Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Notices 6181

determining that the data on the DMDC

electronic reply tape file are consistent

with VA’s source file and for resolving

any discrepancies or inconsistencies on

an individual basis. VA will also be

responsible for making final

determinations as to positive

identification, amount of indebtedness

and recovery efforts as a result of the

match.

The electronic file provided by VA

will contain data elements of the

debtor’s name, SSN, internal account

numbers and the total amount owed for

each debtor on approximately 200,000

delinquent debtors.

The DMDC computer database file

contains approximately 4.8 million

records of active duty and retired

military members, including the Reserve

and Guard, and approximately 3.1

million records of active and retired

non-postal Federal civilian employees.

DMDC will match the SSNs on the VA

tape by computer against the DMDC

database. Matching records, ‘‘hits’’

based on SSN’s, will produce data

elements of the individual’s name, SSN,

military service or employing agency,

and current work or home address.

F. INCLUSIVE DATES OF THE MATCHING PROGRAM:

This computer matching program is

subject to review by the Office of

Management and Budget and Congress.

If the mandatory 30 day period for

public comment has expired and if no

objections are raised by either Congress

or the Office of Management and Budget

within 40 days of being notified of the

proposed match, the computer matching

program becomes effective and the

respective agencies may begin the

exchange of data at a mutually agreeable

time on a six month basis. By agreement

between VA and DoD, the matching

program will be in effect and continue

for 18 months with an option to extend

for 12 additional months unless one of

the parties to the agreement advises the

other by written request to terminate or

modify the agreement.

G. ADDRESS FOR RECEIPT OF PUBLIC COMMENTS

OR INQUIRIES:

Director, Defense Privacy Office, 1941

Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 920,

Arlington, VA 22202–4502. Telephone

(703) 607–2943.

[FR Doc. 00–2818 Filed 2–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001–10–F

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy

Record of Decision for Developing

Home Port Facilities for Three NIMITZ–

Class Aircraft Carriers in Support of

the U.S. Pacific Fleet

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DOD.

ACTION: Notice of record of decision.

SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy,

after carefully weighing the operational,

environmental, and cost implications of

home port facilities for NIMITZ-class

nuclear-powered aircraft carriers

(‘‘CVNs’’) in the Pacific Fleet,

announces its decision to: (1) construct

facilities and infrastructure required to

home port two additional CVNs at Naval

Air Station North Island (NASNI),

Coronado, CA; (2) upgrade existing CVN

support facilities at Puget Sound Naval

Shipyard (PSNS), Bremerton, WA; and

(3) retain Naval Station (NAVSTA)

Everett, WA, as a CVN home port.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The text of

the entire Record of Decision (ROD) is

provided as follows:

Background

Pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of the

National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) of 1969, 42 U.S.C. Section

4332(2)(c), the regulations of the

Council on Environmental Quality that

implement NEPA procedures, 40 CFR

Parts 1500–1508, and 40 CFR 93, the

General Conformity Rule of the Clean

Air Act, the Department of the Navy

(DON) announces its decision regarding

home port facilities and infrastructure

for CVNs in support of the U.S. Pacific

Fleet.

First, as conventionally-powered

aircraft carriers (CVs) reach the end of

their service life and are replaced by

nuclear-powered carriers (CVNs), the

Navy has a need to create the capacity

to home port these new CVN assets.

Compared to the CV, the CVN is a newer

class of aircraft carrier that has a wider

beam, a deeper draft, and different shore

maintenance and support requirements.

Consequently, a CVN home port

requires different shore infrastructure

than that provided for a CV. The U.S.

Pacific Fleet is preparing for the

replacement of two CVs assigned within

the U.S. Pacific Fleet area of

responsibility (AOR) with two CVNs.

Therefore, there is a need to select

locations within the Pacific Fleet AOR

for the construction of facilities and

infrastructure necessary to create the

capacity to home port these CVNs.

Second, changes in CVN home port

pier, logistics support area, and utility

infrastructure standards for CVN home

ports created the need to decide

whether to upgrade the existing CVN

home port facilities at PSNS to meet

those standards or maintain the existing

facilities even though they did not meet

current standards.

Third, development of Planned

Incremental Availability (PIA)

maintenance for CVNs created the need

to re-evaluate the viability of retaining

NAVSTA Everette as a CVN home port

to determine if the facilities and

infrastructure could efficiently support

a CVN while undergoing a PIA

maintenance program without adversely

affecting crew quality of life.

The DON undertook the planning

effort for these decisions on December 3,

1996, when it published a Notice of

Intent (NOI) to prepare an

Environmental Impact Statement in the

Federal Register. A public scoping

meeting was held in each of the

following locations: Bremerton,

Washington; Everett, Washington; Pearl

City, Hawaii; and Coronado, California.

A Notice of Availability (NOA) for the

Draft EIS (DEIS) was published in the

Federal Register on August 28, 1998.

Public hearings were held on the DEIS

in the same four locations as the scoping

meetings and in San Diego, CA.

Approximately 317 individuals,

agencies, and organizations submitted

comments on the DEIS during the 75

day public comment period. All oral

and written comments were considered

in the preparation of the Final EIS

(FEIS). The NOA for the FEIS was

published in the Federal Register on

July 9, 1999. In addition, public notices

and news releases noting the availability

of the FEIS and draft Final Clean Air

Act (CAA) Conformity Determination

were published in local and regional

newspapers beginning on July 10, 1999.

The DON received approximately 60

public comment letters on the FEIS

during a 60-day public review period.

Alternatives

Four areas within the Pacific Fleet

AOR were considered as feasible

locations for the development of CVN

home port capacity. The four areas

considered were: Naval Air Station

North Island (NASNI) Coronado, CA;

Puget Sound Naval Shipyard (PSNS)

Bremerton, WA; Naval Station

(NAVSTA) Everett, WA; and Pearl

Harbor Naval Shipyard (PHNSY) Pearl

Harbor, HI. Using these four locations,

six alternative configurations for

creating the necessary CVN home port

capacity, including a no construction

alternative, were developed and

analyzed. Each alternative was

evaluated and compared against the

6182 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Notices

others in terms of: operational,

logistical, and personnel requirements;

environmental impacts; and facility and

infrastructure life cycle costs.

The EIS contained a commitment on

the part of the DON to carefully review

information collected on crew quality of

life (QOL) and maintenance during USS

ABRAHAM LINCOLN’s first PIA at

PSNS. USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN’s PIA

was completed in October 1999.

Information collected concerning QOL

demonstrated that commuting from

home port at NAVSTA Everett to PSNS

did not significantly impact the crew of

USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN. The results

of this PIA revealed the quality of

maintenance met expectations, the

maintenance schedule was achieved,

the increase in overall cost to perform

the maintenance away from home port

was acceptable, and the PERSTEMPO/

OPTEMPO implications of maintaining

NAVSTA Everett as a home port were

acceptable.

This additional information was not

available at the time the FEIS was

published, but was included in DON’s

evaluation of whether to keep existing

home port facilities at NAVSTA Everett

or develop home port facilities at PSNS.

The availability of this new information

does not generate a need for additional

environmental analysis. The analysis of

the six alternatives considered in the

EIS process thoroughly addressed the

environmental impacts associated with

a CVN remaining at NAVSTA Everett

and those associated with creating

additional home port capacity at PSNS.

Based upon my review of the

comparative analysis of alternatives and

public comments received during the

NEPA process, I have selected

Alternative Two, which was identified

as the preferred Alternative in the DEIS

and FEIS, as the DON action for

developing CVN home port capacity.

Alternative Two will create home port

capacity for two additional CVNs at

NASNI, bringing the total CVN home

port capacity at NASNI to three. Under

Alternative Two the CVN home port

facilities at PSNS will be upgraded to

meet current standards and NAVSTA

Everett will remain a CVN home port.

Implementation of Alternative Two at

NASNI requires that existing Pier J/K be

demolished and replaced by a wharf

meeting the berthing requirements of a

CVN. Approximately 582,000 cubic

yards (cy) of sediment will be dredged

to meet depth requirements. Most of the

material will be deposited at an in-bay

location south of the Naval Amphibious

Base (NAB) to create an NAB Habitat

Enhancement Area, and some of the

material will be used as fill for the

wharf. A 1.5 to 2.5 acre intertidal habitat

will be created from an upland site to

compensate for intertidal/subtidal

habitat filled as part of the wharf

construction. Berthing for a second

additional CVN will be along the section

of the existing quay wall that currently

serves as the transient berth for CVNs

not homeported at NASNI. No dredging

is required to convert the transient berth

to a permanent berth for the second

additional CVN. Utility upgrades are

required, as is additional fencing.

Implementation of Alternative Two at

PSNS requires that Pier D be removed

and replaced by a new pier that meets

current berthing criteria for a CVN home

port. Dredging of approximately 425,000

cy will be accomplished at Pier D and

its turning basin and also at two other

CVN maintenance berths and their

associated turning basins. The dredged

material determined to be suitable for

unconfined aquatic disposal will be

deposited at a site in Elliot Bay

designated under the Puget Sound

Dredge Disposal Analysis Program.

Material unsuitable for unconfined

aquatic disposal will be deposited at an

appropriately permitted upland landfill

or in one of three Confined Disposal

Facilities/Confined Aquatic Disposal

sites shown in the FEIS.

Implementation of Alternative Two at

NAVSTA Everett requires no action.

Alternative Six (the no construction

alternative) is the environmentally

preferred alternative because it involves

the least disturbance of the natural

environment. While environmentally

preferable, this alternative would

overtax utility, logistical, and personnel

support infrastructures at NASNI and

PSNS. Consequently, Alternative Six

places an unacceptable constraint on the

mission capability of the U.S. Pacific

Fleet from an operational, training, and

personnel perspective.

Environmental Impacts and Mitigation

The DON analyzed the potential

impacts of the selected action in fifteen

environmental resource areas: geology;

topography and soils; terrestrial

hydrology and water quality; marine

water quality; sediment quality; marine

biology; transportation; air quality;

noise; aesthetics; cultural resources;

general services/access; health and

safety; utilities; and environmental

justice. This ROD summarizes the

potentially significant, but mitigable,

impacts associated with Alternative

Two, the DON’s selected alternative.

Dredging and pier replacement at

NASNI will cause the loss of 1.5 acres

of intertidal and subtidal habitat.

Impacts to habitat will be mitigated by

the construction of 1.5 to 2.5 acres of

intertidal habitat at a nearby upland

site, and creation of additional snowy

plover nesting habitat. The potential

loss of eelgrass will be monitored

through surveys before and after

construction. If the post-construction

surveys determine that a loss of eelgrass

has occurred, the Navy will provide

mitigation for that loss. The amount of

eel grass lost will be applied against the

Navy’s north-central eelgrass mitigation

bank according to the 1992 Southern

California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy

Guidelines, as amended.

Consultation with the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service and the National

Marine Fisheries Service led to the

conclusion that dredging and pier

construction at PSNS could impact

threatened and endangered species of

salmon during their out-migration

season. In order to mitigate impacts on

salmon migration, the Navy will avoid

dredging and marine construction

during established salmon migration

windows. Impacts from construction of

a confined disposal facility (CDF), if

such a facility is required by the terms

of the CWA Section 404 permit obtained

for dredging and marine construction

activities, will be offset by making the

area occupied by the CDF a shallow

water habitat area.

Overall impacts on the coastal

resources in California were addressed

in the coastal consistency determination

(CCD) submitted to the California

Coastal Commission (CCC) by DON. On

December 8, 1999, the California Coastal

Commission unanimously concurred

that the proposed development of home

port capacity at NASNI was consistent

to the maximum extent practicable with

the California Coastal Management

Program. In public hearings on the DON

consistency determination held on the

same day, DON agreed to continue

discussions with the CCC staff about

emergency planning issues, thermal

discharges from CVNs, and Best

Management Practices (BMPs) for

stormwater runoff control. DON agreed

to discuss these three issues further

with the CCC staff, and to present the

results to the Commission at another

public hearing on or before April 2000.

DON also agreed that, if the DON

Record of Decision for the development

of CVN home port facilities required

pier construction at NASNI, no

construction work would begin at

NASNI before presentation of these

results to the Commission on or before

April 2000. All construction activities

and the operation of facilities necessary

to implement Alternative Two will be

undertaken in a manner consistent with

the terms and conditions of required

permits.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Notices 6183

Responses to Comments on the FEIS

The DON received comments on the

FEIS from elected officials, federal,

state, and local government agencies,

citizen’s groups, and individuals. Most

of the issues raised in the comments had

already been addressed in the FEIS in

response to comments received on the

DEIS. New issues raised in comments

received on the FEIS concerning those

aspects of the proposed action at NASNI

are addressed below. No new issues

were raised in comments received

concerning those aspects of the

proposed action at PSNS, NAVSTA

Everett or NAVSTA Pearl Harbor.

Commentors noted that the FEIS did

not discuss the potential for the

proposed project to exacerbate water

quality problems in San Diego Bay

associated with areas identified under

CWA, Section 303(d). Section 303(d)

requires states to list those areas for

which water quality standards cannot be

implemented. As none of the sites in

San Diego Bay listed under Section

303(d) are near enough to the proposed

pier and mitigation sites to be affected

by short term construction and dredging

activities, these activities will not

further hinder the implementation of

water quality standards at any of the

sites listed under the CWA.

Commentors noted that the

cumulative impact section did not

address traffic increases in the City of

Coronado they anticipated would

accompany the upgraded commissary

and exchange facilities proposed for

NASNI. The Navy does not anticipate

that upgrading commissary and

exchange facilities at NASNI will cause

any appreciable increase in traffic.

Commissary and exchange facilities are

already present at NASNI. Changes to

those facilities are not expected to

attract new users. The pool of eligible

patrons in the San Diego area is

relatively stable. Patrons are expected to

continue to shop at the larger, more

conveniently located facilities at Naval

Station San Diego, Marine Corps Air

Station Miramar, and Camp Pendleton.

Commentors stated that the FEIS

failed to analyze the increased

probability that invasive species would

be introduced into San Diego Bay

through ballast water discharges from

CVNSs homeported at NASNI. Trim and

list on CVNs are maintained through a

closed system of freshwater tanks.

Unlike conventionally-powered ships,

no ballast water is taken from or

discharged to surrounding waters.

Therefore there is no avenue by which

invasive species can be introduced into

San Diego Bay from CVN ballast water.

It was clear from some comments

received on the FEIS that concern still

exists about the Navy’s adherence to the

NEPA process, the marine environment

in San Diego Bay, traffic within the City

of Coronado, and nuclear propulsion

aspects of the addition of more home

port capacity for CVNs in the San Diego

area. Even though these issues were

specifically addressed in the FEIS and

there is no requirement that the DON

address them further in the ROD, a brief

discussion is included here to

demonstrate that these concerns have

been carefully considered.

Some commentors suggested that

regulations implementing NEPA

required Navy to reissue the DEIS due

to changes included in the FEIS. The

DON carefully reviewed the differences

between the DEIS and FEIS and

concluded that reissuing the DEIS was

not required. The NEPA process is an

iterative one, designed to produce an

FEIS that reflects change, clarification,

and refinement of the DEIS based upon

comments received from the public. No

changes included in the FEIS were so

substantial as to require republication of

the DEIS.

Some commentors sought more

information on the potential loss of

eelgrass and soil contamination levels at

the upland mitigation site on North

Island. In the DEIS, the best available

information was used to predict impacts

to eelgrass and pollutant levels at the

mitigation site. This information was

subsequently validated by additional

data collected and analyzed in

conjunction with the DON’s pending

application for a CWA Section 404

permit.

Some commentors sought a new

discussion about copper leaching into

San Diego Bay from anti-fouling paint

on ship hulls. The Navy calculated the

amount of copper expected to leach

from anti-fouling paint on ship hulls

and concluded in the FEIS that the net

difference from replacement of CVs by

CVNs will not be significant. Also, the

number of Navy ships berthed in San

Diego has decreased. Therefore, there

would be no cumulative increase in the

amount of copper leaching into the bay.

The City of Coronado and a number

of its citizens expressed concern that

creating the home port capacity for three

CVNs at NASNI will result in major

increases in commuter traffic along

Coronado streets. The DON took a hard

look at the traffic impact associated with

creating home port capacity for two

additional CVNs. The best available

historical data on the days spent in port

by CVs homeported at NASNI was

analyzed and future days in port by

CVNs were projected based upon

anticipated training and deployment

requirements. These historical data and

projections suggest that the decision to

create home port capacity for two

additional CVNs at NASNI will not

cause significant traffic impacts.

Historically, even when three aircraft

carriers were assigned NASNI as a home

port, all three of those aircraft carriers

were present in port at the same time

only an average of thirteen days per

year. Based upon training requirements,

maintenance schedules, and projected

operational tempo, the implementation

of Alternative Two is not expected to

increase the average number of days a

year three CVNs will be present at their

NASNI home port. While traffic levels

will increase for those brief periods

when three CVNs assigned to NASNI are

present, overall traffic impacts will be

less than significant. Nevertheless, the

DON will use mitigation measures to

reduce the level of traffic during those

infrequent periods when three CVNs

assigned to NASNI are simultaneously

in port. Mitigation may include

measures such as staggering work hours,

encouraging carpools and vanpools, and

subsidizing the use of public

transportation by military personnel and

civilian employees. The DON will

monitor the effectiveness of these traffic

mitigation measures. If the mitigation

measures are not successful and traffic

associated with the presence of a third

homeported CVN creates a significant

adverse effect on traffic conditions in

Coronado, DON will develop additional

mitigation measures.

Several commentors from the San

Diego area expressed concern that

nuclear propulsion issues such as

reactor accident analysis, emergency

planning, perimeter monitoring,

distribution of potassium iodide, and

notification of releases were not

thoroughly considered in the FEIS

process. The FEIS discusses, among

other points, how NIMITZ Class reactor

designs have received independent

review by the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission and the Advisory

Committee on Reactor Safeguards, and

that the Navy has plans and procedures

in place for all types of emergencies that

could be associated with Naval Nuclear

Propulsion Program (NNPP) operations.

These plans and procedures contain

classified and sensitive military

information that cannot be released to

the public. In recent meetings among

DON, State, County, and local

emergency response officials, the

consensus was reached that existing

DON, State, County, and local

emergency plans are adequate in the

highly unlikely event of a radiological

emergency.

6184 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Notices

I thoroughly reviewed the entire

discussion of nuclear propulsion

radiologcal issues in the EIS, including

classified information not releasable to

the public. I am convinced that there are

no significant radiological impacts

associated with creating and utilizing

home port capacity at any of the three

locations affected by this decision. As

there are no significant radiological

impacts, mitigation measures such as

installation of a perimeter monitoring

system or disputing of potassium iodide

are not warranted.

Conclusion

On behalf of the Department of Navy,

I have decided to implement Alternative

Two, as set out in the FEIS, for

development of home port capacity for

CVNs within the U.S. Pacific Fleet AOR.

In selecting where to create home port

capacity for the two CVNs programmed

to replace existing CV assets within the

U.S. Pacific Fleet, I considered how the

development of home port capacity as

set out in each alternative analyzed in

the EIS would affect: (1) Operations and

training, crew quality of life, and the

CVN maintenance program; (2) the

environment; and (3) facility and

infrastructure life cycle costs. I took a

hard look at the environmental impacts

analyzed in the EIS and gave careful

consideration to the comments received

on the DEIS and FEIS.

After weighing all of these factors, I

have determined that Alternative Two,

the preferred alternative in the FEIS,

best serves the interests of the DON

while keeping environmental impacts at

a less than significant level. Alternative

Two satisfies the operational, training,

and maintenance requirements of the

Pacific Fleet, provides acceptable

quality of life for Navy sailors and their

families, causes no significant

environmental impacts, and entails

manageable facility and infrastructure

costs.

Dated: January 28, 2000.

Duncan Holaday,

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy

(Installations and Facilities).

[FR Doc. 00–2831 Filed 2–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3810–FF–M

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy

Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive

Patent License; Virotek, LLC

AGENCY: Department of the Navy.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy

hereby gives notice of its intent to grant

to Virotek, LLC, a revocable,

nonassignable, exclusive license to

practice worldwide the Governmentowned inventions described in U.S.

Patent No. 6,015,681 issued 18 January

2000, and its PCT serial No. 96/12135,

filed 12 Dec 1996, entitled ‘‘Rapid

Immunoassay for Cariogenic Baceria’’;

and U.S. Patent Serial No. 90/44214,

filed on 3 Aug 1999 and its PCT serial

No. 99/10482 filed on 3 Aug 1999,

entitled ‘‘Rapid Immunoassay to Detect

Infection with Mycobacterium

tuberculosis’’ in the field of Rapid,

Hand-held Salivary Diagnostics for

Streptococcus mutans, lactobacillus and

Mycobacterium tuberculosis.

DATE: Anyone wishing to object to the

grant of this license must file written

objections along with supporting

evidence, if any, not later than April 10,

2000. Written objections are to be filed

with the Office of Technology Transfer,

Naval Medical Research Center, 8901

Wisconsin Ave, Bethesda, MD 20889–

5607, telephone (301) 319–7428.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: CDR

Charles Schlagel, MSC, USN, Director,

Office of Technology Transfer, Naval

Medical Research Center, 503 Robert

Grant Avenue, Silver Spring, MD

20910–7500, telephone (301) 319–7428.

Dated: January 27, 2000.

J.L. Roth,

Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate

General’s Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register

Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 00–2728 Filed 2–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3812–FF–P

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy

Privacy Act of 1974; System of

Records

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD.

ACTION: Notice to amend record system.

SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy

proposes to amend six systems of

records notices in its inventory of record

systems subject to the Privacy Act of

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

DATES: The amendments will be

effective on March 9, 2000, unless

comments are received that would

result in a contrary determination.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the

Department of the Navy, PA/FOIA

Policy Branch, Chief of Naval

Operations (N09B30), 2000 Navy

Pentagon, Washington, DC 20350-2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mrs.

Doris Lama at (202) 685-6545 or DSN

325-6545.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Department of the Navy’s record system

notices for records systems 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 address above.

The Department of the Navy proposes

to amend six systems of records notices

in its inventory of record systems

subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5

U.S.C. 552a), as amended. The changes

to the systems of records are 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 new or altered systems

reports. The records systems being

amended are set forth below, as

amended, published in their entirety.

Dated: February 2, 2000.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison

Officer, Department of Defense.

N01070-1

SYSTEM NAME:

JAG Corps Officer Personnel

Information (February 22, 1993, 58 FR

10694).

CHANGES:

* * * * *

SYSTEM LOCATION:

Delete entry and replace with ‘Office

of the Judge Advocate General (Code

61), Department of the Navy,

Washington Navy Yard, 1322 Patterson

Avenue SE, Suite 3000, Washington, DC

20374-5066.’

* * * * *

ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE

SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND

THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES:

In paragraph 2, delete ‘a semi-annual’

and replace with ‘an annual’.

* * * * *

N01070-1

SYSTEM NAME:

JAG Corps Officer Personnel

Information.

SYSTEM LOCATION:

Office of the Judge Advocate General

(Code 61), Department of the Navy,

Washington Navy Yard, 1322 Patterson

Avenue SE, Suite 3000, Washington, DC

20374-5066.