8682 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2010 / Notices 

research in Central California. At that 

time, NMFS determined that conducting 

the seabird research would not have a 

significant impact on the quality of the 

human environment and issued a 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI) and, therefore, it was not 

necessary to prepare an environmental 

impact statement for the issuance of an 

IHA to PRBO for this activity. In 2008, 

NMFS prepared a supplemental EA 

(SEA) titled ‘‘Supplemental 

Environmental Assessment For The 

Issuance Of An Incidental Harassment 

Authorization To Take Marine 

Mammals By Harassment Incidental To 

Conducting Seabird And Pinniped 

Research In Central California And 

Environmental Assessment For The 

Continuation Of Scientific Research On 

Pinnipeds In California Under Scientific 

Research Permit 373–1868–00,’’ to 

address new available information 

regarding the effects of PRBO’s seabird 

and pinniped research activities that 

may have cumulative impacts to the 

physical and biological environment. At 

that time, NMFS concluded that 

issuance of an IHA for the December 

2008 through 2009 season would not 

significantly affect the quality of the 

human environment and issued a 

FONSI for the 2008 SEA regarding 

PRBO’s activities. In conjunction with 

this year’s application, NMFS has again 

reviewed the 2007 EA and the 2008 SEA 

and determined that there are no new 

direct, indirect or cumulative impacts to 

the human and natural environment 

associated with the IHA requiring 

evaluation in a supplemental EA and 

NMFS, therefore, reaffirms the 2008 

FONSI. A copy of the EA, SEA, and the 

NMFS FONSI for this activity is 

available upon request (see ADDRESSES). 

Authorization 

As a result of these determinations, 

NMFS has issued an IHA to PRBO to 

conduct seabird and pinniped research 

on Southeast Farallon Island, West End 

Island, An ̃ o Nuevo Island, and Point 

Reyes National Seashore in central 

California from February 19, 2010 

through February 18, 2011, provided the 

previously mentioned mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting requirements 

are incorporated. 

Dated: February 19, 2010. 

James H. Lecky, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–3893 Filed 2–24–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION 

Sunshine Act Meetings 

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: 

Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission (Commission). 

DATE AND TIME: Thursday, March 25, 

2010, commencing at 9 a.m. and ending 

at 3 p.m. 

PLACE: Three Lafayette Center, 1155 21st 

St., NW., Washington, DC, Lobby Level 

Hearing Room (Room 1000). 

STATUS: Open. 

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Public 

meeting to examine the trading of 

futures and options in the precious and 

base metals markets, and to consider 

Federal position limits in the precious 

and base metals markets and related 

hedge exemptions on regulated futures 

exchanges, derivatives transaction 

execution facilities and electronic 

trading facilities. 

CONTACT PERSONS AND ADDRESSES: 

Written materials should be mailed to 

the Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission, Three Lafayette Center, 

1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC, 

20581, attention Office of the 

Secretariat; transmitted by facsimile at 

202–418–5521; or transmitted 

electronically to 

metalshearing@cftc.gov. 

Reference should be made to ‘‘metals 

position limits.’’ For questions, please 

contact Sauntia Warfield, 202–418– 

5084. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission is undertaking a review of 

issues related to the trading of futures 

and options in the precious and base 

metals markets, and to consider Federal 

position limits in the precious and base 

metals markets and related hedge 

exemptions on regulated futures 

exchanges, derivatives transaction 

execution facilities and electronic 

trading facilities. In furtherance of that 

review, the Commission hereby 

announces that it will hold a public 

meeting on Thursday, March 25, 2010 

from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. at the Commission 

headquarters in Washington, DC. At this 

meeting the Commission will have oral 

presentations by panels of experts 

representing all segments of futures 

market participants and experts. 

This meeting will generally focus on 

precious and base metals markets 

issues, including: the application of 

speculative position limits to address 

the burdens of excessive speculation in 

the precious and base metals markets; 

how such limits should be structured; 

how such limits should be set; the 

aggregation of positions across different 

markets; and the types of exemptions, if 

any, that should be permitted. The focus 

will be on gold, silver and copper 

markets. 

A transcript of the meeting will be 

made and entered into the 

Commission’s public comment files, 

which will remain open for the receipt 

of written comments until April 30, 

2010. 

Advanced Registration Requested: 

Advanced registration for attending the 

metals meeting is requested. Please 

transmit full name and organization 

represented to 

metalsmeetingregistration@cftc.gov, no 

later than March 18, 2010. Upon arrival 

on March 25, 2010, all attendees will be 

required to show valid, governmentissued identification before being 

granted admittance. Unregistered 

attendees arriving on the day of the 

meeting will be seated on a space 

available basis. Overflow seating will be 

available for additional public viewing 

via live videocast. Registrants will be 

notified if attendance capacity has been 

met. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on February 22, 

2010 by the Commission. 

David Stawick, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–3968 Filed 2–23–10; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 6351–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Docket ID: DOD–2010–OS–0019] 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed 

Forces Proposed Rules Changes 

ACTION: Notice of proposed changes to 

the Rules of Practice and Procedure of 

the United States Court of Appeals for 

the Armed Forces. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces the 

following proposed changes to Rules 

21(b) and 21(b)(5)(G), and proposed new 

Rule 21A of the Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, United States Court of 

Appeals for the Armed Forces for public 

notice and comment. 

DATES: Comments on the proposed 

changes must be received within 30 

days of the date of this notice. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be 

submitted, identified by docket number 

and title, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

• Mail: Federal Docket Management 

System Office, 1160 Defense Pentagon, 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
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