Agencies and Commissions October 29, 2010 – Federal Register Recent Federal Regulation Documents

This notice lists the projects approved by rule by the Susquehanna River Basin Commission during the period set forth in DATES.

Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (Corporation) has been appointed the sole receiver for the following financial institutions effective as of the Date Closed as indicated in the listing. This list (as updated from time to time in the Federal Register) may be relied upon as ``of record'' notice that the Corporation has been appointed receiver for purposes of the statement of policy published in the July 2, 1992 issue of the Federal Register (57 FR 29491). For further information concerning the identification of any institutions which have been placed in liquidation, please visit the Corporation Web site at https:// www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/banklist.html or contact the Manager of Receivership Oversight in the appropriate service center.

Background. Notice is hereby given of the final approval of proposed information collections 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 (PRA) Submission, supporting statements and approved collection of information instrument(s) 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.

Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, as amended, (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), and NASA's NEPA policy and procedures (14 CFR Part 1216, subpart 1216.3), NASA has prepared and issued the Final PEIS for the proposed SRIPP at WFF. The U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement (BOEMRE), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have served as Cooperating Agencies in preparing the Final PEIS. NASA is proposing to implement a fifty-year design-life storm damage reduction project at its WFF on Wallops Island, Virginia. WFF is continuously faced with storm damage resulting in the implementation of emergency repairs. The project would be conducted to reduce the need for these emergency repairs and the potential for storm-induced physical damage to the over $1 billion in Federal and State assets on Wallops Island. The Final PEIS examines in detail three project action alternatives, each expected to provide substantial damage reduction from storms with intensities ranging up to approximately the 100-year return interval storm. Although some reduction in flooding can be expected under each alternative, the primary purpose of the proposal is not flood protection, rather it is moving destructive wave energy further away from the Wallops Island shoreline and the infrastructure behind it. Alternative One, NASA's preferred alternative, would include extending the existing Wallops Island seawall up to a maximum of 1,400 meters (m) (4,600 feet [ft]) south and placing an estimated 2.5 million cubic meters (MCM) (3.2 million cubic yards [MCY]) along the shoreline. Alternative Two would include the same seawall extension as Alternative One; however the sand placed along the shoreline would be less at approximately 2.2 MCM (2.9 MCY). Under this alternative, NASA would also construct a groin perpendicular to the shoreline at the south end of the project site to limit the volume of nearshore sand being transported from the restored Wallops Island beach to the south. Alternative Three would entail the same seawall extension as in Alternatives One and Two; however sand placement would be the least of the Alternatives at approximately 2.1 MCM (2.8 MCY). NASA would construct a single detached breakwater parallel to the shoreline at the south end of the project site to retain sand under Alternative Three. Under all three project alternatives, NASA would obtain the sand required for its initial beach nourishment from an unnamed shoal (referred to as Shoal A) located in Federal waters approximately 23 kilometers (km) (14 miles [mi]) east of Wallops Island. Sand for an expected nine future renourishment cycles could come from either Shoal A or a second offshore shoal in Federal waters referred to as Shoal B, approximately 31 km (19 mi) east of the project site. Additionally, NASA is considering transporting sand that accumulates on north Wallops Island to supplement its future renourishment needs (commonly known as ``backpassing''). It is estimated that up to half of the required renourishment volumes could be obtained from ``backpassing.'' The No Action Alternative is to not implement the WFF SRIPP, but to continue making emergency repairs to the existing Wallops Island seawall and infrastructure, as necessary.

The Commission is updating the postal product lists. This action reflects the disposition of recent dockets, as reflected in Commission orders, and a publication policy adopted in a recent Commission order. The referenced policy assumes periodic updates. The updates are identified in the body of this document. The product lists, which are re-published in their entirety, include these updates.

The Copyright Royalty Judges are soliciting comments on a motion of Phase I claimants for partial distribution in connection with the 2008 satellite royalty funds. The Judges are also requesting comments as to the existence of Phase I and Phase II controversies with respect to the distribution of 2008 satellite royalty funds.

The Board is amending Regulation E, which implements the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, and the official staff commentary to the regulation, in order to implement legislation that modifies the effective date of certain disclosure requirements in the gift card provisions of the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009.