15086 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 14, 2012 / Notices 

During the search for weapons, the 

official may seize any item that is 

immediately apparent as contraband or 

as evidence related to the offense 

serving as the basis for the stop. As a 

matter of safety, the official may, after 

conducting a lawful stop of a vehicle, 

order the driver and any passengers out 

of the car without any additional 

suspicion or justification.’’ 

(i) A new Discussion is added 

following Mil. R. Evid. 314(g)(2): 

‘‘DISCUSSION 

The scope of the search for weapons 

is limited to that which is necessary to 

protect the arresting official. The official 

may not search a vehicle for weapons if 

there is no possibility that the arrestee 

could reach into the searched area, for 

example, after the arrestee is handcuffed 

and removed from the vehicle. The 

scope of the search is broader for 

destructible evidence related to the 

offense for which the individual is being 

arrested. Unlike a search for weapons, 

the search for destructible offenserelated evidence may take place after 

the arrestee is handcuffed and removed 

from a vehicle. If, however, the official 

cannot expect to find destructible 

offense-related evidence, this exception 

does not apply.’’ 

(j) A new Discussion is added 

following Mil. R. Evid. 315(a): 

‘‘DISCUSSION 

Although military personnel should 

adhere to procedural guidance regarding 

the conduct of searches, violation of 

such procedural guidance does not 

render evidence inadmissible unless the 

search is unlawful under these rules or 

the Constitution of the United States as 

applied to members of the armed forces. 

For example, if the person whose 

property is to be searched is present 

during a search conducted pursuant to 

a search authorization granted under 

this rule, the person conducting the 

search should notify him or her of the 

fact of authorization and the general 

substance of the authorization. Such 

notice may be made prior to or 

contemporaneously with the search. 

Property seized should be inventoried at 

the time of a seizure or as soon 

thereafter as practicable. A copy of the 

inventory should be given to a person 

from whose possession or premises the 

property was taken. Failure to provide 

notice, make an inventory, furnish a 

copy thereof, or otherwise comply with 

this guidance does not render a search 

or seizure unlawful within the meaning 

of Mil. R. Evid. 311.’’ 

(k) A new Discussion is added 

following Mil. R. Evid. 315(c)(4): 

‘‘DISCUSSION 

If nonmilitary property within a 

foreign country is owned, used, 

occupied by, or in the possession of an 

agency of the United States other than 

the Department of Defense, a search 

should be conducted in coordination 

with an appropriate representative of 

the agency concerned, although failure 

to obtain such coordination would not 

render a search unlawful within the 

meaning of Mil. R. Evid. 311. If other 

nonmilitary property within a foreign 

country is to be searched, the search 

should be conducted in accordance with 

any relevant treaty or agreement or in 

coordination with an appropriate 

representative of the foreign country, 

although failure to obtain such 

coordination or noncompliance with a 

treaty or agreement would not render a 

search unlawful within the meaning of 

Mil. R. Evid. 311.’’ 

(l) A new Discussion is added 

following Mil. R. Evid. 317(b): 

‘‘DISCUSSION 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 2516(1), the 

Attorney General, or any Assistant 

Attorney General specially designated 

by the Attorney General may authorize 

an application to a federal judge of 

competent jurisdiction for, and such 

judge may grant in conformity with 18 

U.S.C. 2518, an order authorizing or 

approving the interception of wire or 

oral communications by the Department 

of Defense, the Department of Homeland 

Security, or any Military Department for 

purposes of obtaining evidence 

concerning the offenses enumerated in 

18 U.S.C. 2516(1), to the extent such 

offenses are punishable under the 

Uniform Code of Military Justice.’’ 

(m) A new Discussion is added 

following Mil. R. Evid. 412(c)(3): 

‘‘DISCUSSION 

After hearing all evidence on the 

motion under subdivision (c) and before 

making a determination that the 

evidence is constitutionally required, 

the military judge should determine 

precisely what evidence is relevant and 

material and whether its probative value 

outweighs the danger of unfair 

prejudice. See United States v. 

Ellerbrock, 70 M.J. 314, 318 (C.A.A.F. 

2011). The probative value of the 

evidence must be balanced against and 

outweigh the ordinary countervailing 

interests reviewed in making a 

determination as to whether evidence is 

constitutionally required. United States 

v. Gaddis, 70 M.J. 248, 255 (C.A.A.F. 

2011). Such interests include, but are 

not limited to, harassment of a victim, 

prejudice to the integrity of the trial 

process, confusion of the issues, the 

victim’s safety, or interrogation of a 

victim that is only marginally relevant. 

The military judge retains wide latitude 

to impose reasonable limits on crossexamination regarding the bias of a 

victim or witness or motive to fabricate 

based on concerns about, among other 

things, harassment, prejudice, confusion 

of the issues, the safety of a victim or 

witness, or interrogation that is 

repetitive or only marginally relevant. 

See Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 

673, 679 (1986). The Constitution 

guarantees an opportunity for effective 

cross-examination, but not crossexamination that is effective in 

whatever way, and to whatever extent, 

the defense might wish. Delaware v. 

Fensterer, 474 U.S. 15, 20 (1985). The 

military judge should carefully tailor an 

order that protects the right of the 

accused to present admissible evidence 

under this rule but does not allow 

presentation of evidence that is not 

admissible under subdivision (b).’’ 

(n) A new Discussion is added 

following Mil. R. Evid. 505(k)(3): 

‘‘DISCUSSION 

In addition to the sixth amendment 

right of an accused to a public trial, the 

Supreme Court has held that the press 

and general public have a constitutional 

right under the first amendment to 

access to criminal trials. United States v. 

Hershey, 20 M.J. 433 (C.M.A. 1985) 

citing Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. 

Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980). The test 

that must be met before closure of a 

criminal trial to the public is set out in 

Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 

464 U.S. 501 (1984), to wit: The party 

seeking closure must advance an 

overriding interest that is likely to be 

prejudiced; the closure must be 

narrowly tailored to protect that 

interest; the trial court must consider 

reasonable alternatives to closure; and it 

must make adequate findings 

supporting the closure to aid in review.’’ 

Dated: February 28, 2012. 

Patricia L. Toppings, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, 

Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2012–6166 Filed 3–13–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Docket ID: DOD–2012–OS–0026] 

Privacy Act of 1974; System of 

Records 

AGENCY: Defense Intelligence Agency, 

DoD. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 14, 2012 / Notices 15087 

ACTION: Notice to Delete a System of 

Records. 

SUMMARY: The Defense Intelligence 

Agency is deleting a system of records 

notice in its existing inventory of record 

systems subject to the Privacy Act of 

1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. 

DATES: This proposed action will be 

effective on April 13, 2012 unless 

comments are received which result in 

a contrary determination. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by docket number and title, 

by any of the following methods: 

* Federal Rulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

* Mail: Federal Docket Management 

System Office, 4800 Mark Center Drive, 

East Tower, 2nd Floor, Suite 02G09, 

Alexandria, VA 22350–3100. 

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 any 

personal identifiers or contact 

information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Theresa Lowery at (202) 231–1193. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Defense Intelligence Agency systems of 

records notices subject to the Privacy 

Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, 

have been published in the Federal 

Register and are available from the 

individual listed in FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. The proposed 

deletion is not within the purview of 

subsection (r) of the Privacy Act of 1974 

(5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which 

requires the submission of a new or 

altered system report. 

Dated: March 8, 2012. 

Aaron Siegel, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

DELETION: 

LDIA 06–0002 

SYSTEM NAME: 

Department of Defense Intelligence 

Information Systems Access, 

Authorization, and Control Records 

(April 11, 2007, 72 FR 18209). 

REASON: 

Records have been incorporated into 

LDIA 07–0003, entitled Department of 

Defense Intelligence Information System 

(DoDIIS) Customer Relationship 

Management System. The records will 

assume the same retention schedule as 

listed in LDIA 07–0003. 

[FR Doc. 2012–6003 Filed 3–13–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Army; Corps of 

Engineers 

Intent To Prepare a Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement 

(DEIS) for the Installation of a Terminal 

Groin Structure at the Western End of 

South Beach, Bald Head Island, in 

Close Proximity to the Federal 

Wilmington Harbor Channel of the 

Cape Fear River (Brunswick County, 

NC) 

AGENCY: Department of the Army, U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, DoD. 

ACTION: Notice of intent. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE), Wilmington 

District, Wilmington Regulatory Field 

Office has received a request for 

Department of the Army authorization, 

pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean 

Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers 

and Harbor Act, from the Village of Bald 

Head Island (VBHI) to develop and 

implement a shoreline protection plan 

that includes the installation of a 

terminal groin structure on the east side 

of the Wilmington Harbor Baldhead 

Shoal Entrance Channel (a federallymaintained navigation channel of the 

Cape Fear River) at the ‘‘Point’’ of Bald 

Head Island. The structure will be 

designed to be strategically incorporated 

into the federal beach disposal 

operations associated with the 

Wilmington Harbor Sand Management 

Plan. 

DATES: A public scoping meeting for the 

DEIS will be held at the ILA Hall, 

located at 211 West 10th Street in 

Southport (NC) on March 22, 2012 at 6 

p.m. Written comments will be received 

until April 9, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of comments and 

questions regarding scoping of the DEIS 

may be submitted to: U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, Wilmington District, 

Regulatory Division. ATTN: File 

Number SAW–2012–00040, 69 

Darlington Avenue, Wilmington, NC 

28403. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Questions about the proposed action 

and DEIS can be directed to Mr. David 

Timpy, Project Manager, Wilmington 

Regulatory Field Office, telephone: (910) 

251–4634. Additional description of the 

VBHI’s proposal can be found at the 

following link, http:// 

www.saw.usace.army.mil/WETLANDS/ 

Projects/index.html, under the Village of 

Bald Head Island Terminal Groin 

Project. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

1. Project Description 

The west end of South Beach has 

experienced both chronic mid-term 

(decadal) and accelerated short-term 

erosion losses (with direct impacts to 

beaches and dunes of this segment of 

shoreline). A nourishment project has 

been employed by the VBHI to mitigate 

the effects of these losses. In addition, 

several million cubic yards of sand from 

a Federal navigation project has been 

disposed on the beach since 1991. 

Despite this sand placement on the 

beach, a portion of South Beach 

continues to experience substantial 

erosion, potentially impacting public 

infrastructure and homes. It is the 

VBHI’s desire to implement a long-term 

beach and dune stabilization strategy. 

The applicant contends that a necessary 

component to the success of this 

strategy is the installation of a terminal 

groin that would (1) reduce inletdirected sand losses from beach fill 

construction projects; and (2) stabilize 

shoreline alignment along the 

westernmost segment of South Beach in 

such a manner that alongshore transport 

rates are reduced. The VBHI proposal 

calls for the construction of a single 

terminal groin designed to compliment 

future placement of beach fill at South 

Beach. The structure will serve as a 

‘‘template’’ for fill material placed 

eastward of the proposed terminal groin. 

In that regard, the groin will be designed 

as a ‘‘leaky’’ structure (i.e. semipermeable) so as to provide for some 

level of sand transport to West Beach 

(located northward of the proposed 

groin). 

2. Issues 

There are several potential 

environmental and public interest 

issues that will be addressed in the 

DEIS. Additional issues may be 

identified during the scoping process. 

Issues initially identified as potentially 

significant include: 

a. Potential impacts to marine 

biological resources (benthic organisms, 

passageway for fish and other marine 

life) and Essential Fish Habitat. 

b. Potential impacts to threatened and 

endangered marine mammals, birds, 

fish, and plants. 

c. Potential impacts to adjacent 

shoreline changes on West Beach of 

Bald Head Island and adjacent 

shorelines. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES