subdivision line at or near milepost 

24.62. 

It appears that this alternate route 

would avoid and minimize a number of 

the potential environmental issues 

associated with RJCP’s Western Segment 

by impacting significantly fewer 

adjacent homes and by crossing fewer 

public roads and private drives. 

According to RJCP, this alternate route 

would provide rail service to several 

new shippers. Operationally, this 

alternative alignment would require 

approximately 4.5 miles of additional 

travel over RJCP’s active Wallaceton 

Subdivision (i.e., Wallaceton Junction to 

milepost 24.62 outside Philipsburg), but 

would involve slightly less construction 

activity (8 miles from Wallaceton to 

Munson reduced to 7 miles from 

Philipsburg to Munson plus 1⁄2 mile of 

new connecting track). Therefore, the 

Munson Alternative will be included for 

detailed study as part of the EIS 

alternatives analysis process. 

Environmental Impact Categories 

Transportation and Safety 

Some commenters expressed concern 

about RJCP’s planned transport of 

municipal solid waste over the 

proposed rail line, raising issues related 

to containment during transport, leakage 

during transport, and environmental 

damage/degradation associated with 

potential derailment. These issues will 

be included and evaluated as part of the 

transportation and safety section of the 

EIS. 

Air Quality 

Some commenters expressed concern 

about the potential for odors emanating 

from rail cars hauling municipal solid 

waste. To address these comments, the 

air quality scope of work has been 

revised to include a qualitative 

assessment of this issue. 

Biological Resources 

Some commenters expressed concern 

regarding the potential for vermin/ 

vectors and disease associated with the 

transport of municipal solid waste. 

Based on these comments, the biological 

resources scope of work has been 

revised to include an evaluation of this 

issue. 

Socioeconomics 

Some commenters raised concerns 

about quality of life issues for 

residential property owners adjacent to 

the proposed rail line. Quality of life 

issues for adjacent property owners will 

be evaluated and presented as part of 

the study of potential socioeconomic 

impacts of the project in the EIS. 

Final Scope of Study for the EIS 

Proposed Action and Alternatives 

The Proposed Action is the 

construction and operation of an 

abandoned 10.8-mile rail line between 

Wallaceton Junction and Winburne and 

the reactivation of 9.3 miles of currently 

rail banked line between Winburne and 

Gorton. The approximately 20 miles of 

track would allow RJCP to provide rail 

service to a proposed new landfill, 

quarry and industrial park being 

developed by Resource Recovery, LLC, 

near Gorton in Rush Township, Centre 

County, Pennsylvania. The anticipated 

train traffic would be two trains daily, 

with one train per day traveling in each 

direction. In addition to the Proposed 

Action, the EIS will analyze the 

potential impacts of two non-rail 

transportation options for the no-build 

alternative and a no-action alternative 

set forth below. Additionally, the 

Munson Alternative using the 

abandoned line of Conrail’s former 

Philipsburg Industrial Track will be 

evaluated in the EIS. 

Specifically, the reasonable and 

feasible alternatives that will be 

evaluated in the EIS are: (1) 

Construction and operation of the 

proposed rail line along the former 

Beech Creek line (including the 

alternate route to Munson using 

Conrail’s former Philipsburg Industrial 

Track), (2) the no-build alternative 

option 1 involving the construction of a 

new interchange on Interstate 80, (3) the 

no-build alternative option 2, involving 

improving the existing local road system 

(i.e., road paving, bridge replacement 

etc.), and (4) the no-action alternative 

(i.e., status quo, no rail construction and 

reactivation or roadway improvements). 

Environmental Impact Analysis 

Proposed New Construction and 

Reactivation and Operation of Rail 

Banked Line 

The EIS will address the proposed 

activities associated with the 

construction of new rail line, the 

reactivation of rail banked line and the 

operation of approximately 20 miles of 

rail line and potential environmental 

impacts, as appropriate. 

Impact Categories 

The EIS will analyze the potential 

impacts associated with the proposed 

project on both the human and natural 

environment, or in the case of the noaction alternative, the lack of these 

impacts. Impact areas to be addressed 

will include the following: 

Transportation and safety; land use; 

energy resources; air quality; noise; 

biological resources, including 

threatened and endangered species; 

water resources, including wetlands and 

other jurisdictional waters of the U.S.; 

socioeconomics as it relates to physical 

changes in the environment; recreation; 

environmental justice; geology and 

soils; and cultural/historic resources. 

The EIS will include a discussion of 

each of these categories as they 

currently exist in the project area and 

will address the potential impacts of 

each alternative on each category, as 

outlined below. 

1. Transportation and Safety 

The EIS will: 

a. Evaluate potential pedestrian and 

motor vehicle safety concerns at each 

public and private at-grade road 

crossing. 

b. Include a ‘‘level of service’’ (LOS) 

analysis, focusing on average vehicle 

delay time for all grade crossings having 

an average daily traffic volume of 5,000 

or more vehicles. 

c. Include an assessment of any 

appropriate safety measures that should 

be erected at each crossing. 

d. Assess the project’s operational 

safety (including the potential for 

derailments), taking into account the 

proposed line’s close proximity to 

residential structures. 

e. Evaluate the project’s consistency 

with local and regional transportation 

planning goals. 

f. Assess the potential for increased 

wildfires in remote forested areas as a 

result of daily rail operations. 

g. Propose mitigation measures to 

minimize or eliminate potential projectrelated impacts to safety, as appropriate. 

2. Land Use 

The EIS will: 

a. Identify existing land uses that 

would be potentially impacted by the 

project. 

b. Evaluate potential changes to 

property values of adjacent property 

owners that could result from the 

proposed project. 

c. Evaluate the project’s consistency 

with local and regional land use 

planning goals. 

d. Propose mitigation measures to 

minimize or eliminate potential impacts 

to land use, as appropriate. 


PWALKER on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 146 / Friday, July 31, 2009 / Notices 38259 

3. Energy Resources 

The EIS will: 

a. Describe the potential effects of the 

project on energy resources, recyclable 

commodities, and overall changes in 

energy efficiency. 

b. Propose mitigation measures to 

minimize or eliminate potential impacts 

to energy resources, as appropriate. 

4. Air Quality 

The EIS will: 

a. Quantitatively evaluate rail 

operation air emissions, if the project 

would affect a Class I or non-attainment 

or maintenance area as designated 

under the Clean Air Act. 

b. Qualitatively evaluate the potential 

temporary air quality impacts that 

would result from the proposed rail line 

construction activities. 

c. Qualitatively evaluate the potential 

for ambient odors that would be 

associated with the transport of 

municipal solid waste. 

d. Propose mitigation measures to 

minimize or eliminate potential projectrelated impacts to air quality, as 

appropriate. 

5. Noise/Vibration 

The EIS will: 

a. Quantitatively evaluate potential 

noise impacts, including the use of any 

auditory warning devices at public road 

crossings that would result from the 

proposed rail operations. 

b. Qualitatively evaluate the 

temporary noise impact that would 

result from the proposed rail line 

construction activities. 

c. Qualitatively evaluate potential 

vibration impacts to residences and 

businesses immediately adjacent to the 

proposed rail line. 

d. Propose mitigation measures to 

minimize or eliminate potential projectrelated impacts to sensitive noise 

receptors, (locations where people may 

be adversely affected by project-related 

noise), as appropriate. 

6. Biological Resources 

The EIS will: 

a. Evaluate the existing biological 

resources within the project area, 

including vegetative communities, 

terrestrial and aquatic habitats, and 

known wildlife species. 

b. Evaluate potential impacts of this 

project on any Federal or state 

threatened and endangered plant or 

animal species. 

c. Describe the proposed project’s 

impact on any wildlife sanctuaries, 

refuges, national and state parks/forests, 

or state game lands. 

d. Evaluate the potential for vermin/ 

vectors for disease that would be 

associated with the transport of 

municipal solid waste, as a result of this 

project. 

e. Document all coordination and 

consultation that has been conducted 

with Federal and state agencies having 

jurisdiction over biological resources. 

f. Propose mitigation measures to 

avoid, minimize or compensate for 

potential impacts to biological 

resources, as appropriate. 

7. Water Resources 

The EIS will: 

a. Describe the existing surface water 

resources that have been identified 

within the project area, including all 

jurisdictional wetlands and waterways 

and their regulatory floodplains. 

b. Evaluate project-related impacts to 

all jurisdictional surface water 

resources. 

c. Evaluate project-related impacts to 

all groundwater resources and public 

water supplies. 

d. Document the necessary Federal 

and state water resource/encroachment 

permitting requirements that would 

apply to the proposed project. 

e. Propose mitigation measures to 

avoid, minimize or compensate for 

potential impacts to water resources, as 

appropriate. 

8. Socioeconomics 

The EIS will: 

a. Summarize the existing local and 

regional socioeconomic conditions in 

the project area, including long-term 

population, housing and employment 

metrics. 

b. Document the locations of existing 

community facilities and services that 

have been identified within the project 

area. 

c. Evaluate the proposed project’s 

potential impact to socioeconomic 

conditions/community facilities and 

services within the project area, 

including a discussion of any issues, 

such as employment gains and losses 

that would result from the proposed 

project. 

d. Propose mitigation measures to 

avoid, minimize or compensate for 

potential impacts to regional 

socioeconomic factors, as appropriate. 

9. Recreation 

The EIS will: 

a. Identify existing public and private 

recreational facilities within the project 

area (including the Snow Shoe MultiUse Rail Trail), and evaluate the 

proposed project’s impact to these 

recreational facilities. 

b. Propose mitigation measures to 

avoid, minimize, or compensate for 

potential project-related impacts to 

recreational facilities, as appropriate. 

10. Environmental Justice 

The EIS will: 

a. Evaluate the potential project 

impacts on local and regional minority 

and low-income populations. 

b. Propose mitigation measures to 

minimize or eliminate potential project 

impacts on environmental justice 

populations, as appropriate. 

11. Geology and Soils 

The EIS will: 

a. Describe the geologic and soil 

conditions within the project area, 

including the status of past and present 

coal mining operations. 

b. Evaluate potential ways to avoid or 

construct through active surface mined 

areas, to the extent practicable. 

c. Propose mitigation measures to 

minimize or eliminate potential project 

impacts to geology and soils, as 

appropriate. 

12. Cultural/Historic Resources 

The EIS will: 

a. Document all historic resource 

eligibility and effect studies that have 

been conducted pursuant to Section 106 

of the National Historic Preservation 

Act. 

b. Document all coordination and 

consultation related to this project that 

has taken place with the state historic 

preservation officer. 

c. Propose mitigation measures to 

minimize or eliminate potential project 

impacts to cultural/historic resources, as 

appropriate. 

13. Cumulative and Indirect Impacts 

The EIS will: 

a. Address any identified potential 

cumulative impacts of the project, as 

appropriate. Cumulative impacts are the 

impacts on the environment which 

result from the incremental impact of 

the proposed action when added to 

other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions regardless of 

what agency (Federal or non-federal) or 

person undertakes such actions (for 

example, Resource Recovery, LLC’s 

proposed new landfill, quarry and 

industrial park). 

b. Address any identified potential 

indirect impacts of the project, as 

appropriate. Indirect impacts are 

impacts that are caused by the action 

and are later in time or farther removed 

in distance, but are still reasonably 

foreseeable. 

Decided: July 28, 2009. 

By the Board, Victoria Rutson, Chief, 

Section of Environmental Analysis. 

Kulunie L. Cannon, 

Clearance Clerk. 

[FR Doc. E9–18276 Filed 7–30–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4915–01–P 


PWALKER on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES