Amazon.com Services, LLC

373 NLRB No. 96 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex- ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C. 20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can be included in the bound volumes. Amazon.com Services, LLC and Ted Miin and Chris- tian Zamarron and Drew Duzinskas and Connor Spence and Brett Daniels Cases 13–CA–275270, 13–CA–276695, 13–CA–279376, 29–CA–278982, 29–CA–282693, and 29–CA–284417 September 10, 2024 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCFERRAN AND MEMBERS PROUTY AND WILCOX The General Counsel seeks a default judgment in this case pursuant to the terms of an informal settlement agree- ment that provided for issuance of a complaint and default judgment in the event of noncompliance with terms of the settlement agreement. Following the filing of charges by individual employees against Amazon.com Services, LLC (“the Respondent”), the parties entered into a bilateral in- formal settlement agreement in Case 13–CA–275270 et al., which was approved by the Regional Director for Re- gion 13 on December 22, 2021. The charges alleged, inter alia, that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by unlawfully implementing, maintaining and enforc- ing an overly broad and discriminatory rule that prohibited off-duty employees from being on the Respondent’s prop- erty, including outside its facilities in nonwork areas, more than 15 minutes before or after their shifts.1 The settlement agreement required the Respondent to post and electronically distribute an attached notice at all of the Respondent’s fulfillment centers nationwide. The settlement agreement also contained the following provi- sions which state, in relevant part, as follows: COMPLIANCE WITH NOTICE— The Charged Party will comply with all the terms and provisions of said Notice. PERFORMANCE— The Charged Party agrees that in case of non-compli- ance with any of the terms of this Settlement Agreement by the Charged Party, and after 14 days’ notice from the Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board of such non-compliance without remedy by the Charged Party, the Regional Director will issue a Com- plaint that includes the allegations covered by the Notice to Employees, as identified above in the Scope of Agree- ment section, as well as filing and service of the charge(s), commerce facts necessary to establish Board 1 The Respondent’s rule stated: Off-Duty Requirements: Effective immediately, only those employees who are scheduled to work are permitted to be in our facilities or on our property. Employees who are scheduled to work may arrive on site up to 15 minutes before their shift start. All Employees are expected to jurisdiction, labor organization status, appropriate bar- gaining unit (if applicable), and any other allegations the General Counsel would ordinarily plead to establish the unfair labor practices. Thereafter, the General Counsel may file a Motion for Default Judgment with the Board on the allegations of the complaint. The Charged Party understands and agrees that all of the allegations of the Complaint will be deemed admitted and that it will have waived its right to file an Answer to such Complaint. The only issue that the Charged Party may raise before the Board will be whether it defaulted on the terms of this Settlement Agreement. The General Counsel may seek, and the Board may impose, a full remedy for each unfair labor practice identified in the Notice to Employ- ees. The Board may then, without necessity of trial or any other proceeding, find all allegations of the Com- plaint to be true and make findings of fact and conclu- sions of law consistent with those allegations adverse to the Charged Party on all issues raised by the pleadings. The Board may then issue an Order providing a full rem- edy for the violations found as is appropriate to remedy such violations. The parties further agree that a U.S. Court of Appeals Judgment may be entered enforcing the Board Order ex parte, after service or attempted ser- vice upon Charged Party at the last address provided to the General Counsel. Finally, the notice attached to the settlement agreement provided, in relevant part: WE WILL immediately, upon the approval of this Set- tlement Agreement by the Regional Director, Region 13, of the National Labor Relations Board, at each of our fulfillment centers and delivery stations in the United States, rescind and give no effect to the policies we is- sued and maintained that (1) restricts your access to non- working areas beyond 15 minutes of the start or end of your shifts, and (2) restricts access to the interior of the site or any working area, and WE WILL notify employ- ees at each of our fulfillment centers, sortation centers, receive centers, specialty, and delivery stations nation- wide that we have done so. In the event we wish to re- instate a lawful rule regarding off-duty employee access to our buildings, we will only do so after the60-day post- ing period for the instant charges has concluded, and said notification to employees must also state that the rule will not be discriminatorily enforced against employees exercising in protected activity. On about June 30, 2022, the Respondent electronically promulgated the following employee work rule regulating access to its facilities by off-duty employees: clock in/out as usual. Employees are expected to timely depart the site, within 15 minutes, after their shift ends. DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2 “Policy: Off Duty Access—CAN and US Purpose Employee safety and security is important to Amazon, and this policy describes the safe and secure access to Amazon buildings and working areas outside of buildings. This policy allows Amazon to more easily ascertain who is present andenables Amazon to plan our support staffing, services, maintenance and related func- tions accordingly. Applicability This policy applies to WW Consumer Operations in Canada and the United States. It applies in these busi- nesses, excluding Physical Stores:  Amazon Transportation Services (ATS).  Global Customer Fulfillment (GCF).  Global Delivery Services (GDS).  Global Specialty Fulfillment (GSF).  Customer Service (CS) It applies to all Amazon employees working in operation sites. This includes fulltime, reduced-time, part-time, regular, flex, and seasonal employees. Overview During their off-duty periods (that is, on their days off and before and after their shifts), employees are not per- mitted inside the building or in working areas outside the building. Additional support If you have questions or concerns, reach out to your manager or PXT representative. This policy may change time to time, with or without advance notice and Amazon reserves the right to depart from the policy when deemed appropriate.” The above policy did not include any exceptions or guarantees relating to nonenforcement against protected activity. On or about July 8, 2022, the Respondent electronically distributed a message clarifying that “this policy will not be enforced discriminatorily against employees engaging in protected activity.” On June 27, 2023, the Acting Regional Director for Re- gion 9 severed a complaint allegation in Case 09–CA– 298870 that the Respondent promulgated and maintained an unlawful off-duty employee access rule in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. That same day, the Acting Re- gional Director issued a Complaint and Order Scheduling Hearing in Case 09–CA–298870 alleging that on or about June 30, 2022, the Respondent electronically promulgated and maintained, until on or about July 8, 2022, an unlaw- ful off-duty access rule. 2 Having found that the Respondent’s promulgation of an unlawful off-duty employee access rule violated the terms of the informal settle- ment agreement discussed above, we find it unnecessary to pass on the General Counsel’s additional theory that the Respondent violated the By letter dated August 14, 2023, the Regional Director for Region 13 notified Respondent of its noncompliance with the above settlement agreement in the instant Case 13–CA–250270 et al. The letter provided the Respondent with notice that it “failed to comply or provide evidence of its compliance with the following terms of the Settle- ment Agreement,” including, in relevant part, the provi- sion requiring that it: vi. Rescind and give no effect to policies that restrict employee access, and in the event Respondent wishes to reinstate a lawful rule regarding off-duty employee ac- cess to Respondent’s buildings, in its notification to em- ployees, it must also state that the rule will not be dis- criminatorily enforced against employees exercised in protected activity. (see last paragraph of the Notice) The Regional Director for Region 13 notified the Re- spondent that “[i]f Respondent fails to cure its default by August 28, 2023, I will issue a Complaint based on the default of the terms of the Settlement Agreement, and thereafter seek Default Judgment on the allegations of the Complaint.” The Respondent sent a reply to the Regional Director on August 28, 2023, providing the electronic no- tifications that it had sent to employees regarding the re- visions to the policy and stating, “[t]o the extent you con- tinue to assert that Amazon failed to comply with the final paragraph of the Notice to Employees attached to the 2021 Settlement Agreement, please explain what it is that you believe Amazon has failed to do.” On September 23, 2023, the Regional Director for Re- gion 13 replied to the Respondent by stating, “I have con- sidered your August 28, 2023, letter and believe that due process has been provided to Amazon.” The General Counsel subsequently filed its Consolidated Complaint on September 28, 2023, and the instant Motion to Transfer Proceedings to the Board and for Default Judgment on September 29, 2023. On October 5, 2023, the Board issued an Order Trans- ferring Proceeding to the Board and a Notice to Show cause as to why the General Counsel’s Motion for Default Judgment should not be granted. The Respondent filed a timely opposition to the General Counsel’s motion on No- vember 10, 2023. The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. Ruling on Motion for Default Judgment We agree with the General Counsel that the Respond- ent’s promulgation of the June 30, 2022 off-duty access rule violated the terms of the informal settlement agree- ment in Case 13–CA–250270 et al.2 In Amazon.com Ser- vices, LLC, Case 09–CA–298870, the Board determined agreement’s notice-provision stating that the Respondent “WILL NOT do anything to prevent you from exercising the above rights,” including the right to “[a]ct together with other employees for your benefit and protection.” AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC 3 that the Respondent’s promulgation of the June 30, 2022 off-duty access policy violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 373 NLRB No. 40, slip op. at 2–3 (2024) (applying Tri- County Medical Center, 222 NLRB 1089 (1976)). The Board found that the Respondent’s subsequent July 8, 2022 revision to the policy and notice to employees that such policy had been revised was insufficient to effec- tively repudiate the Respondent’s unfair labor practice. Id., slip op. at 3–4 (applying Passavant Memorial Area Hospital, 237 NLRB 138 (1978)). The Board also found that even though the rule had been revised 8 days later, the violation was not de minimis. Id. at 4. Accordingly, we find that the Respondent’s promulga- tion of the June 30, 2022 off-duty employee access rule violated the informal settlement agreement’s requirements that, in the event it wished to reinstate an off-duty access rule, the Respondent “reinstate a lawful rule” and that “said notification to employees must also state that the rule will not be discriminatorily enforced against employees exercising in protected activity.” The Board’s holding in Amazon.com Services, LLC, supra, 373 NLRB No. 40, makes clear that the Respondent’s promulgation of the above rule was unlawful and that the Respondent’s subse- quent revision of the rule on July 8, 2022 did not effec- tively repudiate the unlawful conduct. Further, it is clear from the face of the June 30, 2022 rule that it did not in- clude the agreed-to language in the Notice attached to the settlement agreement requiring that any reinstated rule “will not be discriminatorily enforced against employees [engaging] in protected activity.” Accordingly, because the Respondent failed to comply with the settlement agreement, we grant the General Counsel’s Motion for Default Judgment and, pursuant to the noncompliance provisions of the settlement agreement set forth above, find the allegations in the complaint to be true. In granting the General Counsel’s motion, we reject the Respondent’s assertion that, even assuming it violated the settlement agreement, the Regional Director failed to pro- vide it with notice sufficient to satisfy due process and the terms of the agreement. The Respondent quotes the set- tlement agreement’s provision that the General Counsel would issue a complaint against the Respondent “after 14 days’ notice from the Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board of such non-compliance without remedy by the Charged Party.” The Respondent contends that the Regional Director’s August 14, 2023 letter notify- ing the Respondent of its noncompliance with the settle- ment agreement did not provide it with sufficient notice before the General Counsel moved for default judgment. The Respondent specifically argues that the Regional Di- rector’s letter did not mention the pending complaint alle- gation in Case 09–CA–298870, the case ultimately re- solved in Amazon.com Services, LLC, supra, 373 NLRB No. 40. Although the Respondent is correct that the Regional Director’s letter did not explicitly mention Case 09–CA– 298870 by name or number, the letter explicitly cites the subject of the complaint in that case: specifically, that the Respondent failed to comply with the terms of the settle- ment agreement requiring that “in the event Respondent wishes to reinstate a lawful rule regarding off-duty em- ployee access to Respondent’s buildings, in its notification to employees, it must also state that the rule will not be discriminatorily enforced against employees exercised in protected activity. (see last paragraph of Notice).” Fur- ther, and perhaps most tellingly, in response to the Re- gional Director’s notice of noncompliance with the settle- ment agreement, the Respondent provided the Regional Director with copies of the electronic notices distributed to employees that the Respondent sent in its attempt to rectify the unlawful rule circulated on June 30, 2022, which was the subject of Case 09–CA–298870. Accord- ingly, the Respondent was clearly on notice that at least one aspect of the Regional Director’s allegations of non- compliance with the settlement regarded its promulgation of the June 30, 2022 access rule, and in response the Re- spondent provided information to establish its attempted repudiation of this unlawful rule. Given the Respondent’s own conduct in response to the Regional Director’s letter, we reject the Respondent’s assertions that it received in- sufficient notice of its noncompliance. The Respondent failed to effectively repudiate its un- lawful conduct, and the General Counsel waited until Sep- tember 28, 2023, more than the 14 days required in the settlement agreement, to file her complaint and motion for default judgment. Accordingly, we find the Respondent was provided with sufficient notice of its breach consistent with the terms of the settlement agreement and with due process. On the entire record, the Board makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTION At all material times, the Respondent has been a limited liability company with offices and places of business lo- cated in Chicago, Illinois (Respondent’s DIL3 facility), Joliet, Illinois (Respondent’s MDW4 facility), and Staten Island, New York (Respondent’s JFK8 facility), and has been engaged in the business of providing online retail sales throughout the United States. During the preceding 12 months (a representative pe- riod), the Respondent, in conducting its business opera- tions at its DIL3 facility, purchased and received at the Respondent’s facility goods valued in excess of $5000 di- rectly from points located outside of the State of Illinois. During the preceding 12 months (a representative pe- riod), the Respondent, in conducting its operations at its DIL3 facility, derived gross revenues in excess of $500,000. DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 4 We find that at all material times the Respondent has been an employer engaged in commerce within the mean- ing of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES 1. At all material times, the following individuals held the positions set forth opposite their respective names and have been supervisors of the Respondent within the mean- ing of Section 2(11) of the Act and agents of the Respond- ent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act: Justin Russel - Operations Manager at DIL3 Dwayne Dawkins - Manager at MDW4 Brian Harp - Manager at MDW4 Tyler Grabowski - Senior HR Business Associate at JFK8 Tawana Jackson - HR Business Partner at JFK8 Ariana Ovadia - Operations Manager at JFK8 Unidentified - Head of Security at JFK8 Yaakov (LNU) - Loss Prevention Representat- ive at JFK8 2. As of about August 25 and 26, 2021, Robert Amato, Head of Metro One Security, and two unidentified secu- rity guards working at Respondent’s JFK8 facility were agents of Respondent with respect to access to Respond- ent’s JFK8 facility within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act. 3. As of about October 6, 2021, Stephon Boyce, Head of Metro One Security working at Respondent’s JFK8 fa- cility, was an agent of Respondent with respect to access to Respondent’s JFK8 facility within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(13) of the Act. 4. On about March 22, 2021, at Respondent’s DIL3 fa- cility, Respondent, through Station Operations Manager Justin Russell, interrogated employees about their union and protected concerted activities with regard to their off- duty distribution of Amazonians United Chicagoland fli- ers/newsletters outside of the Respondent’s facility. 5. On two occasions on about March 22, 2021, at Re- spondent’s DIL3 facility, Respondent, through Station Operations Manager Justin Russell, orally promulgated an unlawful no off-duty access rule and directed employees to leave the property. 6. On about March 22, 2021, Respondent, at its DIL3 facility, by a security guard whose name is not known, in- terrogated employees about their protected concerted ac- tivities with regard to their off-duty distribution of Ama- zonians United Chicagoland fliers/newsletters outside of the Respondent’s facility. 7. Shortly after March 31, 2020, Respondent promul- gated and maintained, both orally and in writing, the fol- lowing overly broad and discriminatory rule regarding off-duty employee access to Respondent’s facilities na- tionwide: Off-Duty Requirements: Effective immediately, only those employees who are scheduled to work are permit- ted to be in our facilities or on our property. Employees who are scheduled to work may arrive on site up to 15 minutes before their shift start. All Employees are ex- pected to clock in/out as usual. Employees are expected to timely depart the site, within 15 minutes, after their shift ends. 8. On about May 10, 2021, at its MDW4 facility, through its manager Dwayne Dawkins, Respondent orally promulgated and enforced the aforementioned off-duty employee-access rule. 9. On about May 11, 2021, at its MDW4 facility, Re- spondent, through an unspecified security guard, orally promulgated and enforced the off-duty employee access rule. 10. On about May 11, 2021, at its MDW4 facility, Re- spondent, through its manager Brian Harp, orally promul- gated and enforced the off-duty employee access rule. 11. On about June 12, 2021, Respondent, at its JFK8 facility, by Operations Manager Ariana Ovadia, enforced the off-duty employee access rule by confiscating union literature. 12. On about July 21, 2021, Respondent, at its JFK8 fa- cility, by Senior HR Business Associate Tyler Grabowski, orally promulgated and enforced the off-duty employee access rule, and threatened to discipline employees for vi- olation of the rule. 13. On about June 21, 2021, Respondent, at its JFK8 facility, by HR Business Partner Tawanna Jackson, en- forced the off-duty employee access rule. 14. On about August 25, 2021, near the entrance to Re- spondent’s JFK8 facility, Respondent, through a pair of unidentified security guards, enforced the off-duty em- ployee access rule by directing employees to leave the premises. 15. On about August 26, 2021, near the entrance to Re- spondent’s JFK8 facility, Respondent, through Robert Amato, Head of Metro One Security, enforced the off- duty employee access rule by directing employees to leave the premises. 16. On about August 26, 2021, near the entrance to Re- spondent’s JFK8 facility, Respondent, through Loss Pre- vention Representative Yaakov (LNU), enforced the off- duty employee access rule by directing employees to leave the premises. 17. On about August 27, 2021, near the entrance to Re- spondent’s JFK8 facility, Respondent, through its Head of Security, enforced the off-duty employee access rule by directing employees to leave the premises and threatening to call the police. 18. On about October 6, 2021, at the Amazon Labor Un- ion tent outside Respondent’s JFK8 facility, Respondent, through Stephon Boyce, Head of Metro One Security, AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC 5 enforced the off-duty employee access rule by directing employees to leave the premises. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. By the conduct described above in paragraphs 2–14, the Respondent has been interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaran- teed in Section 7 of the Act in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 2. The unfair labor practices of the Respondent de- scribed above affect commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer- tain unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative actions designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Specifically, having found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, we shall order the Respondent to rescind and to cease promulgating, maintaining, and enforcing its unlawful off- duty employee access rule at the Respondent’s facilities nationwide. In ordering the affirmative remedies enumerated above, we are mindful that the General Counsel is empowered under the default provision of the settlement agreement to seek “a full remedy for the violations found as is appropri- ate to remedy such violations.”3 Here, the Motion for De- fault Judgment petitions the Board to “issue a Decision containing findings of fact and conclusions of law based on, and in accordance with, the allegations of the Com- plaint” and to “remedy[] such unfair labor practices” al- leged therein. In the consolidated complaint, the General Counsel moves the Board to order the Respondent to “re- scind and to cease promulgating, maintaining, and enforc- ing the alleged unlawful overly broad rules, policies, or directives, at Respondent’s facilities nationwide.” How- ever, in her Motion for Default Judgment, the General Counsel has not expressly sought additional remedies for the other violations alleged in the consolidated complaint, specifically the allegations that the Respondent interro- gated and threatened employees about their union and pro- tected concerted activities. Accordingly, we will not, sua sponte, issue these remedies.4 3 As set forth above, the settlement agreement provided that, in case of noncompliance, the Board may issue such a full remedy. 4 See, e.g., American Backflow & Fire Prevention, Inc., 373 NLRB No. 71, slip op. at 4 fn. 7 (2024); Sun Holdings, Inc. & Florida Pop, LLC d/b/a Popeye’s Louisiana Kitchen, 372 NLRB No. 150, slip op. at 5 & fn. 5 (2023). 5 If the facilities involved in these proceedings are open and staffed by a substantial complement of employees, the notices must be posted within 14 days after service by the Region. If the facilities involved in these proceedings are closed or not staffed by a substantial complement of employees due to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pan- demic, the notices must be posted within 14 days after the facilities reo- pen and a substantial complement of employees has returned to work. ORDER The National Labor Relations Board orders that the Re- spondent, Amazon.com Services, LLC, Chicago, Illinois, Joliet, Illinois & Staten Island, New York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Promulgating, maintaining and enforcing rules or policies that unlawfully prohibit off-duty employee access to exterior, nonwork areas of the Respondent’s facilities. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef- fectuate the policies of the Act. (a) To the extent it has not already done so, rescind and give no further effect to the unlawful off-duty employee access rule promulgated orally and in writing between March 2020 and July of 2021. (b) Post at its facilities nationwide copies of the at- tached notice marked “Appendix.”5 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 13, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized repre- sentative, shall be posted by the Respondent and main- tained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places, in- cluding all places where notices to employees are custom- arily posted. In addition to physical posting of paper no- tices, notices shall be distributed electronically, such as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet site, and/or other electronic means, if the Respondent customarily communicates with its employees by such means. Rea- sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. If the Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facilities involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees and former em- ployees employed by the Respondent at any time since March 31, 2020. (c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director for Region 13 a sworn affidavit of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region at- testing to the steps that Respondent has taken to comply. Dated, Washington, D.C., September 10, 2024 If, while closed or not staffed by a substantial complement of employees due to the pandemic, the Respondent is communicating with its employ- ees by electronic means, the notice must also be posted by such electronic means within 14 days after service by the Region. If the notice to be physically posted was posted electronically more than 60 days before physical posting of the notice, the notice shall state at the bottom that “This notice is the same notice previously [sent or posted] electronically on [date].” If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg- ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board.” DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 6 ______________________________________ Lauren McFerran, Chairman ______________________________________ David M. Prouty Member ______________________________________ Gwynne A. Wilcox, Member (SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board has found that we vio- lated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this notice. FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO Form, join, or assist a union Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf Act together with other employees for your bene- fit and protection Choose not to engage in any of these protected ac- tivities. WE WILL NOT create, maintain, or enforce any rules or policies that unlawfully limit your access to exterior, non- work areas of our facilities. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights listed above. WE WILL, to the extent we have not already done so, re- scind and give no further effect to our unlawful rule an- nounced orally and in writing between March 2020 and July of 2021, which restricted your access to nonwork ar- eas of our facilities beyond fifteen minutes of the start and end of your shifts. AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC The Board’s decision can be found at https://www.nlrb.gov/case/13-CA-275270 or by using the QR code below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, 1015 Half Street, S.E., Room 5011, Washington, DC 20570, or by calling (202) 273-1940.