Opinion ID: 165264
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Transboundary Effects

Text: 47 NEPA's requirement that an FEIS analyze the environmental impact of [a] proposed action, 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C)(i), includes an analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.8. FSW argues that the FEIS failed to adequately examine the transboundary effects of the GSX pipeline project: [t]hough FERC's final EIS contains a section entitled Canadian Impacts, FERC's analysis in that section does not satisfy either NEPA or CEQ's guidance. Pet'r's Opening Br. at 41. FSW failed to challenge the alleged failure to consider transboundary effects in its rehearing request. Accordingly, it is barred by § 19(b) from raising that issue before us. See Colo. Interstate Gas Co., 348 U.S. at 496-97, 75 S.Ct. 467 (refusing to consider an issue not raised in petitioner's request for rehearing before the Commission); Pan Am. Petroleum Corp., 268 F.2d at 830 (noting that [t]he presentation of a ground of objection in an application for rehearing by the Commission is an indispensable prerequisite to the exercise of power of judicial review of the order on such ground  (emphasis added)).