Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2010 / Notices 8683 

OSD Mailroom 3C843, Washington, DC 

20301–1160. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number for this Federal Register 

document. The general policy for 

comments and other submissions from 

members of the public is to make these 

submissions available for public 

viewing on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov as they are 

received without change, including 

personal identifiers or contact 

information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

William A. DeCicco, Clerk of the Court, 

telephone (202) 761–1448. 

Dated: February 19, 2010. 

Mitchell S. Bryman, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

Rule 21(b) 

A. Remove the first sentence of 

existing Rule 21(b) which currently 

reads: 

(b) The supplement to the petition 

shall be filed in accordance with the 

applicable time limit set forth in Rule 

19(a)(5)(A) or (B), shall include an 

Appendix containing a copy of the 

decision of the Court of Criminal 

Appeals, unpublished opinions cited in 

the brief, relevant extracts of rules and 

regulations, and shall conform to the 

provisions of Rules 24(b), 35A, and 37. 

B. Add the following to Rule 21(b) in 

its place: 

(b) The supplement to the petition 

shall be filed in accordance with the 

applicable time limit set forth in Rule 

19(a)(5)(A) or (B), shall include an 

Appendix containing a copy of the 

decision of the Court of Criminal 

Appeals, unpublished opinions cited in 

the brief, relevant extracts of rules and 

regulations, and shall conform to the 

provisions of Rules 35A and 37. Unless 

authorized by order of the Court or by 

motion of a party granted by the Court, 

the supplement and any answer thereto 

shall not exceed 25 pages, except that a 

supplement or answer containing no 

more than 9,000 words or 900 lines of 

text is also acceptable. Any reply to the 

answer shall not exceed 10 pages except 

that a reply containing 4,000 words or 

400 lines of text is also acceptable. 

C. The remainder of Rule 21(b) is 

unchanged except as noted below 

regarding Rule 21(b)(5)(G). 

Comment: The proposal to reduce the 

length of supplements, answers and 

replies would follow the practice at the 

Supreme Court of the United States 

where different limits apply to petitions 

for certiorari (9,000 words) and briefs 

following a grant of certiorari (15,000 

words). In exceptional cases, counsel 

would still be able to request to exceed 

the limit by motion under Rule 30. 

Rule 21(b)(5)(G) 

A. Rule 21(b)(5)(G) currently reads: 

(b) * * * The supplement shall 

contain: 

* * * (5) A direct and concise 

argument showing why there is good 

cause to grant the petition, 

demonstrating with particularity why 

the errors assigned are materially 

prejudicial to the substantial rights of 

the appellant. Where applicable, the 

supplement to the petition shall also 

indicate whether the court below has: 

* * * (G) taken inadequate corrective 

action after remand by the Court 

subsequent to grant of an earlier petition 

in the same case and that appellant 

wishes to seek review from the Supreme 

Court of the United States; * * * 

B. The proposed change is to remove 

subparagraph (G) and replace it with the 

following new subparagraph (G): 

* * * (G) taken inadequate corrective 

action after remand by the Court 

subsequent to grant of an earlier petition 

in the same case and that appellant 

wishes to seek review in the Supreme 

Court of the United States specifying the 

issue or issues on which certiorari 

review would be sought, whether 

related to the remand or to the original 

decision by this Court; * * * 

Comment: The recent practice of the 

Court has been to grant petitions for 

grant of review in cases that have been 

previously remanded to the convening 

authority or the Court of Criminal 

Appeals for corrective action and are 

returned to the Court on a second 

petition. The grant of review is intended 

to protect the right to seek certiorari 

review at the Supreme Court, and may 

be accompanied by a summary order of 

affirmance. The proposed change to the 

Rule would add a requirement that 

appellate defense counsel specify the 

issue or issues on which certiorari 

review would be sought, related to 

either the remand or the original 

decision of the Court. The amendment 

will make it clear that there is no right 

to further review in this Court in all 

remanded cases, and also provide a 

more orderly process for identifying the 

issues that are being preserved for 

review on petition for certiorari. The 

Court can then decide whether to grant 

and affirm or take other action it deems 

appropriate. 

Rule 21A 

Adopt new Rule 21A as follows: 

Rule 21A. Submissions Under United 

States v. Grostefon 

(a) Issues raised pursuant to United 

States v. Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 

1982), shall be presented in a separate 

Appendix to the supplement not to 

exceed 15 pages. 

(b) Grostefon issues shall be identified 

by counsel with particularity, 

substantially in the following form: 

Grostefon Issue Appendix 

Pursuant to United States v. 

Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982), 

appellant, through appellate defense 

counsel, personally requests that this 

Court consider the following matters: 

[List issues and any argument for each 

issue.] 

(c) Grostefon issues raised within 30 

days of the filing of the supplement 

under Rule 19(a)(5)(C) are subject to and 

included within the 15-page limit in 

this Rule. 

Comment: This new Rule is designed 

to fill a gap that currently exists in the 

Rules regarding page limits for 

submissions of personally asserted 

matters under Grostefon. The new Rule 

will allow counsel more than enough 

space to identify issues that the 

appellant wishes to raise and to attach 

any reasonably sized written submission 

that the appellant prepared. The 15-page 

limit is all-inclusive, i.e., all stated 

issues, argument, and written 

submissions from the appellant must 

not exceed a total of 15 pages. The Rule 

is consistent with Grostefon and allows 

counsel to describe the issues the 

appellant wants to raise, without 

needlessly burdening the Court with 

voluminous filings of material that 

would never be permitted for filings by 

counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2010–3818 Filed 2–24–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

AGENCY: Department of Education. 

SUMMARY: The Acting Director, 

Information Collection Clearance 

Division, Regulatory Information 

Management Services, Office of 

Management invites comments on the 

submission for OMB review as required 

by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995. 

DATES: Interested persons are invited to 

submit comments on or before March 

29, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments should 

be addressed to the Office of 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
8684 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2010 / Notices 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Attention: Education Desk Officer, 

Office of Management and Budget, 725 

17th Street, NW., Room 10222, New 

Executive Office Building, Washington, 

DC 20503, be faxed to (202) 395–5806 or 

e-mailed to 

oira_submission@omb.eop.gov with a 

cc: to ICDocketMgr@ed.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires 

that the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) provide interested 

Federal agencies and the public an early 

opportunity to comment on information 

collection requests. OMB may amend or 

waive the requirement for public 

consultation to the extent that public 

participation in the approval process 

would defeat the purpose of the 

information collection, violate State or 

Federal law, or substantially interfere 

with any agency’s ability to perform its 

statutory obligations. The Acting 

Director Information Clearance Official, 

Regulatory Information Management 

Services, Office of Management, 

publishes that notice containing 

proposed information collection 

requests prior to submission of these 

requests to OMB. Each proposed 

information collection, grouped by 

office, contains the following: (1) Type 

of review requested, e.g. new, revision, 

extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) 

Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) 

Description of the need for, and 

proposed use of, the information; (5) 

Respondents and frequency of 

collection; and (6) Reporting and/or 

Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites 

public comment. 

Dated: February 22, 2010. 

James Hyler, 

Acting Director, Information Collection 

Clearance Division, Regulatory Information 

Management Services, Office of Management. 

Office of Postsecondary Education 

Type of Review: New. 

Title: IEPS Fulbright-Hays Group 

Projects Abroad Customer Surveys. 

Frequency: On Occasion. 

Affected Public: Individuals or 

households. 

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour 

Burden: 

Responses: 1,829. 

Burden Hours: 809. 

Abstract: The purpose of this 

evaluation is to assess the impact of the 

Group Projects Abroad (GPA) program 

in enhancing the foreign language 

capacity of the United States. Three 

surveys will be conducted: a survey of 

the GPA Project Directors; A survey of 

2002–2008 GPA alumni; and a survey of 

2009 alumni. Results from the three 

surveys will inform the writing of a final 

report determining the impact of the 

GPA program. 

Requests for copies of the information 

collection submission for OMB review 

may be accessed from http:// 

edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the 

‘‘Browse Pending Collections’’ link and 

by clicking on link number 4182. When 

you access the information collection, 

click on ‘‘Download Attachments’’ to 

view. Written requests for information 

should be addressed to U.S. Department 

of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, 

SW., LBJ, Washington, DC 20202–4537. 

Requests may also be electronically 

mailed to the Internet address 

ICDocketMgr@ed.gov or faxed to 202– 

401–0920. Please specify the complete 

title of the information collection when 

making your request. 

Comments regarding burden and/or 

the collection activity requirements 

should be directed to 

ICDocketMgr@ed.gov. Individuals who 

use a telecommunications device for the 

deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1– 

800–877–8339. 

[FR Doc. 2010–3870 Filed 2–24–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

AGENCY: Department of Education. 

SUMMARY: The Acting Director, 

Information Collection Clearance 

Division, Regulatory Information 

Management Services, Office of 

Management invites comments on the 

submission for OMB review as required 

by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995. 

DATES: Interested persons are invited to 

submit comments on or before March 

29, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments should 

be addressed to the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Attention: Education Desk Officer, 

Office of Management and Budget, 725 

17th Street, NW., Room 10222, New 

Executive Office Building, Washington, 

DC 20503, be faxed to (202) 395–5806 or 

e-mailed to 

oira_submission@omb.eop.gov with a 

cc: to ICDocketMgr@ed.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires 

that the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) provide interested 

Federal agencies and the public an early 

opportunity to comment on information 

collection requests. OMB may amend or 

waive the requirement for public 

consultation to the extent that public 

participation in the approval process 

would defeat the purpose of the 

information collection, violate State or 

Federal law, or substantially interfere 

with any agency’s ability to perform its 

statutory obligations. The Acting 

Director, Information Collection 

Clearance Division, Regulatory 

Information Management Services, 

Office of Management, publishes that 

notice containing proposed information 

collection requests prior to submission 

of these requests to OMB. Each 

proposed information collection, 

grouped by office, contains the 

following: (1) Type of review requested, 

e.g., new, revision, extension, existing 

or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary 

of the collection; (4) Description of the 

need for, and proposed use of, the 

information; (5) Respondents and 

frequency of collection; and (6) 

Reporting and/or Recordkeeping 

burden. OMB invites public comment. 

Dated: February 22, 2010. 

James Hyler, 

Acting Director, Information Collection 

Clearance Official, Regulatory Information 

Management Services, Office of Management. 

Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services 

Type of Review: Revision. 

Title: Report on IDEA Part B 

Maintenance of Effort Reduction (34 

CFR 300.205(a)) and Coordinated Early 

Intervening Services (34 CFR 300.226). 

Frequency: Annually. 

Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal 

Gov’t, SEAs or LEAs. 

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour 

Burden: 

Responses: 60. 

Burden Hours: 1,032,480. 

Abstract: This package provides 

instructions and forms necessary for 

States to report on the provisions of 

coordinated early intervening services 

(CEIS) and maintenance of effort (MOE) 

reduction in IDEA. The form satisfies 

reporting requirements and is used by 

OSEP to monitor SEAs and for 

Congressional reporting. 

Requests for copies of the information 

collection submission for OMB review 

may be accessed from http:// 

edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the 

‘‘Browse Pending Collections’’ link and 

by clicking on link number 4146. When 

you access the information collection, 

click on ‘‘Download Attachments ’’ to 

view. Written requests for information 

should be addressed to U.S. Department 

of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES