22898 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 93 / Friday, May 15, 2009 / Notices 

RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES: 

Individuals seeking to access records 

about themselves contained in this 

system of records should address 

written inquiries to the Privacy Act 

Office, Headquarters, Defense Logistics 

Agency, ATTN: DGA, 8725 John J. 

Kingman Road, Suite 1644, Fort Belvoir, 

VA 22060–6221 or the Privacy Act 

Office of the DLA field activity 

involved. Official mailing addresses are 

published as an appendix to DLA’s 

compilation of systems of records 

notices. 

Written requests for information 

should contain name, Social Security 

Number (SSN), mailing address and 

telephone number. 

CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES: 

The DLA rules for accessing records, 

for contesting contents, and appealing 

initial agency determinations are 

contained in 32 CFR part 323, or may 

be obtained from the Privacy Act Office, 

Headquarters, Defense Logistics Agency, 

ATTN: DGA, 8725 John J. Kingman 

Road, Suite 1644, Fort Belvoir, VA 

22060–6221. 

RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: 

Data is supplied by the individual and 

public safety personnel. Data for child 

identification badges is provided by the 

parent. 

EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED FOR THE SYSTEM: 

None. 

[FR Doc. E9–11354 Filed 5–14–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Docket ID: DOD–2009–OS–0061] 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed 

Forces Proposed Rules Changes 

AGENCY: Department of Defense. 

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Changes to 

the Rules of Practice and Procedure of 

the United States Court of Appeals for 

the Armed Forces and Implementation 

of a New Electronic Filing Program. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces the 

following proposed changes to Rules 

19(a)(5), 20(e), 21(c)(2), 37(a), 37(b)(2), 

and 40(b)(3) of the Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, United States Court of 

Appeals for the Armed Forces and 

implementation of a new electronic 

filing program for public notice and 

comment. On April 30, 2009, at 74 FR 

19947, the Department of Defense 

published a notice of this same title. 

The SUMMARY section stated that ‘‘new 

language is in bold print’’ but the notice 

did not contain bold print. This notice 

identifies those changes made. 

DATES: Comments on the proposed 

changes must be received within 30 

days of the date of this corrected notice. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by docket number and/or 

Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 

and title by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

• Mail: Federal Docket Management 

System Office, 1160 Defense Pentagon, 

OSD Mailroom 3C843, Washington, DC 

20301–1160. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number or RIN 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: May 12, 2009. 

Morgan E. Frazier, 

Alternate OSD Federal Liaison Officer, 

Department of Defense. 

Rule 19(a)(5): 

Amend Rule 19 (a)(5) by: 

A. Removing the existing paragraphs 

(A) and (B) which currently read: 

‘‘(A) Article 62, UCMJ, appeals. In 

cases involving a decision by a Court of 

Criminal Appeals on appeal by the 

United States under Article 62, UCMJ, 

10 USC § 862, a supplement to the 

petition establishing good cause in 

accordance with Rule 21 shall be filed 

no later than 20 days after the issuance 

by the Clerk of a notice of docketing of 

such a petition for grant of review. See 

Rule 10(c). An appellee’s answer to the 

supplement to the petition for grant of 

review shall be filed no later than 10 

days after the filing of such supplement. 

A reply may be filed by the appellant no 

later than 5 days after the filing of the 

appellee’s answer. 

(B) Other appeals. In all other appeal 

cases, a supplement to the petition 

establishing good cause in accordance 

with Rule 21 shall be filed no later than 

30 days after the issuance by the Clerk 

of a notice of docketing of a petition for 

grant of review. See Rule 10(c). An 

appellee’s answer to the supplement to 

the petition for grant of review may be 

filed no later than 30 days after the 

filing of such supplement. See Rule 

21(e). A reply may be filed by the 

appellant no later than 10 days after the 

filing of the appellee’s answer.’’ 

B. And by adding new paragraphs (A) 

and (B) in their place, to read as follows: 

(A) In all cases where the petition is 

filed by counsel, a supplement to the 

petition establishing good cause in 

accordance with Rule 21 shall be filed 

contemporaneously with the petition. 

Motions for enlargement of time to file 

the supplement, while disfavored, will 

be granted for good cause shown. An 

appellee’s answer to the supplement to 

the petition, except for cases on appeal 

by the United States under Article 62, 

UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 862 (2000), may be 

filed no later than 20 days after the 

filing of the supplement. See Rule 21(e). 

A reply may be filed by the appellant no 

later than 5 days after the filing of 

appellee’s answer. An appellee’s answer 

to the supplement in a case under 

appeal by the United States under 

Article 62, UCMJ, may be filed no later 

than 10 days after the filing of the 

supplement; an appellant may file a 

reply no later than 5 days after the filing 

of appellee’s answer. 

(B) In all cases where the petition is 

filed by the appellant, a supplement to 

the petition shall be filed by counsel no 

later than 20 days after the issuance by 

the Clerk of a notice of docketing of the 

petition. See Rule 10(c). An appellee’s 

answer to the supplement to the petition 

and an appellant’s reply may be filed in 

accordance with the time limits 

contained in Rule 19(a)(5)(A). 

Comment: The changes will accelerate 

the case disposition process. The 

accelerated time limits are accompanied 

with a provision to obtain extensions for 

good cause shown to address concerns 

that there may be circumstances where 

additional time may be justified. 

Rule 20(e): 

Amend Rule 20(e) by: 

A. Removing the existing paragraph 

(e) which currently reads: 

‘‘(e) Upon issuance by the Clerk under 

Rule 10(c) of a notice of docketing of a 

petition for grant of review counsel for 

the appellant shall file a supplement to 

the petition in accordance with the 

applicable time limit set forth in Rule 

19(a)(5)(A) or(B), and the provisions of 

Rule 21.’’ 

B. And by adding new paragraph (e) 

in its place, to read as follows: 

(e) Upon issuance by the Clerk under 

Rule 10(c) of a notice of docketing of a 

petition for grant of review filed 

personally by an appellant, counsel for 

the appellant shall file a supplement to 

the petition in accordance with the 

applicable time limit set forth in Rule 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 93 / Friday, May 15, 2009 / Notices 22899 

19(a)(5)(B), and the provisions of Rule 

21. 

Comment: This change is a 

conforming amendment to bring Rule 

20(e) into alignment with the change in 

Rule 19(a)(5). 

Rule 21(c)(2): 

Amend Rule 21(c)(2) by: 

A. Removing the existing paragraph 

(c)(2) which currently reads: 

‘‘(2) Answer/reply in other appeals. 

An appellee’s answer to the supplement 

to the petition for grant of review in all 

other appeal cases may be filed no later 

than 30 days after the filing of the 

supplement; see Rule 21(e); (remainder 

of paragraph is unchanged).’’ 

B. And by adding new paragraph 

(c)(2) in its place, to read as follows: 

(2) Answer/reply in other appeals. An 

appellee’s answer to the supplement to 

the petition for grant of review in all 

other appeal cases may be filed no later 

than 20 days after the filing of the 

supplement; see Rule 21(e); (remainder 

of paragraph is unchanged). 

Comment: This change conforms Rule 

21(c)(2) to the change in Rule 19(a)(5). 

Rules 37(a) and 37(b)(2): 

Amend Rules 37(a) and 37(b)(2) by: 

A. Removing the existing paragraphs 

37(a) and 37(b)(2) which currently read: 

‘‘(a) Printing. Except for records of 

trial and as otherwise provided by Rules 

24(f) and 27(a)(4), all pleadings and 

other papers relative to a case shall be 

typewritten and double-spaced, printed 

on one side only on white unglazed 

paper, 8.5 by 11 inches in size, securely 

fastened in the top left corner. 

(b)(2) An original and 7 legible copies 

of all pleadings or other papers relative 

to a case shall be filed.’’ 

B. And by adding new paragraphs 

37(a) and 37(b)(2) in their place, to read 

as follows: 

(a) Printing. Except for records of trial 

and as otherwise provided by Rules 

24(f) and 27(a)(4) or any order of the 

Court regarding the electronic filing of 

pleadings, all pleadings and other 

papers relative to a case shall be 

typewritten and double-spaced, printed 

on one side only on white unglazed 

paper, 8.5 by 11 inches in size, securely 

fastened in the top left corner. 

(b)(2) Except for electronically filed 

pleadings, an original and 7 legible 

copies of all pleadings or other papers 

relative to a case shall be filed. 

Comment: These changes are 

proposed to account for orders of the 

Court pertaining to electronic filing of 

pleadings. 

Rule 40(b)(3): 

Amend Rule 40(b)(3) by: 

A. Removing the existing paragraph 

40(b)(3) which currently reads: 

‘‘(3) Time allowed. Each side will 

normally be allotted 30 minutes to 

present oral argument.’’ 

B. And by adding new paragraph 

40(b)(3) in its place, to read as follows: 

(3) Time allowed. Each side will 

normally be allotted 20 minutes to 

present oral argument. 

Comment: This change is proposed to 

bring the rule into conformance with 

recent court practice. 

And also by adding the following: 

Proposed Order on Electronic Filing 

Effective (date), the following 

pleadings may be filed on paper or 

electronically in accordance with the 

guidelines attached to this Order: 

(a) petitions for grant of review filed 

by counsel under Rule 18(a)(1); 

(b) supplements to petitions for grant 

of review filed under Rule 21; 

(c) answers (including 10-day letters 

to the Clerk) and replies filed under 

Rule 21(c); and 

(d) motions filed under Rule 30 that 

concern the pleadings described in 

paragraphs (a)–(c), and replies thereto, 

when such motions are filed prior to the 

Court’s action granting or denying a 

petition for grant of review. 

It is further ordered that the Orders 

pertaining to electronic filing issued on 

May 8, 2003 (58 M.J. 282) and August 

5, 2004 (60 M.J. 308) are hereby 

rescinded, effective (date). 

Proposed Guidelines for Electronic 

Filing of Pleadings 

1. Scope 

The United States Court of Appeals 

for the Armed Forces adopts the 

following provisions to govern the filing 

of the documents described in 

paragraphs (a)–(d) of the order 

(hereinafter collectively referred to as 

‘‘petition documents’’): 

a. This Order applies to all petition 

documents filed electronically on or 

after (date). An appendix to the 

supplement to the petition for grant of 

review (containing the decision of the 

Court of Criminal Appeals, matters 

submitted pursuant to United States v. 

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

and other required matter) is included 

in this requirement to be filed 

electronically unless it consists of more 

than 50 pages. In such a case, the 

appendix may be submitted on paper 

and the supplement submitted 

electronically. In lieu of submitting an 

appendix in excess of 50 pages on 

paper, counsel may submit it in a CD or 

DVD format and note in the supplement 

that it is being filed in that format under 

separate cover. Record matters in the 

form of video media on CD–ROM or 

DVD may be submitted in a separate 

volume of the appendix that is filed in 

accordance with Rule 21(b). 

b. A petition for grant of review filed 

personally by an appellant shall be filed 

on paper as provided under Rule 20(a). 

All subsequent petition documents filed 

by counsel in such a case may be filed 

on paper or electronically except as 

provided in section 1.c of these 

guidelines. 

c. This Order does not provide for 

electronic filing of documents 

concerning other matters, such as 

documents concerning certified cases; 

mandatory review cases; writ-appeal 

petitions; petitions for extraordinary 

relief; petitions for new trial; and 

petitions for reconsideration. In a case 

arising under Article 67(a)(3), UCMJ, 

(petitions for grant of review), the Order 

permits electronic filing only with 

respect to documents filed before the 

Court issues an order granting or 

denying review. 

2. Electronic Filing Address 

Counsel shall file petition and motion 

documents at the following e-mail 

address: (to be filled 

in)@armfor.uscourts.gov. 

For questions or help concerning the 

electronic filing of pleadings, counsel 

should contact the Clerk’s Office at 

(202) 761–1448. 

3. Procedure 

a. The electronic filing of a petition 

document shall be deemed filed as of 

the date and time of the transmission of 

the electronic mail message. 

b. The electronic mail message shall 

contain the following in the subject 

block: (1) The name of the case; (2) the 

docket number if a docket number has 

been assigned; and (3) the words 

‘‘electronic filing.’’ A description of 

what is being attached will be included 

in the body of the electronic mail 

message. 

c. The pleading shall be attached to 

the electronic mail message in Portable 

Document Format (PDF), and, when 

printed, shall be in compliance with the 

Rules of Practice and Procedure of the 

Court. 

d. Counsel shall send an electronic 

copy of the message and all attachments 

to opposing counsel to accomplish 

service of the pleading under Rule 39. 

This may be accomplished by listing 

opposing counsel as a ‘‘cc’’ recipient of 

the electronic message. 

e. The pleading attached to an 

electronic filing shall contain the 

conformed signature (‘‘/s/’’) or digital 

signature of the attorney of record. This 

will comply with Rule 38. 

22900 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 93 / Friday, May 15, 2009 / Notices 

f. If a pleading is filed electronically 

in accordance with this Order, the party 

is not required to prepare and file 

printed copies under Rules 37(a) and 

37(b)(2). The Court will send a reply 

electronic message to the sender 

indicating receipt of the electronic 

filing. 

g. Classified material and material 

under seal will not be filed 

electronically. If such matters need to be 

filed, they will be submitted to the 

Court on paper as a supplemental filing 

to the document in which they would 

otherwise appear. In such cases, counsel 

will include in the text of the electronic 

mail message a notation that classified 

or sealed material is being separately 

submitted. The classified or sealed 

material will be appropriately packaged, 

marked and delivered, and will include 

a notation that it accompanies an 

electronic filing in the case. All 

classified material will be handled in 

accordance with Rule 12. 

h. Counsel must refrain from 

including and shall redact the following 

personal data identifiers from 

documents filed with the Court: 

• Social security numbers 

• Names of minors 

• Dates of birth 

• Financial account numbers 

• Home addresses. 

i. Upon the entry of an order granting 

or denying an electronically filed 

petition for grant of review, the Clerk 

will electronically transmit a copy of the 

order to counsel. 

Comment: Appellate courts are 

increasingly providing for electronic 

filing of pleadings. This proposal will 

permit electronic filing of pleadings at 

the petition stage of cases before the 

Court. By making the program optional, 

the rules provide for circumstances in 

which counsel may find it necessary to 

file on paper. 

[FR Doc. E9–11324 Filed 5–14–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of Navy 

Notice of Intent To Prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

TRIDENT Support Facilities Explosives 

Handling Wharf, Naval Base KitsapBangor, Silverdale, Kitsap County, WA 

and To Announce Public Scoping 

Meeting 

AGENCY: Department of Navy, DoD. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 102 of the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969, and the regulations implemented 

by the Council on Environmental 

Quality (40 CFR parts 1500–1508), the 

Department of Navy (Navy) announces 

its intent to prepare an Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate the 

potential environmental impacts 

associated with the construction and 

operation of a proposed new Explosives 

Handling Wharf (EHW) located adjacent 

to, but separate from, the existing EHW 

on Hood Canal, NBK-Bangor, WA, to 

support TRIDENT submarines. 

The proposed action consists of inwater and land-based construction 

including a covered ordnance 

operations area, a support building on 

the wharf, and a warping wharf. A 

warping wharf is a long narrow wharf 

extension used to position submarines 

prior to moving into the operations area 

of the EHW. 

As part of the U.S. Navy’s sea-based 

strategic deterrence mission, the Navy 

Strategic Systems Programs (SSP) 

directs research, development, 

manufacturing, test, evaluation, and 

operational support of the TRIDENT 

Fleet Ballistic Missile program. SSP is 

the Action Proponent and the Navy is 

the lead agency for this project. 

On June 10, 2008, the Navy provided 

notice in the Federal Register (73 FR 

32682) of its intent to prepare an EIS for 

a TRIDENT Support Facilities EHW and 

to announce a public scoping meeting. 

On June 30, 2008, the Navy provided 

notice in the Federal Register (73 FR 

36847) of its decision to cancel the June 

10, 2008 Notice of Intent. The Notice of 

Intent was cancelled to allow the Navy 

the opportunity to review and validate 

the need for the project and identify 

other alternative solutions to the 

proposed construction. After a thorough 

review, the Navy has now revalidated 

the requirement for a second EHW at 

NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor. 

The Navy will hold three public 

scoping meetings for the purpose of 

further identifying the scope of issues to 

be addressed in the EIS. Federal, State, 

and local agencies and the public are 

invited to participate in the scoping 

process for the EIS. Comments are being 

solicited to help identify significant 

issues or concerns related to the 

proposed action, determine the scope of 

issues to be addressed in the EIS, and 

identify and refine alternatives to the 

proposed action. 

The Navy will conduct public scoping 

meetings to receive oral and/or written 

comments on environmental concerns 

that should be addressed in the EIS. The 

public scoping meetings will be 

conducted in English and will be 

arranged in an informal, open house 

format. Attendees will be asked to sign 

in and will be directed to various 

stations manned by Navy 

representatives and technical staff who 

will provide information and answer 

questions. Several large display boards 

will be located throughout the meeting 

locations to assist attendees in 

understanding the project and the 

alternatives. A comment table, supplied 

with comment sheets, will be placed in 

an easily accessible and comfortable 

location. Fact sheets about the project 

and alternatives will be available to 

participants. 

DATES: Dates and Addresses: The public 

scoping meetings will be held from 5:30 

p.m. to 8:30 p.m. on the following dates 

and locations: 

1. June 23, 2009 at the Poulsbo Fire 

Station Main Headquarters, 

Multipurpose Room, 911 NE. Liberty 

Road, Poulsbo, WA; 

2. June 24, 2009 at the Port Ludlow 

Fire Station 31, Training Room, 7650 

Oak Bay Road, Port Ludlow, WA; 

3. June 25, 2009 at the John Stanford 

Center for Educational Excellence, 

Auditorium, 2445 3rd Avenue South, 

Seattle WA. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Patrick Grzelak, Public Affairs Officer, 

Department of the Navy, Strategic 

Systems Programs, 2521 South Clark 

Street, Suite 1000, Arlington, VA 

22202–3930, telephone: 703–601–9008, 

e-mail at: nbkehweis@ssp.navy.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

purpose of the proposed action is to 

support current and future TRIDENT 

Fleet Ballistic Missile program 

requirements at NAVBASE Kitsap 

Bangor, WA. The proposed action is to 

construct and operate a proposed new 

EHW located adjacent to, but separate 

from, the existing EHW on Hood Canal 

to support TRIDENT submarines. A new 

EHW is needed to ensure the Navy has 

the facilities required to offload/load 

missiles and perform routine operations 

and upgrades necessary to maintain the 

TRIDENT program. 

As part of the U.S. Navy’s sea-based 

strategic deterrence mission, the 

TRIDENT submarines play a critical role 

of great strategic importance for the U.S. 

The Navy has only two Strategic 

Weapons Facilities for TRIDENT 

submarines. One in the Atlantic located 

in Kings Bay, Georgia and one in the 

Pacific located in Bangor, Washington. 

The Bangor facility has over time been 

upgraded, converted, and expanded, to 

handle variations in missile systems. 

Today’s modern missile is a much more 

complex system, and takes more than 

twice the time to maintain and handle 

thus requiring additional Explosive 

Handling Wharf facilities to meet the