Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 7 / Friday, January 10, 2014 / Notices 1861 

the reworking of existing wells would 

not require the use of unique waste 

disposal or treatment technologies and 

would result in negligible impacts on 

the capacity and management of 

landfills and disposal facilities in the 

area. 

Potential Environmental Impacts of the 

No Action Alternative 

Under no action sub-alternative 1, 

Leucadia would build neither the 

Gasification Plant nor the Lake Charles 

CCS project. The resources necessary for 

construction would be available for 

construction of other industrial projects 

in this area or elsewhere. The Port of 

Lake Charles would continue to ship pet 

coke worldwide for use as fuel in power 

plants. The use of pet coke in 

conventional power plants would likely 

emit more air emissions than its use in 

the Gasification Plant because of the 

stringent emission requirements 

imposed on the plant compared to 

conventional power plants. 

Environmental conditions would not 

change. The impacts to the community 

from noise, traffic, air emissions, and 

disruption of land use, jobs, and 

economic development would not 

occur. The impacts on the environment 

from air emissions, disruption of 

wildlife, use of surface water, discharge 

of wastewater, and loss of wetlands 

would not occur. Denbury would 

continue to inject CO2 obtained from 

geologic sources in its ongoing EOR 

operations. The Lake Charles CCS 

project would not fund a research MVA 

program at the West Hastings oil field. 

Sub-alternative 1 of the no action 

alternative would not contribute to the 

demonstration of the next generation of 

technologies to capture CO2 from 

industrial sources. 

Under no action sub-alternative 2, 

Leucadia would build the Gasification 

Plant and vent the CO2 to the 

atmosphere. The impacts from the 

construction and operation of the 

Gasification Plant would still occur. 

Leucadia would still capture the CO2

from the syngas using Rectisol®. 

Leucadia would route the CO2 stream to 

discharge to the atmosphere under the 

current air permit issued by LDEQ. 

Approximately 5.2 million tons of CO2

would be emitted per year from the 

carbon capture technology that would 

otherwise be captured. Emissions 

produced by the construction of the 

pipeline, and indirect emissions 

associated with electricity use by the 

CO2 capture and compression facility, 

would not occur. No impacts related to 

construction of the CO2 pipeline would 

occur. Denbury would continue to inject 

CO2 obtained from geologic sources in 

its ongoing EOR operations. The Lake 

Charles CCS project would not fund a 

research MVA program at the West 

Hastings oil field. If the CCS project is 

not built, the opportunity to capture an 

average of 4.6 million tons of 

anthropogenic CO2 per year over the 30 

year life of the Gasification Plant for use 

in EOR would be lost. Sub-alternative 2 

would not contribute to DOE’s goal of 

demonstrating the next generation of 

technologies that capture CO2 emissions 

from industrial sources. 

Environmentally Preferred Alternative 

From a local perspective, no action 

sub-alternative 1 is the environmentally 

preferable alternative because it would 

result in no changes to existing 

environmental conditions. However, 

from a national perspective, DOE’s 

proposed action is the environmentally 

preferred alternative. Successful 

operation of the proposed project could 

facilitate the deployment of advanced 

technology integrated with an industrial 

source to capture CO2 that would 

otherwise be emitted to the atmosphere. 

Floodplain Statement of Findings 

DOE prepared this floodplain 

statement of findings in accordance 

with its regulations entitled 

‘‘Compliance With Floodplain and 

Wetland Environmental Review 

Requirements’’ (10 CFR 1022). DOE 

completed the required floodplain 

assessment in coordination with 

development and preparation of the EIS, 

and incorporated the results and 

discussion in Sections 3.4, 4.4, and 

Appendix E of the final EIS. 

Based on the FEMA Flood Insurance 

Map and Rita Recovery Maps, the 

Gasification Plant and the CO2 Capture 

and Compression facilities site’s 

Advisory Base Flood Elevation (ABFE) 

is 10 feet above mean sea level (MSL). 

The Gasification Plant and Capture and 

Compression site would be filled to an 

elevation that is above the ABFE. The 

120-acre area, which would include 40 

acres for equipment laydown during 

construction and methanol/sulfuric acid 

storage during operation, is within the 

100-year floodplain of the Calcasieu 

River. DOE assumes that the site would 

continue to be filled above the base 

flood elevation set by FEMA. Given the 

relative size of the 70-acre site and the 

40-acre site compared to the designated 

floodway of 8 miles along the Calcasieu 

ship channel and 3,976 acres drainage 

area, the fill would not result in a 

measurable increase in the upstream 

base flood elevation as determined by 

FEMA, nor have a measurable effect on 

the performance of the designated 

floodway. The proposed water and 

hydrogen pipelines associated with 

Gasification Plant would be installed 

below ground within the 100-year 

floodplain of Bayou d’Inde and 

Calcasieu River. 

The proposed CCS CO2 pipeline route 

is located in proximity to the 

floodplains of Bayou d’Inde, the 

Houston River, and the Calcasieu River, 

and much of the proposed route is 

located within 100-year floodplains of 

the Calcasieu River and its tributaries. 

The proposed pipeline would be 

installed below ground, therefore no 

alteration of infiltration rates and no 

substantial decrease in the volume of 

surface water that flows downstream 

would result. 

Approximately one-third of the West 

Hastings research MVA area, including 

two proposed well locations, is within 

the 100-year floodplain of Chigger 

Creek. However, research MVA 

activities would not increase the 

potential for floods, alter a floodway or 

floodplain, or otherwise impede or 

redirect flows such that human health, 

the environment, or personal property 

could be affected. Activities would be 

conducted on existing wells and no new 

construction would occur. 

As a result of location requirements, 

i.e., being adjacent to navigable waters 

and existing rail, road, and pipeline 

infrastructure, the proposed project and 

connected action were found to have no 

practicable siting alternatives. Based 

upon DOE’s review and the project 

proponents’ coordination with the local 

floodplain administrator and local 

USACE District, and adoption of 

minimization measures, DOE’s 

proposed action would not result in 

potential harm to or within floodplains. 

Issued in Pittsburgh, PA on this 28 day of 

December 2013. 

Scott M. Klara, 

Acting Director, National Energy Technology 

Laboratory. 

[FR Doc. 2014–00299 Filed 1–9–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[ER–FRL–9012–9] 

Environmental Impact Statements; 

Notice of Availability 

Responsible Agency: Office of Federal 

Activities, General Information (202) 

564–7146 or http://www.epa.gov/

compliance/nepa/. 

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact 

Statements filed 12/30/2013 through 

01/03/2014 pursuant to 40 CFR 

1506.9. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

1862 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 7 / Friday, January 10, 2014 / Notices 

1See 12 U.S.C. 1424(a), 1430(a). 

2See 12 U.S.C. 1422(10)(A); 12 CFR 1263.1. 

3See 12 U.S.C. 1422(10); 12 CFR 1263.1 (defining 

the term CFI asset cap). 

4See 78 FR 19262 (Mar. 29, 2013). 

Notice 

Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act 

requires that EPA make public its 

comments on EISs issued by other 

Federal agencies. EPA’s comment letters 

on EISs are available at: http://

www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/

eisdata.html. 

EIS No. 20130384, Draft Supplement, 

USFS, NV, Ely Westside Rangeland 

Project, Comment Period Ends: 02/24/ 

2014, Contact: Vernon Keller 775– 

335–5336 

EIS No. 20140000, Draft EIS, USACE, 

NC, Village of Bald Head Island 

Shoreline Protection Project, 

Comment Period Ends: 02/24/2014, 

Contact: Ronnie Smith 910–251–4829 

EIS No. 20140001, Draft EIS, APHIS, 00, 

Determinations of Nonregulated 

Status for 2, 4–D–Resistant Corn and 

Soybean Varieties, Comment Period 

Ends: 02/24/2014, Contact: Sid Abel 

301–734–6352 

Dated: January 7, 2014. 

Cliff Rader, 

Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office 

of Federal Activities. 

[FR Doc. 2014–00214 Filed 1–9–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE 

AGENCY 

[No. 2014–N–01] 

Notice of Annual Adjustment of the 

Cap on Average Total Assets That 

Defines Community Financial 

Institutions 

AGENCY: Federal Housing Finance 

Agency. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Housing Finance 

Agency (FHFA) has adjusted the cap on 

average total assets that defines a 

‘‘Community Financial Institution’’ 

based on the annual percentage increase 

in the Consumer Price Index for all 

urban consumers (CPI–U) as published 

by the Department of Labor (DOL). 

These changes took effect on January 1, 

2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nathan D. Wallingford, Division of 

Federal Home Loan Bank Regulation, 

(202) 649–3630, Nathan.Wallingford@

fhfa.gov, or Eric M. Raudenbush, 

Assistant General Counsel, (202) 649– 

3084, Eric.Raudenbush@fhfa.gov, (not 

toll-free numbers), Federal Housing 

Finance Agency, Constitution Center, 

400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, 

DC 20024. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Statutory and Regulatory Background 

The Federal Home Loan Bank Act 

(Bank Act) confers upon insured 

depository institutions that meet the 

statutory definition of a ‘‘Community 

Financial Institution’’ (CFI) certain 

advantages over non-CFI insured 

depository institutions in qualifying for 

Federal Home Loan Bank (Bank) 

membership, and in the purposes for 

which they may receive long-term 

advances and the collateral they may 

pledge to secure advances.1 Section 

2(10)(A) of the Bank Act and § 1263.1 of 

FHFA’s regulations define a CFI as any 

Bank member the deposits of which are 

insured by the Federal Deposit 

Insurance Corporation and that has 

average total assets below a statutory 

cap.2 The Bank Act was amended in 

2008 to set the statutory cap at $1 

billion and to require the Director of 

FHFA to adjust the cap annually to 

reflect the percentage increase in the 

CPI–U, as published by the DOL, for the 

prior year.3 For 2013, FHFA set the CFI 

asset cap at $1,095,000,000, which 

reflected a 1.8 percent increase over 

2012, based upon the increase in the 

CPI–U between 2011 and 2012.4

II. The CFI Asset Cap for 2014 

As of January 1, 2014, FHFA has 

increased the CFI asset cap from 

$1,095,000,000 to $1,108,000,000, 

which reflects a 1.2 percent increase in 

the unadjusted CPI–U from November 

2012 to November 2013. The new 

amount was obtained by rounding to the 

nearest million, as has been the practice 

for all prior adjustments. Consistent 

with the practice of other Federal 

agencies, FHFA bases the annual 

adjustment to the CFI asset cap on the 

percentage increase in the CPI–U from 

November of the year prior to the 

preceding calendar year to November of 

the preceding calendar year, because the 

November figures represent the most 

recent available data as of January 1st of 

the current calendar year. 

In calculating the CFI asset cap, FHFA 

uses CPI–U data that have not been 

seasonally adjusted (i.e., the data have 

not been adjusted to remove the 

estimated effect of price changes that 

normally occur at the same time and in 

about the same magnitude every year). 

The DOL encourages use of unadjusted 

CPI–U data in applying ‘‘escalation’’ 

provisions such as that governing the 

CFI asset cap, because the factors that 

are used to seasonally adjust the data 

are amended annually, and seasonally 

adjusted data that are published earlier 

are subject to revision for up to five 

years following their original release. 

Unadjusted data are not routinely 

subject to revision, and previously 

published unadjusted data are only 

corrected when significant calculation 

errors are discovered. 

Dated: January 3, 2014. 

Edward J. DeMarco, 

Acting Director, Federal Housing Finance 

Agency. 

[FR Doc. 2014–00193 Filed 1–9–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8070–01–P 

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Announcement of Board 

Approval Under Delegated Authority 

and Submission to OMB 

AGENCY: Board of Governors of the 

Federal Reserve System 

SUMMARY: Background. Notice is hereby 

given of the final approval of a proposed 

information collection by the Board of 

Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System (Board) under OMB delegated 

authority, as per 5 CFR 1320.16 (OMB 

Regulations on Controlling Paperwork 

Burdens on the Public). Board-approved 

collections of information are 

incorporated into the official OMB 

inventory of currently approved 

collections of information. Copies of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act Submission, 

supporting statements and approved 

collection of information instruments 

are placed into OMB’s public docket 

files. The Federal Reserve may not 

conduct or sponsor, and the respondent 

is not required to respond to, an 

information collection that has been 

extended, revised, or implemented on or 

after October 1, 1995, unless it displays 

a currently valid OMB control number. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Federal Reserve Board Clearance 

Officer—Cynthia Ayouch—Office of the 

Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors 

of the Federal Reserve System, 

Washington, DC 20551 (202–452–3829) 

Telecommunications Device for the Deaf 

(TDD) users may contact (202–263– 

4869), Board of Governors of the Federal 

Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551. 

OMB Desk Officer—Shagufta 

Ahmed—Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget, New 

Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 

725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 

20503. 

Final approval under OMB delegated 

authority of the revision, without 

extension, of the following reports: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES