Western Fuels-Utah, Inc.

Plain-English summary

Western Fuels-Utah operated the Deserado underground coal mine in Colorado. MSHA alleged that the company violated the Mine Act and 30 C.F.R. § 48.7 by allowing section foreman Carson Julius to operate a roof-bolting machine without task training. During the investigation, MSHA also identified a fatal roof-fall accident involving another miner, although the Commission stated that Julius's lack of training did not cause the accident. The Commission held that supervisory personnel subject to an MSHA-approved state certification program are excluded from the Part 48 training requirements, even when they perform a production task. It reversed the judge and vacated the withdrawal order, citation, and $180 penalty.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): 30 C.F.R. § 48.2(a)(1)(ii) and § 48.7; 30 U.S.C. § 825(a).
• Outcome: The Commission reversed the judge and vacated the withdrawal order, citation, and $180 civil penalty.
• Key point: The regulation's plain language exempts state-certified supervisory personnel from Part 48 training requirements, without a task-by-task distinction.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
MSHA V. WESTERN FUELS-UTAH
DDATE:
19890322
TTEXT:
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY & HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C.
March 22, 1989
SECRETARY OF LABOR,
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)
v. Docket Nos. WEST 86-113-R
WEST 86-114-R
WESTERN FUELS-UTAH, INC. WEST 86-245(A)

BEFORE: Ford, Chairman; Backley, Doyle, Lastowka and Nelson,
Commissioners
DECISION
BY THE COMMISSION:
The issue in this consolidated contest and civil penalty
proceeding arising under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act
of 1977, 30 U.S.C. $ 801 et seq. (1982)("Mine Act" or "Act"), is
whether supervisors who meet the training certification requirements
for supervisory personnel under a state program approved by the
Department of Labor's Mine Safety and Health Administration ("MSHA")
must be given task training prior to performing work for which
non-supervisory miners would be required to have task training. 1/
MSHA cited Western Fuels-

1/ Section 115(a) of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. $ 825(a), provides a
comprehensive scheme for miner training. In general, section 115(a)
requires training for new miners, annual refresher training, and task
training. With regard to task training, section 115(a) provides in
relevant part:
(a) Each operator of a coal or other mine shall
have a health and safety training program which shall
be approved by the Secretary.... Each training program
approved by the Secretary shall provide as a minimum that--
(4) any miner who is reassigned to a new task
in which he has had no previous work
~279
Utah, Inc. ("Western Fuels") for a violation of section 115(a)
of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. $ 825(a), and 30 C.F.R. $ 48.7 for
failing to task train one of its section foremen in the operation
of a roof-bolting machine prior to his using that machine. In
proceedings before Commission Administrative Law Judge Roy J. Maurer,

Western Fuels argued that the foreman was exempt from the task
training requirements by virtue of 30 C.F.R. $ 48.2(a)(1)(ii), which
excludes from coverage by section 48.7 "[s]upervisory personnel
subject to MSHA approved State certification requirements...." 2/
Judge Maurer concluded that task

experience shall receive training in accordance
with a training plan approved by the Secretary
under this subsection in the safety and health aspects
specific to that task prior to performing that task.
The Secretary of Labor's regulations implementing section 115(a)
are set forth at 30 C.F.R. Part 48. With regard to task training for
miners working in underground coal mines, section 48.7(a) in pertinent
part states:
Miners assigned to new work tasks as mobile
equipment operators, drilling machine operators,
haulage and conveyor systems operators, roof and
ground control machine operators, and those in
blasting operations shall not perform new work
tasks in these categories until training prescribed
in this paragraph and paragraph (b) of this section
has been completed....
2/ The provisions of Subpart A of 30 C.F.R. Part 48 (30 C.F.R.
$$ 48.1-48.12) set forth the training requirements applicable to
"miners working in underground mines." 30 C.F.R. $ 48.1. Sections
48.2(a)(1) and 48.2(a)(1)(ii) state:
(a)(1) "Miner" means, for purposes of
$$ 48.3 through 48.10 of this Subpart A
[Training and Retraining of Underground Miners],
any person working in an underground mine and
who is engaged in the extraction and production
process, or who is regularly exposed to mine hazards,
or who is a maintenance or service worker employed
by the operator or a maintenance or service worker
contracted by the operator to work at the mine for
frequent or extended periods. This definition
shall include the operator if the operator works
underground on a continuing, even if irregular, basis.
Short term, specialized cont[r]act workers, such as
drillers and blasters, who are engaged in the extraction
and production process and who have received training
under $ 48.6 (Training of newly employed experienced
miners) of this Subpart A may, in lieu of subsequent
training under that section for each new employment,

receive training under
~280
training of the foreman was required because the exemption
contained in section 48.2(a)(1)(ii) applies only to a supervisor
actually and primarily engaged in supervision and not to one engaged
in the extraction and production process. 9 FMSHRC 1355 (August
1987)(ALJ). Because this conclusion cannot be squared with the
plain, unambiguous language of section 48.2(a)(1)(ii), we reverse.
On February 3, 1986, Carson Julius, a miner at Western Fuels'
Deserado Mine, an underground coal mine located in Rangely, Colorado,
was promoted to section foreman. The criteria applied by Western
Fuels in selecting a section foreman required that the person have
the ability to operate face equipment in order to properly direct the
work force in its operation, have on-the"job experience in underground
operation of a coal mine, have supervisory skills, and be certified by
the State of Colorado as a mine foreman. 3/ Julius had been certified
as a mine foreman by the State on May 15, 1980, and in Western Fuel's
opinion met the other selection criteria.
On February 28, 1986, Julius was in charge of a production
crew assigned to the East Mains working section of the mine. In
that section, roof was being bolted under Julius' supervision.
The machine being used to bolt the roof was a Lee Norse TD-43-5-4F
roof bolting machine. 4/ That morning, Sky Havens was operating the
right hand boom of the roof bolting machine and Austin Mullens was
operating the left hand boom. Julius instructed Havens to go to
lunch, and Julius took his place as the operator of the right hand
boom while Mullens continued to operate the left hand boom.
After Julius and Mullens had installed one row of bolts,
Mullens, contrary to Julius' repeated instructions, walked under
unsupported roof to raise an end of a metal roof mat that had
fallen to the floor. 5/ Mullens was killed when a large piece of
the mine roof fell and struck

_
$ 48.11 (Hazard training) of this Subpart A.
This definition does not include:

(ii) Supervisory personnel subject to MSHA
approved State certification requirements....
3/ The State of Colorado certification requirements for supervisory
personnel are approved by MSHA.
4/ The Lee Norse machine is double boomed and is normally operated
by two miners, one on each side of the machine, who simultaneously
install the bolts. Julius had operated the Lee Norse machine briefly
on prior occasions. Julius had also operated other roof bolting

machines in the past.
5/ Metal roof mats were part of the roof support system used at the
mine.
~281
him. 6/
During a subsequent investigation of the accident, MSHA
Investigator Theodore L. Caughman found that prior to the accident
Julius had not received task training in the use of the roof
bolting machine. 7/ Caughman issued an order of withdrawal pursuant
to section 104(g)(1) of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. $ 814(g)(1), requiring
Julius' removal from the mine on the grounds that Julius had not
received the requisite task training. Caughman subsequently modified
the order to allege that Western Fuels' failure to task train Julius
was a violation of section 115(a) of the Act. In addition, Caughman
issued a citation to Western Fuels pursuant to section 104(a) of the
Act, 30 U.S.C. $ 814(a), alleging that Julius' lack of task training
was a violation of 30 C.F.R. $ 48.7. Caughman further found that
Julius' lack of training was of such nature as to significantly and
substantially contribute to a mine safety hazard although it did not
contribute to the cause of the accident. Western Fuels abated the
order and citation by providing Julius with training in the operation
of the roof bolting machine.
In his decision, the judge concluded that Julius was required
to be task trained prior to operating the roof bolting machine and
that Western Fuels violated section 115(a) of the Act and section 48.7
by failing to train Julius. 9 FMSHRC at 1365. The judge noted that
section 48.2(a)(1)(ii) "on its face purports to except supervisory
personnel subject to MSHA approved State certification requirements
from the definition of 'miner', and therefore from the task training
requirements of [section] 48.7." 9 FMSHRC at 1361. The judge focused
his decision upon the question of whether the exemption applied to
Julius.
The judge described the Secretary:s position with regard to
the language of section 48.2(a)(1)(ii) as follows: "[The Secretary]
maintains that a person is 'supervisory' only so long as he
'supervises.' Once that person diverts from supervising to running
mining machinery, that person is no longer 'supervisory' but rather
is a 'miner' regardless of his job title." 9 FMSHRC at 1361. The
judge found that Julius, "while engaged in operating the roof
bolting machine was primarily engaged in a nonsupervisory task in
the extraction and production process although he nominally retained
his role as a 'supervisor,' i.e., a section foreman, throughout the
period of this incident." 9 FMSHRC at 1363-64.

6/ This accident also led to the issuance to Western Fuels of

another citation alleging that a violation of 30 C.F.R. $ 75.200
occurred when Mullens proceeded under unsupported roof. This
violation was at issue in another proceeding and was upheld by
the Commission. Western Fuels-Utah, 10 FMSHRC 256 (March 1988),
pet. for review filed, No. 88-1313 (D.C Cir. April 22, 1988).
7/ The training plan then in effect at the mine, required under
section 115(a) of the Mine Act and approved by an MSHA district
manager, does not require supervisors to take task training but
does require task training for roof bolters.
~282
The judge noted that the Secretary's interpretation of
the term "supervisory personnel" had previously been set forth
in a series of MSHA documents and accepted her interpretation as
reasonable. 9 FMSHRC at 1361-62, 1364. The judge further held
that the Secretary's interpretation of the exception was in
accord with the statutory objectives of the Act pertaining to
training, was consistently applied by MSHA, and was noticed to
the industry. 9 FMSHRC at 1364-65. The judge concluded that the
exception "must be limited to those supervisors who are actually
engaged primarily in supervision" and that since Julius was
"primarily engaged in operating the roof bolting machine, not
supervision," Julius was required to have been task trained on
the machine before undertaking its operation. 9 FMSHRC at 1365.
Accordingly, the judge determined that Western Fuels violated
section 48.7 and section 115(a) of the Mine Act. Id. The judge
also found that the violation was significant and substantial in
nature, and accordingly he affirmed the order of withdrawal and
citation and assessed Western Fuels a civil penalty of $180 for
the violation. 9 FMSHRC at 1366-1367.
On review, Western Fuels does not dispute that, prior to
the accident, it had not provided Julius with task training in the
operation of the Lee Norse roof bolting machine. Rather, Western
Fuels argues that the language of section 48.2(a)(1)(ii) excludes
"supervisory personnel" subject to MSHA approved State certification
from the task training requirements of Part 48 and that Julius comes
within this exception. Western Fuels asserts that the Secretary's
interpretation of section 48.2(a)(1)(ii), adopted by the judge, is
an unlawful attempt by the Secretary to amend the regulation outside
the rulemaking requirements of the Mine Act. 8/
We agree with Western Fuels that the language of section
48.2(a)(1)(ii) means what it says, that supervisory personnel subject
to MSHA approved State certification requirements are exempt from the
30 C.F.R. $$ 48.3 through 48.10 training and retraining requirements.
The parties stipulated that at the time the violations were cited
Julius was a mine foreman certified by the State of Colorado, which

program was MSHA approved. We hold that as such he was exempt from
the task training requirements of section 48.7.
We find the relevant regulations to be clear and unambiguous in
this regard. Sections 48.3 through 48.10 set forth the requirements
for

8/ The Secretary:s argument with respect to the validity of the
withdrawal order, which cited section 115(a), and the citation,
which cited section 48.7, is the same. The regulations in
Part 48-Subpart A, including sections 48.2(a)(1)(ii) and 48.7,
set forth the requirements for training and retraining of
underground miners and were promulgated pursuant to section 115 of
the Act. No issue is presented in this case concerning the general
validity of a supervisory exception to the training regulations.
The parties accept the exception as valid but differ as to the meaning
of the language of section 48.2(a)(1)(ii). The judge's decision was
based on his analysis of this language as well. Therefore, in
deciding this case, we focus only upon the meaning of the exception.
~283
submitting and obtaining approval of programs for training and
retraining miners working in underground mines, the requirements
for the training of new miners, the training of newly employed
experienced miners, the training of miners assigned to a task in
which they have had no previous experience, the requirements for
annual refresher training of miners, and the requirements for
record keeping and compensation. Section 48.2 expansively defines
a "miner" for purposes of sections 48.3 through 48.10 as:
any person working in an underground mine and
who is engaged in the extraction and production
process, or who is regularly exposed to mine
hazards, or who is a maintenance or service worker
employed by the operator or a maintenance or service
worker contracted by the operator to work at the
mine for frequent or extended periods ... includ[ing]
the operator if the operator works underground on a
continuing, even if irregular basis.
However, after defining the "miners" who are subject to the
requirements of sections 48.3 through 48.10, section 48.2(a)(1)(ii)
expressly states that among those who are not included in the
definition of miner are "[s]upervisory personnel subject to MSHA
approved State certification requirements." It is not in dispute
that the State of Colorado certification requirements are approved
by MSHA.
The exclusion of "supervisory personnel" from the definition
of "miner" in section 48.2(a)(1)(ii) has a plain meaning apparent

from any reasonable reading of the regulation. The term "supervisory
personnel" means individuals who are supervisors. Supervisors are
persons having authority delegated by an employer to supervise others.
Webster's Third New International Dictionary (Unabridged) 2296 (1986
ed.). Nothing in the regulation expressly suggests that the Secretary
intended the term "supervisory personnel" to mean anything other than
those persons who have been certified under an MSHA approved state
plan and have been accorded supervisory status by their employers.
Nothing in the regulation implies that "supervisory personnel" are
vested with or divested of that status by virtue of the particular
task they perform at any given moment. Nothing in the regulation
hints that supervisory status is functionally distinctive, and that
it contemplates a distinction between those supervisory personnel
attending to supervisory tasks and those attending to production
tasks.
It is a cardinal principle of statutory and regulatory
interpretation that words that are not technical in nature "are
to be given their usual, natural, plain, ordinary, and commonly
understood meaning." Old Colony R.R. Co. v. Commissioner of
Internal Revenue, 284 U.S. 552, 560 (1932). When the meaning of
the language of a statute or regulation is plain, the statute or
regulation must be interpreted according to its terms, the ordinary
meaning of its words prevails, and it cannot be expanded beyond its
plain meaning. Old Dominion R.R. Co. v. Commissioner of Internal
Revenue, 284 U.S. 552, 560 (1932); see Emery Mining Corp. v. Secretary
of Labor, 783 F.2d 155, 159 (lOth Cir. 1986). Thus, if an operator
delegates to a miner authority to supervise, the
~284
miner is supervisory personnel." If he is also subject to
MSHA approved State certification, then by the terms of section
48.2(a)(1)(ii) he is excluded from the training requirements
of sections 48.3 through 48.10, including the task training
requirements of section 48.7.
Despite the plain meaning of the regulation, the Secretary
argues that her interpretation of the supervisory personnel
exception to the definition of "miner" is reasonable and must be
accorded deference. We have carefully considered the Secretary's
arguments in this regard but find no basis upon which we may give
weight to the Secretary's arguments in this case.
While the Secretary's interpretations of her regulations
are entitled to weight, that deference is not limitless and the
Secretary's interpretations are not without bounds. Deference
is not required when the Secretary's interpretations are plainly
erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation. See Udall v.
Tallman, 380 U.S. 1, 16-17 (1965)(quoting Bowles v. Seminole

Rock Co., 325 U.S. 410, 413-14 (1945)). Nor does it weigh in the
Secretary's favor when the Secretary has not offered reasonable
interpretations of the standards. See Brock on behalf of Williams
v. Peabody Coal Co., 822 F.2d 1134, 1145 (D.C. Cir. 1987). The
Mine Act does not contemplate that the Commission merely "rubber
stamp" the Secretary's interpretations without evaluating the
reasonableness of those interpretations and their fidelity to
the words of the regulations.
The language of the supervisory personnel exception is
unambiguous. It exempts supervisory personnel subject to MSHA
approved State certification requirements. Further, the
Secretary's contemporaneous construction of her training
regulations indicates no intent to distinguish between those
supervisory personnel engaging in supervisory tasks and those
attending to production tasks. In a preamble titled "Supplemental
Information," published during promulgation of the final training
regulations, the Secretary specifically stated that "supervisory
personnel subject to an approved State certification program" would
be excluded from Part 48 training requirements and that MSHA approved
state certified training of supervisors was an "alternative to the
training requirements" of Part 48:
Training of Supervisors. The final rule
retains the exclusion from these training
requirements of supervisory personnel subject to
an approved State certification program. Some
commenters were not aware of State certification
requirements of supervisory personnel. Presently,
certification programs are generally administered by
coal producing states and are used by operators when
complying with the training requirement for certified
personnel found in $$ 75.160, 75.160.1, 77.107 and
77.107.1, Title 30, Code of Federal Regulations. MSHA
will approve or evaluate the State certification
programs to assure that such
~285
programs provide sufficient training as an
alternative to the training requirements of
subparts A and B; no formal approval process is
contemplated. Commenters questioned why only
those supervisors certified by approved State
programs should be exempt from the training
requirements. State certification programs are
administered according to specific criteria,
which helps insure that supervisors will receive
adequate training.

43 Fed Reg. 47454, 47458 (October 13, 1978) (emphasis added).
This preamble to the final rule represents the Secretary's
contemporaneous interpretation of the exemption and contains
nothing to suggest that "supervisory personnel" fall within or
without it depending upon the nature of a task they momentarily
undertake. To the contrary, the Secretary's commentary suggests
that Part 48 training (which would include task training) for
"supervisory personnel" was to be accomplished pursuant to approved
State certification programs. In sum, what the Secretary now states
she intended the words "supervisory personnel" to mean was not
expressed in the training regulations during promulgation.
The Secretary also points to several MSHA policy statements,
issued subsequent to promulgation of the training regulation,
enunciating her view of the limited nature of the supervisory
personnel exception. These include a document entitled
Q-A Memorandum (February 24, 1982) addressed to district managers,
sub-district managers and field office supervisors and stating that
"a state certified supervisor performing the work of a miner would
be required to be trained under Part 48" (Exh. G-6); a 1984 MSHA
Policy Memorandum stating that the supervisory personnel "exception
applies only to the extent that supervisory work is being performed"
(Exh. G-7); 9/ and a portion of the 1985 MSHA Administrative Manual
stating that "if a supervisor operates mining equipment, or performs
extraction, production and maintenance work, that supervisor is a
'miner' when performing this work and must have been given task
training under section 48.7." Exh. G-8.
While the Commission has recognized that there may be situations
where MSHA policy memorandums, manuals or similar MSHA documents may
"reflect a genuine interpretation or general statement of policy whose
soundness commends deference and therefore results in [the Commission]
according it legal effect," it has declined to do so where the

9/ The 1984 MSHA Policy Memorandum also states:
When supervisors perform or are expected to perform
mining tasks, they are "miners" under Part 48 and
must receive the required training. For example,
if a supervisor operate mining equipment ... that
supervisor must have completed task training as
specified by [section] 48.7.... Exh. G-7 at sheet 2.
~286
interpretation or policy statement is inconsistent with the
language of the standard. King Knob Coal Co., 3 FMSHRC 1417,
1420 (June 1981). See also United States Steel Corp., 5 FMSHRC 3, 6
(January 1983). In those instances, the Commission has concluded
that "the express language of a ... regulation 'unquestionably

controls.'" King Knob, 3 FMSHRC at 1420. Here, where the Secretary's
interpretation, as expressed in policy statements, flies in the face
of the language of the rule itself, it is owed no deference. See also
Daviess County Hosp. v. Bowen, 811 F.2d 338, 345 (7th Cir. 1987);
Union of Concerned Scientists v. Nuclear Reg. Com'n, 711 F.2d 370, 381
(D.C. Cir. 1983). 10/
Thus, we do not view the commentaries on the supervisory
personnel exclusion contained in the MSHA memoranda and manual
as genuine interpretations or general policy statements; rather,
they are an invalid attempt to amend the regulation to require
the training of supervisory personnel on the basis of functional
distinctions, a requirement not found in the adopted training
regulations. 11/ As such, they represent a substantive modification
of section 48.2(a)(1)(ii), not merely an interpretative gloss.
Section 101(a) of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. $ 811(a), requires
all rules concerning mandatory health or safety standards to be
promulgated in accordance with section 553 of the Administrative
Procedure Act

10/ The present situation is in stark contrast to that involved
in Secretary on behalf of Bushnell v. Cannelton Industries, Inc.,
No. 88-1229, F.2d (D.C. Cir. February 14, 1989), where the
court concluded that the Commission failed to extend due deference
to the Secretary's interpretation of her regulation. In Bushnell,
the Court noted that there was no "plain meaning" manifest on the
face of the regulation; that the Secretary's interpretation was a
reasonable one consistent with the language of the regulation; and
that the preamble to the final rule strongly supported the Secretary's
reading. Slip op. 14-15. We find that all of these factors are not
present here.
11/ The Secretary argues that an industry representative on the
advisory committee appointed by the Secretary to assist her in the
development of the training regulations accepted MSHA's position
that Part 48 training would be required for supervisors performing
nonsupervisory work. S. Br. 8. We do not find this argument to
be persuasive. To give weight to the unpublished remarks of one
advisory committee member is entirely unwarranted in view of the
unambiguous language in the regulation and the Secretary's statement
during promulgation of the final rule that State certification
programs for supervisory personnel are "an alternative to the
training requirements of Subparts A and B [of Part 48]." 43 Fed.
Reg. at 47454. See generally Monterey Coal Co. v. FMSHRC, 743 F.2d
589, 595-596 (7th Cir. 1984). Administrative history, like
legislative history, cannot be used to create doubt where the language
of the regulation is plain on its face. See United States v Oreson,

366 U.S. 643, 648 (1961); Matala v. Consolidation Coal Co., 647 F.2d
427, 430 (4th Cir. 1981).
~287
("APA"). 5 U.S.C. $ 553. Further, section 101(a)(2) of the Act,
30 U.S.C. $ 811(a)(2), requires the Secretary to publish in the
Federal Register any "proposed rule promulgating, modifying, or
revoking a mandatory health or safety standard" and to permit
public comment on the proposed regulation (emphasis added).
Section 553 of the APA requires that to the extent a rule is
more than an interpretation or general statement of policy, it is
subject to the APA's notice and comment requirements. Because the
Secretary's commentaries attempt to modify section 48.2(a)(1)(ii)
and were not promulgated in accordance with applicable requirements,
they lack the force and effect of law and section 48.2(a)(1)(ii)
must stand as written. See King Knob, 3 FMSHRC at 1420-21.
Finally, a regulation subjecting an operator to enforcement
action under the Mine Act must give fair notice to the operator of
what is required or prohibited and "cannot be construed to mean
what an agency intended but did not adequately express." Phelps
Dodge Corp. v. FMSHRC, 681 F.2d 1189, 1193 (9th Cir. 1982). Here,
we conclude that the plain language of 30 C.F.R. $ 48.2(a)(1)(ii)
did not notify Western Fuels of the functional distinction
proffered by the Secretary in this proceeding -- that supervisory
personnel subject to MSHA approved state certification must be task
trained pursuant to section 48.7 if they engage in what MSHA regards
as non-supervisory, production activities.
In sum, we hold that section 48.2(a)(1)(ii) means what it
says and that supervisory personnel subject to MSHA approved State
certification are excluded from the mandatory training regulations of
sections 48.3 through 48.10. Since Julius was a supervisor certified
by the State of Colorado, an MSHA approved state program, we conclude
that he was not required to be task trained on the Lee Norse roof
bolting machine prior to operating it, and that the order and citation
cannot be upheld.
~288
Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the judge and vacate
the order, the citation, and the penalty assessment.
Ford B. Ford, Chairman
Richard V. Backley, Commissioner
Joyce A. Doyle, Commissioner
James A. Lastowka, Commissioner
L. Clair Nelson, Commissioner
Distribution
Barry F. Wisor, Esq.
Office of the Solicitor

U.S. Department of Labor
4015 Wilson Blvd.
Arlington, VA 22203
Karl F. Anuta, Esq.
P.0. Box 1001
2120 13th Street
Boulder, Colorado 80306
Administrative Law Judge Roy Maurer
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission
5203 Leesburg Pike, Suite 1000
Falls Church, Virginia 22041