GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to Congressional Requesters

June 1999 DEFENSE

ACQUISITIONS

Naval Surface Fire 

Support Program

Plans and Costs

GAO/NSIAD-99-91

Page 1 GAO/NSIAD-99-91 Defense Acquisitions

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

National Security and

International Affairs Division

B-281508 Letter

June 11, 1999

The Honorable John Warner

Chairman

The Honorable Carl Levin

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Armed Services

United States Senate

The Honorable Floyd Spence

Chairman

The Honorable Ike Skelton

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Armed Services

House of Representatives

This letter responds to one of four reporting requirements in section 1015

of the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year

1999. The requirements involve the status of inactive battleships and the

Navys plans, costs, and capabilities to provide naval surface fire support

(NSFS).1 Since 1994, the Navy has been engaged in a two-phase research

and development program intended to address current shortfalls in its

NSFS capabilities. We previously reported on the Navys compliance with

legislation directing it to retain two inactive Iowa class battleships and

their associated logistical support infrastructure. 2 This report, addressing

the second and third requirements, describes the Navys program to

modernize its NSFS capabilities and identifies the cost of the

modernization. A third report, addressing the final requirement, will

analyze the Navys assessment of the costs associated with alternative

methods for executing the naval surface fire-support mission, including the

alternative of reactivating two battleships.

1NSFS is the use of guns, missiles, and electronic warfare systems on surface ships to support

amphibious, maritime, or land forces.

2Force Structure: Navy Is Complying With Battleship Readiness Requirements (GAO/NSIAD 99-62,

Apr. 12, 1999).
B-281508

Page 2 GAO/NSIAD-99-91 Defense Acquisitions

Results in Brief In the first phase of the NSFS modernization program, planned for

completion by 2009, the Navy plans to develop a modified 5-inch gun and

associated guided munition, land-attack missiles, and mission planning

system for installation on 49 of the current classes of cruisers and

destroyers. However, the weapons developed during this phase are not

expected to satisfy the full range of Marine Corps NSFS requirements.

Development of the modified 5-inch gun is currently on schedule, but

development costs have increased slightly. Development of the guided

munition for this gun has been delayed by technical problems, and costs

have increased. Because the most critical testing of the munition has not

yet been conducted, it is too early to know whether the munition will meet

performance specifications in terms of range, accuracy, and lethality. In

May 1998, the Chief of Naval Operations decided to modify missiles in the

Navys inventory into a land-attack variant rather than develop a Navy

variant of an Army missile. In May 1999, the Under Secretary of Defense

for Acquisition and Technology approved the Navys proposal in the near

term, provided more funds were programmed to modify the Army Tactical

Missile system to be fired from DDG-51 tubes. The Navy expects fleet

introduction of a mission planning system in 2001 to support weapons

developed during the first phase of the NSFS modernization program.

The second phase of the modernization program, beyond 2003, includes

development of a longer range gun and munition and an advanced

land-attack missile for the planned DD-21 class of destroyers. Weapons

developed during this phase are intended to fully meet Marine Corps NSFS

requirements. The Center for Naval Analyses is conducting an analysis of

gun system alternatives for the DD-21, and industry teams are also

developing advanced gun concepts for this class of ship. Thus far, the Chief

of Naval Operations has deferred a decision on a land-attack missile for the

DD-21 pending further development of competing missile systems. At the

same time, the Navy is conducting technology demonstration projects

intended to improve performance and reduce the costs of future munitions.

Under the Navys current plan, it will be many years before the fleet will

have these weapon systems in the quantities needed to support major

combat operations. The Navy plans to accept delivery of 32 DD-21s

between 2008 and 2020.

In fiscal years 1994-98, the Navy spent $309 million on both phases of its

modernization program. For fiscal years 1999-2005, both phases are

estimated to cost a total of about $2 billion, not including the cost of the

ships. The estimate also does not include the cost of (1) integrating Land
B-281508

Page 3 GAO/NSIAD-99-91 Defense Acquisitions

Attack Standard Missiles into the Vertical Launch System, (2) changing to

the Tactical Tomahawk Weapons Control System, and (3) developing and

procuring of an advanced land-attack missile for the DD-21. Total program

cost estimates beyond fiscal year 2005 are not available. 3

Background Since the end of the Cold War, the Navy and the Marine Corps have been

working on operational concepts for coastal combat operations that stress

speed, maneuverability, and avoidance of enemy strong points to achieve

military objectives. These concepts are in striking contrast to the attrition

operations of past wars such as World War II, when amphibious forced

entry operations required fire support from large-caliber guns on

battleships and other combatants operating near enemy shores. The new

war-fighting strategy assumes that amphibious assaults will be launched

from at least 25 nautical miles from shore to enhance surprise and the

survivability of the fleet and invading forces. According to the Marine

Corps, operating at this distance from shore and the need to neutralize

enemy artillery at its maximum range results in a need for NSFS from

between 41 and 63 nautical miles. As illustrated in figure 1, the Marine

Corps fire support requirement under its new operational concept is up to

200 nautical miles. The Marine Corps has stated a need for both

conventional unguided and precision munitions to meet its requirements.

Each fire support ship should be able to deliver munition effects that equal

the explosive weight and volume of fire of an artillery battery

(six 155-millimeter howitzers firing high-explosive munitions).

3Official Navy program budget estimates are contained in the Fiscal Year 2000 Presidents Budget

submitted to Congress in February 1999. The Presidents budget contains budget estimates for fiscal

years 1999-2005.
B-281508

Page 4 GAO/NSIAD-99-91 Defense Acquisitions

Figure 1: NSFS Requirements

Source: U.S. Navy

The Navy is developing modern surface fire support weapons to address

current NSFS deficiencies. The Marine Corps believes that once they are

fielded, these weapons, along with the mobility enhancements provided by

the Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle and the MV-22 tilt-rotor aircraft,

will allow it to execute its new operational concept.

NSFS Modernization

First Phase

During the first phase of the NSFS modernization, planned to be completed

by 2009, the Navy intends to improve the capabilities of the current class of

cruisers and destroyers by developing and installing (1) modified 5-inch,

62-caliber guns; (2) an extended-range guided munition for this gun;
B-281508

Page 5 GAO/NSIAD-99-91 Defense Acquisitions

(3) land-attack missiles; and (4) a land-attack mission planning system.

The Navy plans to install 1 gun on each of 27 new Arleigh Burke class

destroyers between fiscal year 2001 and 2009, and 2 guns on each of 22

Ticonderoga class cruisers selected for modernization between fiscal year

2004 and 2009. The near-term guns, munitions, and missiles will improve

current NSFS capabilities, but they are neither intended nor expected to

meet all of the Marine Corps NSFS requirements for range, explosive

lethality, and volume of fire.

Gun and Munition

Development

Development of the modified 5-inch gun is currently on schedule, but

development costs have increased slightly. Development of the guided

munition for this gun has been delayed by technical problems, and costs

have increased. Since the most critical testing of the munition has not yet

been conducted, it is too early to know whether the munition will meet

performance specifications in terms of range, accuracy, and lethality. The

modified 5-inch gun and its guided munition are intended to provide

increased range and accuracy compared with those of the 5-inch guns on

existing surface combat ships. The guided munitions operational

requirements include performance specifications for target accuracy at

ranges of between 41 and 63 nautical miles, compared with the 13 nautical

miles for existing unguided munitions.

The 5-inch Gun Gun development is on schedule, though the manufacturer estimates that

development costs at completion will have increased about 8 percent over

the planned funding. Initial test firings of the propellant achieved the

required energy levels needed to launch the guided munition, but the

pressures created by ignition of the propellant caused some pitting of the

test-gun barrel. According to a Navy official, the program office is working

to solve this problem and believes a barrel life of 1,500 rounds can be

achieved. The program office has scheduled additional gun tests in May

1999. The Navy made a low-rate initial production decision on the gun in

April 1999 and initial operating capability is planned for fiscal year 2001.

However, delays in delivery of the guided munition have slipped the

schedule for incorporating and testing this capability from October 1999 to

June 2000. Because the modified gun will be able to fire conventional

5-inch ammunition to longer ranges than the current one, it will be installed

on new destroyers and modernized cruisers even if guided munition

development is delayed.
B-281508

Page 6 GAO/NSIAD-99-91 Defense Acquisitions

Guided Munition Technical design problems in development of the guided munition have

caused schedule delays and cost increases. These problems have delayed

development about 3 months. For example, during recent test firings, gun

gas leakage has occurred around the projectile obturator 4 because of the

increased energy generated by the new propelling charge and the mid-body

placement of the obturator. This leakage may cause unacceptable wear of

the gun barrel. To solve this problem, the manufacturer has been testing

various obturator designs and materials.

The most critical tests to determine how well the guided munitions

components work together have been delayed until the end of fiscal year

1999 by disruptions associated with the contractors relocation from Texas

to Arizona. According to Navy officials, only 20 percent of the key people

who have been working on the guided munition have agreed to relocate.

The guided munitions critical design review was intended to follow the

successful completion of the critical tests. As a result of these delays,

however, program officials expect a delay in the critical design review,

previously scheduled for August 1999. They also expect up to a 1-year

delay in fielding the guided munition.

Partly because of design risks and delays, the Navy and the guided

munition contractor are currently negotiating a restatement of contract

deadlines and a cost increase over the original contract price of $75 million.

In a November 1998 proposal, the contractor increased its price by

$57 million. The proposal did not consider any delays resulting from the

contractors relocation. The Navy expects a revised proposal from the

contractor in August 1999 that would address the relocation impact on the

program schedule.

Near-Term Land-Attack

Missile

The Navys plan to add land-attack missiles to the 27 Arleigh Burke class

destroyers and 22 Ticonderoga class cruisers was on hold. In May 1998, the

Chief of Naval Operations decided that it would be quicker and cheaper to

convert about 800 existing surface-to-air Standard Missiles to a land-attack

configuration than to develop a Navy version of the Army Tactical Missile

System. This decision was based on a land-attack missile assessment

conducted by the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory.

4An obturator is a ring-like device that seals the projectile firmly against the gun barrel during projectile

launch.
B-281508

Page 7 GAO/NSIAD-99-91 Defense Acquisitions

Both missiles would have a range of about 150 nautical milesabout 50

miles short of the Marine Corps stated requirement for deep support.

However, the Office of the Secretary of Defense put the Navys decision on

hold, pending additional review.

The Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year

1999 conferees directed an analysis of alternatives for the Navys

land-attack missile system. In response to the congressional direction,

Department of Defense (DOD) officials asked the Navy to provide

additional analysis for its decision. The Navy, in turn, asked the Center for

Naval Analyses to review the Johns Hopkins studys analytical basis. The

Center analyzed both the land-attack version of the Standard Missile and

the Navys variant of the Army Tactical Missile System with regard to

targets, target location error, weapon performance (lethality), and the cost

and performance of the missiles Global Positioning System/Inertial

Navigation System (GPS/INS). In December 1998, the Center briefed the

Oversight Board 5 on the results of its review. The Center concluded that:

(1) finding reasonable target lists was easy but determining which targets

would be best assigned to the land attack missile and which ones to guns,

tactical tomahawk missiles, or aviation was not complete; (2) each missiles

potential to generate a small target location error was not an issue;

(3) lethality: both the land attack version of the Standard Missile and the

Navys variant of the Army Tactical Missile System were effective weapons;

and (4) the GPS/INS costs were not a problem, but overall cost differences

of the missiles were.

On May 11, 1999, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and

Technology approved the Navys proposal to develop the land attack

Standard Missile in the near term, provided that more funds are

programmed in the Navys advanced land attack missile plan to modify the

Army Tactical Missile System to be fired from DDG-51 tubes.

Naval Fires Control System

Is Being Developed

The Navy is developing a Naval Fires Control System that will automate

shipboard fire support management functions for the modified 5-inch gun

and guided munition. The system will be used to receive targeting data,

conduct planning and coordination, and execute fire missions through

5The Board is led by the Deputy Director, Naval Warfare, and includes representatives from the Office

of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology, the Office of the Secretary of

Defense, Program Analysis and Evaluation, the Army, the Navy, and the Marine Corps.
B-281508

Page 8 GAO/NSIAD-99-91 Defense Acquisitions

interfaces to weapon control systems. To support a fiscal year 2003 initial

operating capability milestone, the Navy plans to perform an operational

assessment of the first phase of the fires control system in 2001. At that

time, this first phase of the system is scheduled to be installed aboard

16 destroyers (DDG-81 through 96), in a stand-alone mode in the ships

Advanced Tomahawk Weapon Control Systems. The Navy plans to

introduce the next phase of the fires control system as an integral part of

the Tactical Tomahawk Weapon Control System and the fire control

systems of the Tactical Tomahawk and Land Attack Standard Missiles.

Later phases of the fires control system will support complex naval fires

planning and coordination and possibly other weapon systems such as the

Advanced Gun System. The Navy plans to install the new system on its

new destroyers and older cruisers and make it available to amphibious and

command ships.

NSFS Second Phase Because the first phase of the NSFS modernization program will not fully

meet Marine Corps requirements for range, lethality, and volume of fire, the

Navy intends to develop, in a second phase after 2003, a larger caliber

advanced gun system and a new land-attack missile for the DD-21.

Weapons developed during this phase are intended to fully meet NSFS

requirements. The Navy has funded the advanced gun program and has

undertaken studies of the gun design. However, the missile program

remains unfunded, and the Navy has not made key decisions on its design

or type. The Navy will also assess various Office of Naval Research (ONR)

projects demonstrating maturing and emerging technologies to improve the

performance of and reduce the costs of future fire support systems.

Advanced Gun Alternatives

for the DD-21 Are Under

Study

A new larger caliber gun for the DD-21 is being developed as the Advanced

Gun System (AGS). To ensure early design integration, the DD-21 program

office has been given responsibility for AGS development. 6 However,

House and Senate committees have raised concerns about the extent to

which the Navy has considered different gun alternatives. In response to

these concerns, the Navy contracted with the Center for Naval Analyses to

conduct an analysis of alternative gun systems for the DD-21. The analysis

6House Committee on National Security report (105-532, at 180) and Senate Committee on Armed

Services report (105-189, at 167-168).
B-281508

Page 9 GAO/NSIAD-99-91 Defense Acquisitions

is to consider guns of various calibers and designs and the Multiple Launch

Rocket System. 7 The Center plans to brief the Navy on its results in June

1999 and to issue a final report in August 1999. At the same time, two

DD-21 industry teams are developing concepts for the AGS. The teams

expect to reach a decision on whether to adopt a vertical or deck-mounted

gun design by June 1999. The Navy will select the final characteristics,

based on the results of the Centers analysis and on industry efforts, both of

which are scheduled for completion at the end of fiscal year 1999.

Advanced Land-Attack

Missile Plans Deferred

When the Chief of Naval Operations decided to proceed with development

and procurement of the Land Attack Standard Missile, he explicitly

deferred a decision on a next generation land-attack missile for the DD-21

pending further development of competing missile systems. According to a

Navy official, the Navy presently has no program activity or funding

associated with an advanced land-attack missile.

ONR Projects Explore NFSF

Enhancing Technologies

Over the next few years, the Navy plans to assess various ONR

demonstration projects intended to reduce costs and enhance weapon

performance of NFSF development programs. The projects will explore

both maturing and emerging technologies that may enhance fire support

capabilities in both the first and second phases of the NSFS modernization.

The goals of the first project, called Air and Surface Launched Weapons

Technology/Naval Surface Fire Support, are to increase gun-launched

projectile and missile ranges, decrease the response time required to reach

the target, increase the weapons accuracy against moving targets, and

increase the weapons lethality. The three goals are scheduled to be

achieved in 2005, 2010, and 2015.

The second project, called Air Systems and Advanced Technology/Weapons

Advanced Technology, is expected to demonstrate emerging technologies

in weapon system components/subcomponents that may improve the

performance of existing and future surface weapon systems. A portion of

the project will demonstrate improved mission planning and execution

times of missiles for land-attack missions.

7The two major designs are a deck-mounted gun and a vertical gun.
B-281508

Page 10 GAO/NSIAD-99-91 Defense Acquisitions

The next project is the competent munitions advanced technology

demonstration 8 that aims to combine miniaturized

(microelectromechanical system) inertial measuring units with the Global

Positioning System and with an inertial navigation system to guide and

control a gun-launched projectile such as the one designed for the 5-inch

gun. The goal is to produce a low-cost, highly accurate guidance and

control unit that can be used in various munitions by the Army, the Navy,

and the Marine Corps. Final flight tests are scheduled to be complete by

the end of fiscal year 1999.

The last project is the best buy advanced technology demonstration that

aims to demonstrate technologies critical to developing a projectile with a

range of 100 nautical miles and twice the payload of the guided munition

currently being developed for the modified 5-inch gun. This project plans

to demonstrate a projectile, made of composite materials rather than steel,

that can hold a variety of other payloads using guided munition subsystems

and components. The demonstration is scheduled for fiscal year 2000.

Full NSFS Capability Is

Years Away

Table 1 shows that the delivery schedules for the modified 5-inch gun and

projectile, the Land Attack Standard Missile, and the Advanced Gun System

span a number of years. According to its schedules, the Navy will have

accepted for delivery all of the 5-inch guns and Land Attack Standard

Missiles and some of the AGS and advanced land-attack missiles between

fiscal year 2010-2015. If it is able to obtain all the planned NSFS weapons

that perform as required, between fiscal year 2010-2015, the Navy will have

71 5-inch guns with guided munition capability and an expected NSFS

range of 63 nautical miles on 49 ships between fiscal year 2010-2015. In

addition, the Navy will have accepted delivery of Land Attack Standard

Missiles (about 20 per ship) with a range of 150 nautical miles aboard these

same ships. The Navy will fall short of meeting the full NSFS range goal of

200 nautical miles until it fields the advanced land-attack missile in the

DD-21 destroyer. But it expects to have fielded 22 DD-21 destroyers

equipped with AGS and advanced land-attack missiles by 2015. According

to one Navy official, this level of capability on cruisers and destroyers will

enable the Navy to have three to four NSFS-capable ships deployed at all

times to support operations ashore.

8A narrowly-focused technology demonstration to identify key technologies ready for transition and

demonstrate their performance parameters.
B-281508

Page 11 GAO/NSIAD-99-91 Defense Acquisitions

Table 1: Schedule of Fire Support Systems Deliveries

aDestroyer hull numbers 81 through 107.

bCruiser hull numbers 52 through 73.

cTo be determined. 

Total Program Cost

Estimates Are

Incomplete

Figure 2 shows the cost of developing a modern NSFS capability from fiscal

year 1994 to 2005, not including the cost of the ships. The Navy spent $309

million between 1994 and 1998 and plans to spend at least another

$2 billion between fiscal year 1999 and 2005. 9 However, this amount also

does not include significant additional costs for (1) integration of the Land

Attack Standard Missile into the Vertical Launch System, (2) fire control

modifications to the Tomahawk Tactical Weapons Control System, and

(3) development and procurement of an advanced land-attack missile for

the DD-21. Costs projected beyond 2005 for most of the NSFS programs

are incomplete or not available.

System delivery

Weapon system 

range

First delivery (fiscal 

year)

Last delivery (fiscal 

year) Quantity

5”/62 caliber gun, forward fit on 

Arleigh Burke class destroyersa 41-63 nautical 

miles

2001 2009 27 ships, 27 barrels

5”/62 caliber gun, retrofit on 

Ticonderoga class cruisersb

41-63 nautical 

miles

2004 2009 22 ships, 44 barrels

Naval Fires Control System Not applicable 2001 2009+ All ships with 5”/62 caliber guns

Land Attack Standard Missile 150 nautical miles 2003 c 800

Advanced Gun System 100 nautical miles 2008 2020 32 ships, 64 barrels

Advanced 

Land-Attack Missile

200 nautical miles cc c

9According to the most recent Future Years Defense Plan, submitted to Congress in February 1999 with

the Fiscal Year 2000 DOD budget request.
B-281508

Page 12 GAO/NSIAD-99-91 Defense Acquisitions

Figure 2: NSFS Programs Costs

Note: Fiscal years 1999-2005 are estimates.

Source: Congressional Budget Documents. 

Agency Comments and

Our Evaluation

In written comments, DOD concurred with a draft of this report (see

app. I). DOD also provided technical clarifications that we incorporated as

appropriate.

Scope and

Methodology

To assess the Navys plans to modernize its surface fire support capabilities

and describe the cost of these efforts, we interviewed officials and

obtained and reviewed documentation from the Office of the Secretary of

Defense, the Chief of Naval Operations, the Commandant of the Marine

Corps, the Marine Corps Combat Developments Command, the Naval Sea

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Fis ca l Y e ar

Dollars in Millions
B-281508

Page 13 GAO/NSIAD-99-91 Defense Acquisitions

Systems Command and subordinate activities, the Center for Naval

Analyses, the Office of Naval Research, and the Johns Hopkins University

Applied Physics Laboratory.

We viewed firing demonstrations of the modified 5-inch gun and received

briefings on the guided munition, the automated munition handling system,

and the Naval Fires Control System software at the Naval Surface Warfare

Center, Dahlgren, Virginia.

We conducted our review from July 1998 through April 1999 in accordance

with generally accepted government auditing standards.

We are sending copies of this report to Senator Ted Stevens, Chairman and

Senator Robert C. Byrd, Ranking Minority Member, Senate Committee on

Appropriations; Representative C. W. Bill Young, Chairman and

Representative David R. Obey, Ranking Minority Member, House

Committee on Appropriations. We are also sending copies of this report to

the Honorable William Cohen, Secretary of Defense; the Honorable William

J. Lynn, Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller); the Honorable Jacob

Lew, Director, Office of Management and Budget; the Honorable Louis

Caldera, Secretary of the Army; the Honorable Richard Danzig, Secretary of

the Navy; and General Charles C. Krulak, Commandant of the Marine

Corps. Copies will be made available to others upon request.

Please contact me at (202) 512-4841 if you or your staff have any questions

concerning this report. Major contributors to this report are listed in

appendix II.

James F. Wiggins

Associate Director

Defense Acquisition Issues
Page 14 GAO/NSIAD-99-91 Defense Acquisitions

Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I

Comments From the

Secretary of Defense

16

Appendix II

Major Contributors to

This Report

17

Tables Table 1: Schedule of Fire Support Systems Deliveries 11

Figures Figure 1: NSFS Requirements 4

Figure 2: NSFS Programs Costs 12

Abbreviations

AGS Advanced Gun System

DOD Department of Defense

GPS/INS Global Positioning System/Inertial Navigation System

NSFS naval surface fire support

ONR Office of Naval Research
Page 15 GAO/NSIAD-99-91 Defense Acquisitions
Page 16 GAO/NSIAD-99-91 Defense Acquisitions

Appendix I

Comments From the Secretary of Defense ApIenxdi
Page 17 GAO/NSIAD-99-91 Defense Acquisitions

Appendix II

Major Contributors to This Report ApxIendi

National Security and

International Affairs

Division, Washington,

D.C.

Martha J. Dey

Jack G. Perrigo, Jr.

Richard J. Price

Office of the General

Counsel

William T. Woods

Alan S. Goldberg

Norfolk Field Office Anton G. Blieberger

(707396) Letr
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order made

out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary, VISA and

MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are

discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000

or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list

from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone

phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain

these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with info in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAOs World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00