80 FR 69949 - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces Proposed Rules Changes
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 218 (November 12, 2015)
Office of the Secretary
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 218 (November 12, 2015)
| Page Range | 69949-69951 | |
| FR Document | 2015-28598 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 218 (Thursday, November 12, 2015)] [Notices] [Pages 69949-69951] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-28598] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID DoD-2015-OS-0124] 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 5, 21(b)(5)(F), and 26 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure, United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. DATES: Comments on the proposed changes must be received by December 14, 2015. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title by any of the following methods:Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate of Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory and Audit Matters Office, 9010 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301- 9010. 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. [[Page 69950]] Dated: November 5, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. Rules 5 and 21(b)(5)(F): Rule 5--Scope of Review--currently reads: The Court acts only with respect to the findings and sentence as approved by reviewing authorities, and as affirmed or set aside as incorrect in law by a Court of Criminal Appeals, except insofar as it may take action on a certificate for review or a petition for review of a decision by a Court of Criminal Appeals on appeal by the United States under Article 62, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. 862, or to grant extraordinary relief in aid of its jurisdiction, including the exercise of its supervisory powers over the administration of the UCMJ. The Court may specify or act on any issue concerning a matter of law which materially affects the rights of the parties. The proposed change to Rule 5 would read: The Court acts only with respect to the findings and sentence as approved by reviewing authorities, and as affirmed or set aside as incorrect in law by a Court of Criminal Appeals, except insofar as it may take action on a certificate for review or a petition for review of a decision by a Court of Criminal Appeals on appeal by the United States under Article 62, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. 862, or to grant extraordinary relief in aid of its jurisdiction. The Court may specify or act on any issue concerning a matter of law which materially affects the rights of the parties. Rule 21(b)(5)(F)--Supplement to Petition for Grant of Review-- 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. 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. 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: . . . (F) so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or so far sanctioned such a departure by a court- martial or other person acting under authority of the UCMJ, as to call for an exercise of this Court's power of supervision; or . . . The proposed change to Rule 21(b)(5)(F) would read: . . . (F) so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings or so far sanctioned such a departure by a court- martial or other person acting under authority of the UCMJ, as to warrant review by the Court; or . . . Comment: Documents have recently been filed with the Court citing to the supervisory power noted in the Court's Rules 5 and 21(b)(5)(F). This is somewhat problematic because the references to supervisory power in these rules predate the Supreme Court's decision in Clinton v. Goldsmith, 526 U.S. 529 (1999), which rejected an expansive view of the Court's supervisory power over all aspects of military justice. Specifically the Court stated: ``[T]he CAAF is not given authority, by the All Writs Act or otherwise, to oversee all matters arguably related to military justice or to act as a plenary administrator of final judgments it has affirmed.'' 526 U.S. 529, 536. Given Goldsmith, the broad references to supervisory power in the rules should be deleted. That is not to say that supervisory authority does not exist, only that it is not as expansive as it was pre-Goldsmith, and its contours will need to be resolved in future cases. However, the Court's Rules of Practice and Procedure should not be cited as a source for this authority in the absence of settled case law. Rule 26: Rule 26--Amicus Curiae Briefs--currently reads: (a) A brief of an amicus curiae may be filed (1) by an appellate government or defense division of an armed service other than that in which the case has arisen, (2) by invitation of the Court, or (3) by motion for leave to file granted by the Court. (b) Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, a brief of an amicus curiae in support of a party may be filed no later than 10 days after that party has filed its brief. If neither party is supported, the brief of an amicus curiae shall be filed no later than 10 days after the first brief is filed. (c) Neither the hearing nor the disposition of a case will be delayed pending action on a motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief or a motion of an amicus curiae to participate in a hearing, or to await the filing of a brief of an amicus curiae under this rule. (d) Except by the Court's permission, a brief of an amicus curiae may be no more than one-half the maximum length authorized by Rule 24 for a brief for an appellant/petitioner. If the Court grants a party permission to file a longer brief, that extension does not affect the length of an amicus brief. (e) A member of the Bar of the Court who represents an amicus curiae and is authorized to file a brief under paragraph (a) of this rule may file a motion for leave to have a law student enter an appearance on behalf of the amicus curiae. To be eligible to participate under this rule, a law student must be acting under the attorney's supervision and the attorney and the law student must substantially comply with the requirements of Rule 13A(b)(1)-(5) and (c)(1)-(11). Argument by a law student granted permission to appear on behalf of an amicus curiae may be requested by motion filed under Rule 30. The proposed change to Rule 26 would read: (a) A brief of an amicus curiae may be filed (1) by an appellate government or defense division of an armed service other than that in which the case has arisen, (2) by invitation of the Court, or (3) by motion for leave to file granted by the Court. (b) All motions and briefs filed under Rule 26(a)(3) must contain a statement of the movant's interest and why the matters asserted are relevant to the disposition of the case. Amicus curiae briefs filed pursuant to Rule 26(a)(3) that bring relevant matter to the attention of the Court not already brought to its attention by the parties may be of considerable help to the Court. An amicus curiae brief that does not serve this purpose burdens the Court, and its filing is not favored. The motion must also provide a statement as to whether the parties consent to the filing of the amicus curiae brief. Only an attorney admitted to practice as a member of the Bar of the Court or an attorney appearing pro hac vice may file an amicus curiae brief. [[Page 69951]] (c) An amicus curiae brief submitted before the Court's consideration of a petition for grant of review, petition for extraordinary relief, writ-appeal petition, or petition for new trial may be filed under subparagraphs (a)(1) or (a)(2), or if the Court grants leave to file under subparagraph (a)(3) of this rule. (d) Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, a brief of an amicus curiae in support of a party shall be filed no later than 10 days after that party has filed its brief, supplement to the petition for grant of review, petition for extraordinary relief, writ-appeal petition, or answer. If neither party is supported, the brief of an amicus curiae shall be filed no later than 10 days after the first brief, supplement to the petition for grant of review, petition for extraordinary relief, or writ-appeal petition is filed. In the case of a petition for new trial, the brief of an amicus curiae shall be filed no later than 10 days after the petitioner's brief in support of the petition has been filed with the Court. Motions for leave to file an amicus curiae brief under Rule 26(a)(3) must be filed within the time allowed for the filing of the brief and contemporaneously with the amicus curiae brief itself. Requests for extensions of time to file an amicus curiae brief will not be granted. A party may file a motion under Rule 30 for leave to reply to the brief of an amicus curiae. (e) Neither the hearing nor the disposition of a case will be delayed pending action on a motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief or a motion of an amicus curiae to participate in a hearing, or to await the filing of a brief of an amicus curiae under this rule. (f) Except by the Court's permission, a brief of an amicus curiae may be no more than one-half the maximum length authorized by Rule 24 for a brief for an appellant/petitioner. If the Court grants a party permission to file a longer brief, that extension does not affect the length of an amicus brief. (g) A member of the Bar of the Court who represents an amicus curiae and is authorized to file a brief under paragraph (a) of this rule may file a motion for leave to have a law student enter an appearance on behalf of the amicus curiae. To be eligible to participate under this rule, a law student must be acting under the attorney's supervision and the attorney and the law student must substantially comply with the requirements of Rule 13A(b)(1)-(5) and (c)(1)-(11). Argument by a law student granted permission to appear on behalf of an amicus curiae may be requested by motion filed under Rule 30. Comment: The first part of new paragraph (b) tracks similar language in Supreme Court Rule 37. It advises that ``me too'' briefs are not favored, and this is generally the view of all appellate courts. The proposal goes on to require that motions for leave to file, as well as the amicus briefs themselves, contain a statement of the movant's interest and explain why the matters asserted in the brief are relevant to the disposition of the case. The proposal operates differently from the practice in the Article III courts of appeal in that even with the consent of the parties, an amicus filer must still ask for leave of the Court to file an amicus curiae brief. In this way, the Court retains the authority to decide all requests to file amicus briefs based on its own determination that the brief will be helpful. It is believed that party consent may not be an adequate filter that ensures that amicus briefs are helpful to the Court. While party consent is not a guarantee that the brief will be accepted, lack of consent is not a guarantee that it will be rejected. Rather, the Court oversees all filings to be sure that amicus participation is warranted. Paragraph (b) also includes a requirement that only members of the Court's Bar or attorneys appearing pro hac vice may file motions for leave to file amicus curiae briefs. Paragraph (c) proposes a new rule to clarify that motions to file amicus curiae briefs can be filed in support of petitions for grant of review, petitions for extraordinary relief, writ-appeal petitions, petitions for new trial, and answers to such pleadings. [FR Doc. 2015-28598 Filed 11-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 218 / Thursday, November 12, 2015 / Notices 69949
relating to swaps entered into before the applicable laws, and may be accessible Estimated number of respondents:
date of enactment of the Dodd-Frank under the Freedom of Information Act. 30,125.
Act, the terms of which had not expired Burden Statement: Provisions of Estimated total annual burden on
as of the date of enactment of the Dodd- CFTC Regulations 46.2, 46.3, 46.4, 46.8, respondents: 18,903 hours.
Frank Act (‘‘pre-enactment swaps’’) and 46.10, and 46.11 result in information
data relating to swaps entered into on or collection requirements within the Frequency of collection: Ongoing.
after the date of enactment of the Dodd- meaning of the PRA. These regulations Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Frank Act and prior to the compliance required SDs, MSPs and non-SD/MSP
Dated: November 6, 2015.
date specified in the the CFTC’s final counterparties to incur one-time costs to
swap data reporting rules (‘‘transition establish systems and processes Robert N. Sidman,
swaps’’). On May 17, 2012, the CFTC associated with swaps data Deputy Secretary of the Commission.
adopted regulation 46, which imposes recordkeeping and reporting. The CFTC [FR Doc. 2015–28729 Filed 11–10–15; 8:45 am]
recordkeeping and reporting estimates that SDs, MSPs, and non-SD/ BILLING CODE 6351–01–P
requirements relating to pre-enactment MSP counterparties incurred a one-time
and historical swaps. burden of 91,250 hours associated with
With respect to the collection of part 46 recordkeeping and reporting
information, the CFTC invites requirements. With respect to the DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
comments on: ongoing reporting and recordkeeping
• Whether the proposed collection of burdens associated with pre-enactment Office of the Secretary
information is necessary for the proper and transition swaps, the CFTC believes
performance of the functions of the that SDs, MSPs, and non-SD/MSP [Docket ID DoD–2015–OS–0124]
CFTC, including whether the counterparties incur an annual time-
information will have a practical use; burden of 18,903 hours. This time- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed
• The accuracy of the CFTC’s burden represents a proportion of the Forces Proposed Rules Changes
estimate of the burden of the proposed burden responents incur to operate and
collection of information, including the maintain their swap data recordkeeping
ACTION: Notice of Proposed Changes to
validity of the methodology and and reporting systems.
17 CFR 45 imposes swap the Rules of Practice and Procedure of
assumptions used; the United States Court of Appeals for
recordkeeping and reporting
• Ways to enhance the quality, the Armed Forces.
requirements on respondents related to
usefulness, and clarity of the
swaps that are not pre-enactment or
information to be collected; and SUMMARY: This notice announces the
transition swaps. The CFTC believes
• Ways to minimize the burden of following proposed changes to Rules 5,
that respondents use the same
collection of information on those who recordkeeping and reporting systems to 21(b)(5)(F), and 26 of the Rules of
are to respond, including through the compy with both parts 45 and 46. The Practice and Procedure, United States
use of appropriate automated electronic, CFTC has computed the estimated Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.
mechanical, or other technological burden for 17 CFR 46 by estimating the
collection techniques or other forms of DATES: Comments on the proposed
burden incurred by respondents to changes must be received by December
information technology; e.g., permitting operate and maintain their swap data
electronic submission of responses. 14, 2015.
recordkeeping and reporting systems
All comments must be submitted in and then estimating the percentage of ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
English, or if not, accompanied by an that burden associated with pre- identified by docket number and title by
English translation. Comments will be enactment and transition swaps. Since any of the following methods:
posted as received to http:// the enactment of 17 CFR 45, the vast
www.cftc.gov. You should submit only • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://
majority of pre-enactment and transition www.regulations.gov. Follow the
information that you wish to make swaps have been terminated by the
available publicly. If you wish the CFTC instructions for submitting comments.
parties to the swaps or are otherwise no
to consider information that you believe longer in existence. As 17 CFR 46 only • Mail: Department of Defense, Office
is exempt from disclosure under the requires respondents to make ongoing of the Deputy Chief Management
Freedom of Information Act, a petition reports regarding pre-enactment and Officer, Directorate of Oversight and
for confidential treatment of the exempt transition swaps that continue to be in Compliance, Regulatory and Audit
information may be submitted according existence, the number of reports being Matters Office, 9010 Defense Pentagon,
to the procedures established in § 145.9 made pursuant to 17 CFR 46 has Washington, DC 20301–9010.
of the CFTC’s regulations.1 The CFTC declined significantly over time. As the Instructions: All submissions received
reserves the right, but shall have no volume of reports made pursuant to 17 must include the agency name and
obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, CFR 46 is estimated to be very small docket number for this Federal Register
redact, refuse or remove any or all of releative to the estimated volume of document. The general policy for
your submission from http:// reports made pursuant to 17 CFR 45, the comments and other submissions from
www.cftc.gov that it may deem to be CFTC’s burden estimate has allocated members of the public is to make these
inappropriate for publication, such as the vast majority of the estimated submissions available for public
obscene language. All submissions that burden to operate and maintain viewing on the Internet at http://
have been redacted or removed that
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
respondents’ swap data recordkeeping www.regulations.gov as they are
contain comments on the merits of the and reporting systems to the burden received without change, including
information collection request will be estimate associated with 17 CFR 45. personal identifiers or contact
retained in the public comment file and Respondents/Affected Entities: Swap information.
will be considered as required under the Dealers, Major Swap Participants, and
Administrative Procedure Act and other other counterparties to a swap FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
transaction (i.e., end-user, non-SD/non- William A. DeCicco, Clerk of the Court,
117 CFR 145.9. MSP counterparties). telephone (202) 761–1448.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:15 Nov 10, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12NON1.SGM 12NON1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_70167/page/1.svg)
![69950 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 218 / Thursday, November 12, 2015 / Notices
Dated: November 5, 2015. acceptable. The supplement shall support of a party may be filed no later
Aaron Siegel, contain: than 10 days after that party has filed its
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison . . . (5) A direct and concise brief. If neither party is supported, the
Officer, Department of Defense. argument showing why there is good brief of an amicus curiae shall be filed
cause to grant the petition, no later than 10 days after the first brief
Rules 5 and 21(b)(5)(F): demonstrating with particularity why is filed.
Rule 5ÐScope of ReviewÐcurrently the errors assigned are materially (c) Neither the hearing nor the
reads: prejudicial to the substantial rights of disposition of a case will be delayed
The Court acts only with respect to the appellant. Where applicable, the pending action on a motion for leave to
the findings and sentence as approved supplement to the petition shall also file an amicus curiae brief or a motion
by reviewing authorities, and as indicate whether the court below has: of an amicus curiae to participate in a
. . . (F) so far departed from the hearing, or to await the filing of a brief
affirmed or set aside as incorrect in law
accepted and usual course of judicial of an amicus curiae under this rule.
by a Court of Criminal Appeals, except
proceedings, or so far sanctioned such a
insofar as it may take action on a (d) Except by the Court’s permission,
departure by a court-martial or other
certificate for review or a petition for a brief of an amicus curiae may be no
person acting under authority of the
review of a decision by a Court of more than one-half the maximum length
UCMJ, as to call for an exercise of this
Criminal Appeals on appeal by the authorized by Rule 24 for a brief for an
Court’s power of supervision; or . . .
United States under Article 62, UCMJ, The proposed change to Rule appellant/petitioner. If the Court grants
10 U.S.C. 862, or to grant extraordinary 21(b)(5)(F) would read: a party permission to file a longer brief,
relief in aid of its jurisdiction, including that extension does not affect the length
. . . (F) so far departed from the
the exercise of its supervisory powers of an amicus brief.
accepted and usual course of judicial
over the administration of the UCMJ. (e) A member of the Bar of the Court
proceedings or so far sanctioned such a
The Court may specify or act on any who represents an amicus curiae and is
departure by a court-martial or other
issue concerning a matter of law which authorized to file a brief under
person acting under authority of the
materially affects the rights of the paragraph (a) of this rule may file a
UCMJ, as to warrant review by the
parties. motion for leave to have a law student
Court; or . . .
The proposed change to Rule 5 would Comment: Documents have recently enter an appearance on behalf of the
read: been filed with the Court citing to the amicus curiae. To be eligible to
The Court acts only with respect to supervisory power noted in the Court’s participate under this rule, a law
the findings and sentence as approved Rules 5 and 21(b)(5)(F). This is student must be acting under the
by reviewing authorities, and as somewhat problematic because the attorney’s supervision and the attorney
affirmed or set aside as incorrect in law references to supervisory power in these and the law student must substantially
by a Court of Criminal Appeals, except rules predate the Supreme Court’s comply with the requirements of Rule
insofar as it may take action on a decision in Clinton v. Goldsmith, 526 13A(b)(1)–(5) and (c)(1)–(11). Argument
certificate for review or a petition for U.S. 529 (1999), which rejected an by a law student granted permission to
review of a decision by a Court of expansive view of the Court’s appear on behalf of an amicus curiae
Criminal Appeals on appeal by the supervisory power over all aspects of may be requested by motion filed under
United States under Article 62, UCMJ, military justice. Specifically the Court Rule 30.
10 U.S.C. 862, or to grant extraordinary stated: ‘‘[T]he CAAF is not given The proposed change to Rule 26
relief in aid of its jurisdiction. The Court authority, by the All Writs Act or would read:
may specify or act on any issue otherwise, to oversee all matters
arguably related to military justice or to (a) A brief of an amicus curiae may be
concerning a matter of law which filed (1) by an appellate government or
materially affects the rights of the act as a plenary administrator of final
judgments it has affirmed.’’ 526 U.S. defense division of an armed service
parties. other than that in which the case has
529, 536. Given Goldsmith, the broad
Rule 21(b)(5)(F)ÐSupplement to references to supervisory power in the arisen, (2) by invitation of the Court, or
Petition for Grant of ReviewÐcurrently rules should be deleted. That is not to (3) by motion for leave to file granted by
reads: say that supervisory authority does not the Court.
(b) The supplement to the petition exist, only that it is not as expansive as (b) All motions and briefs filed under
shall be filed in accordance with the it was pre-Goldsmith, and its contours Rule 26(a)(3) must contain a statement
applicable time limit set forth in Rule will need to be resolved in future cases. of the movant’s interest and why the
19(a)(5)(A) or (B), shall include an However, the Court’s Rules of Practice matters asserted are relevant to the
Appendix containing a copy of the and Procedure should not be cited as a disposition of the case. Amicus curiae
decision of the Court of Criminal source for this authority in the absence briefs filed pursuant to Rule 26(a)(3)
Appeals, unpublished opinions cited in of settled case law. that bring relevant matter to the
the brief, relevant extracts of rules and attention of the Court not already
regulations, and shall conform to the Rule 26: brought to its attention by the parties
provisions of Rules 24(b), 35A, and 37. Rule 26ÐAmicus Curiae BriefsÐ may be of considerable help to the
Unless authorized by Order of the Court currently reads: Court. An amicus curiae brief that does
or by motion of a party granted by the (a) A brief of an amicus curiae may be not serve this purpose burdens the
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Court, the supplement and any answer filed (1) by an appellate government or Court, and its filing is not favored. The
thereto shall not exceed 25 pages, defense division of an armed service motion must also provide a statement as
except that a supplement or answer other than that in which the case has to whether the parties consent to the
containing no more than 9,000 words or arisen, (2) by invitation of the Court, or filing of the amicus curiae brief. Only an
900 lines of text is also acceptable. Any (3) by motion for leave to file granted by attorney admitted to practice as a
reply to the answer shall not exceed 10 the Court. member of the Bar of the Court or an
pages, except that a reply containing 4, (b) Unless otherwise ordered by the attorney appearing pro hac vice may file
000 words or 400 lines of text is also Court, a brief of an amicus curiae in an amicus curiae brief.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:15 Nov 10, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12NON1.SGM 12NON1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_70167/page/2.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 218 / Thursday, November 12, 2015 / Notices 69951
(c) An amicus curiae brief submitted Comment: The first part of new Overseas EIS (OEIS) to evaluate the
before the Court’s consideration of a paragraph (b) tracks similar language in potential environmental effects
petition for grant of review, petition for Supreme Court Rule 37. It advises that associated with continuing to conduct
extraordinary relief, writ-appeal ‘‘me too’’ briefs are not favored, and this military readiness activities, which
petition, or petition for new trial may be is generally the view of all appellate consist of training activities and
filed under subparagraphs (a)(1) or courts. The proposal goes on to require research, development, testing, and
(a)(2), or if the Court grants leave to file that motions for leave to file, as well as evaluation (hereinafter referred to as
under subparagraph (a)(3) of this rule. the amicus briefs themselves, contain a ‘‘testing’’) activities in the Atlantic Fleet
(d) Unless otherwise ordered by the statement of the movant’s interest and Training and Testing (AFTT) Study
Court, a brief of an amicus curiae in explain why the matters asserted in the Area. The Study Area consists of sea
support of a party shall be filed no later brief are relevant to the disposition of space in and airspace over the Atlantic
than 10 days after that party has filed its the case. The proposal operates Ocean along the eastern coast of North
brief, supplement to the petition for differently from the practice in the America, portions of the Caribbean Sea,
grant of review, petition for Article III courts of appeal in that even and the Gulf of Mexico. The AFTT
extraordinary relief, writ-appeal with the consent of the parties, an Study Area begins seaward from the
petition, or answer. If neither party is amicus filer must still ask for leave of mean high water line and moves east to
supported, the brief of an amicus curiae the Court to file an amicus curiae brief. the 45 degree longitude line. The Study
shall be filed no later than 10 days after In this way, the Court retains the Area covers approximately 2.6 million
the first brief, supplement to the authority to decide all requests to file square nautical miles of ocean area,
petition for grant of review, petition for amicus briefs based on its own including designated Navy operating
extraordinary relief, or writ-appeal determination that the brief will be areas, warning areas, select Navy
petition is filed. In the case of a petition helpful. It is believed that party consent pierside locations, and associated port
for new trial, the brief of an amicus may not be an adequate filter that transit channels.
curiae shall be filed no later than 10 ensures that amicus briefs are helpful to In order to both achieve and maintain
days after the petitioner’s brief in the Court. While party consent is not a military readiness, the Navy proposes
support of the petition has been filed guarantee that the brief will be accepted, to:
with the Court. Motions for leave to file lack of consent is not a guarantee that • Conduct training and testing
an amicus curiae brief under Rule it will be rejected. Rather, the Court activities at levels required to support
26(a)(3) must be filed within the time oversees all filings to be sure that Navy military readiness requirements
allowed for the filing of the brief and amicus participation is warranted. beginning in 2018 into the reasonably
contemporaneously with the amicus Paragraph (b) also includes a foreseeable future; and
curiae brief itself. Requests for requirement that only members of the • Accommodate evolving mission
extensions of time to file an amicus Court’s Bar or attorneys appearing pro requirements associated with force
curiae brief will not be granted. A party hac vice may file motions for leave to structure changes, including those
may file a motion under Rule 30 for file amicus curiae briefs. resulting from the development, testing,
leave to reply to the brief of an amicus Paragraph (c) proposes a new rule to and ultimate introduction of new
curiae. clarify that motions to file amicus curiae platforms (vessels, aircraft, and weapon
(e) Neither the hearing nor the systems) into the fleet; thereby ensuring
briefs can be filed in support of
disposition of a case will be delayed critical Navy requirements are met.
petitions for grant of review, petitions
pending action on a motion for leave to As part of this process the Navy will
for extraordinary relief, writ-appeal
file an amicus curiae brief or a motion seek to obtain authorization and
petitions, petitions for new trial, and
of an amicus curiae to participate in a permitting, as required under the
answers to such pleadings.
hearing, or to await the filing of a brief Marine Mammal Protection Act and
of an amicus curiae under this rule. [FR Doc. 2015–28598 Filed 11–10–15; 8:45 am]
Endangered Species Act, respectively.
(f) Except by the Court’s permission, BILLING CODE 5001–06–P
The Navy invites comments on the
a brief of an amicus curiae may be no scope and content of the EIS/OEIS from
more than one-half the maximum length all interested parties. Comments may be
authorized by Rule 24 for a brief for an DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
provided by mail and through the EIS/
appellant/petitioner. If the Court grants OEIS Web site at: http://
a party permission to file a longer brief, Department of the Navy
www.AFTTEIS.com. Mailed comments
that extension does not affect the length Notice of Intent To Prepare an must be postmarked no later than
of an amicus brief. Environmental Impact Statement/ January 16, 2016 and mailed to the
(g) A member of the Bar of the Court
Overseas Environmental Impact address below to ensure they are
who represents an amicus curiae and is
Statement for Navy Atlantic Fleet considered.
authorized to file a brief under
Training and Testing FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
paragraph (a) of this rule may file a
motion for leave to have a law student AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD. Lesley Dobbins-Noble, Naval Facilities
enter an appearance on behalf of the ACTION: Notice.
Engineering Command, Code EV22LDN
amicus curiae. To be eligible to (AFTT EIS/OEIS Project Manager), 6506
participate under this rule, a law SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 102(2)(c) Hampton Boulevard, Norfolk, Virginia
student must be acting under the of the National Environmental Policy 23508–1278. 703–322–4625.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
attorney’s supervision and the attorney Act (NEPA) of 1969, as implemented by SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
and the law student must substantially the Council on Environmental Quality Navy’s lead action proponent is
comply with the requirements of Rule Regulations (40 Code of Federal Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces
13A(b)(1)–(5) and (c)(1)–(11). Argument Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500–1508), Command. Additional action
by a law student granted permission to and Executive Order (EO) 12114, the proponents include Naval Sea Systems
appear on behalf of an amicus curiae Department of the Navy (Navy) Command (NAVSEA), Naval Air
may be requested by motion filed under announces its intent to prepare an Systems Command (NAVAIR), and the
Rule 30. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/ Office of Naval Research (ONR). The
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:15 Nov 10, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12NON1.SGM 12NON1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_70167/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2015-12-14 14:53:51
Document Modified: 2015-12-14 14:53:51
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Action | Notice of Proposed Changes to the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. | |
| Dates | Comments on the proposed changes must be received by December 14, 2015. | |
| Contact | William A. DeCicco, Clerk of the Court, telephone (202) 761-1448. | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 69949 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR