Interlake Stamping Corp. (Also Doing Business as Interlake Industries, Inc.); Revocation of an Experimental Variance and Interim Order, 13078-13079 [2014-04982]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
13078
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 45 / Friday, March 7, 2014 / Notices
Programs (OJP) regarding the operations
and administration of NMVTIS. The
primary duties of the NMVTIS Federal
Advisory Committee will be to advise
the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA)
Director on NMVTIS-related issues,
including but not limited to:
implementation of a system that is selfsustainable with user fees; options for
alternative revenue-generating
opportunities; determining ways to
enhance the technological capabilities
of the system to increase its flexibility;
and options for reducing the economic
burden on current and future reporting
entities and users of the system.
Room N–3647, Washington, DC 20210;
telephone: (202) 693–1999; email:
Meilinger.francis2@dol.gov.
General and technical information:
Contact David Johnson, Director, Office
of Technical Programs and Coordination
Activities, Directorate of Technical
Support and Emergency Management,
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, U.S. Department of
Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Room N–3655, Washington, DC 20210;
telephone: (202) 693–2110; email:
johnson.david.w@dol.gov. OSHA’s Web
page includes information about the
Variance Program (see https://
www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/variances/
index.html ).
Todd Brighton,
NMVTIS Enforcement Coordinator, Bureau of
Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs.
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION:
[FR Doc. 2014–04988 Filed 3–6–14; 8:45 am]
I. Background
BILLING CODE 4410–18–P
A. Previous Experimental Variance
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration
[Docket No. OSHA–2013–0011]
Interlake Stamping Corp. (Also Doing
Business as Interlake Industries, Inc.);
Revocation of an Experimental
Variance and Interim Order
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), Labor.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
In this notice, the
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (‘‘OSHA’’ or the
‘‘Agency’’) revokes an experimental
variance and interim order granted by
OSHA in 1976 and 1978, respectively,
to Interlake Stamping Corp.,
(‘‘Interlake’’ or the ‘‘applicant’’) from
several provisions of the OSHA
standard that regulates mechanical
power presses at 29 CFR 1910.217. In
April 2011, Interlake submitted an
application request for a permanent
variance from these provisions, but later
withdrew the application, stating that it
would be too costly to comply with the
conditions of the variance. Therefore,
OSHA is revoking Interlake’s
experimental variance and the interim
order.
SUMMARY:
The revocation becomes effective
on March 7, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Information regarding this notice is
available from the following sources:
Press inquiries: Contact Frank
Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office of
Communications, U.S. Department of
Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW.,
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
DATES:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:39 Mar 06, 2014
Jkt 232001
On August 31, 1976, OSHA granted
Interlake Stamping Corp., 4732 East
355th Street, Willoughby, OH 44094, an
experimental variance from the
provisions of OSHA standards that
regulate mechanical power presses at 29
CFR 1910.217 (41 FR 36702). Below is
a description of the history of this
experimental variance:
(1) On May 20, 1974, OSHA
published a notice in the Federal
Register announcing that Interlake
submitted an application pursuant to
Section 6(d) of the Occupational Safety
and Health Act of 1970 (the Act; 29
U.S.C. 655) and 29 CFR 1905.11 for a
permanent variance from several
provisions of OSHA’s mechanical
power-presses standard (39 FR 17806);
these provisions were 29 CFR
1910.217(c)(3)(iii)(c), which prohibited
the use of presence-sensing-deviceinitiation (PSDI) systems, and 29 CFR
1910.217(d)(1), which regulated conduct
of mechanical power-press operations.
According to the May 20, 1974, Federal
Register notice, Interlake proposed the
following alternate means of compliance
in its variance application:
The applicant states that he has purchased
a 22-ton Bliss OBI mechanical power press
equipped with an air friction clutch and an
Erwin Sick electronic light curtain. The press
is equipped with special controls and a
highly reliable brake monitoring system. The
applicant further proposes to use the
electronic light curtain as both a protective
device and as a means of cycling the press.
The applicant states that electronic light
curtain devices are used as a tripping means
in Europe and a large body of standards
governing their design and use in this
manner has been accumulated . . . .
(2) On June 3, 1974, OSHA published
a notice in the Federal Register
extending for 30 days the comment
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
period on Interlake’s application for a
permanent variance (39 FR 19543).
(3) On February 3, 1976, OSHA
published a Federal Register notice
announcing that Interlake was
abandoning its application for a
permanent variance and, instead, was
applying for an experimental variance
pursuant to Section 6(b)(6)(c) of the Act
(41 FR 4994). Interlake took this action
because OSHA revised the requirements
in 29 CFR 1910.217(d)(1) on May 20,
1974 (39 FR 41841), which obviated the
applicant’s need for a variance from that
provision. Concurrently, OSHA
renumbered 29 CFR
1910.217(c)(3)(iii)(c) as 29 CFR
1910.217(c)(3)(iii)(b). The new
application, therefore, sought an
experimental variance from 29 CFR
1910.217(c)(3)(iii)(b). According to the
February 3, 1976, Federal Register
notice, Interlake was seeking to conduct
an experiment designed to demonstrate
that it can use the presence-sensingpoint-of-operation device on a
mechanical power press as a tripping
mechanism, in addition to its function
as a safety device, while maintaining
employee safety at or above the level
provided by the standard. Interlake also
claimed that the experiment would
validate Swedish and German data
showing that employers use this
tripping mechanism virtually free of
accidents.
(4) On August 31, 1976, OSHA
published a notice in the Federal
Register granting Interlake an
experimental variance for a one-year
period, August 31, 1976, to August 30,
1977 (41 FR 36702).
(5) On September 9, 1977, OSHA
published a Federal Register notice
extending the experimental variance for
a six-month period, September 1, 1977,
to February 28, 1978, to allow Interlake
to collect additional information on a
number of factors, including the effects
of the experimental conditions on
worker safety and productivity (42 FR
45389).
(6) On March 17, 1978, OSHA
published a notice in the Federal
Register extending the experimental
variance for a two-year period, March 1,
1977, to February 28, 1979 (43 FR
11275). This extension allowed
Interlake to continue collecting
information on the effects of the
experimental conditions on worker
safety and productivity, but also
allowed the Agency to collect
information for a possible new standard
regulating PSDI systems, including
information on the need for a
certification program and the level of
interest in the regulated community for
using PSDI systems. In this notice,
E:\FR\FM\07MRN1.SGM
07MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 45 / Friday, March 7, 2014 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
OSHA also granted Interlake an interim
order to preserve the continuity of the
experimental conditions pending a final
decision on the variance.
(7) On March 6, 1979, OSHA
published a notice in the Federal
Register extending the experimental
variance for an additional two-year
period, March 6, 1979, to March 5, 1981,
to continue collecting safety and
productivity information, and to
preserve the continuity of the
experimental conditions (44 FR 12288).
(8) On May 29, 1981, OSHA
published a Federal Register notice
extending the experimental variance for
an additional one-year period from May
29, 1981, to May 28, 1982 (46 FR
29010). The main purpose of this
extension was to allow the Purdue
Research Foundation, under contract to
the National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health, to: (1) Observe and
evaluate the self-tripping experiment at
Interlake; (2) research the design and
application practices that could develop
if OSHA expanded the experiment to
other sites or modified 29 CFR
1910.217(c)(3)(iii)(b); and (3) develop
design and performance-criteria
approval procedures, and continuing
research strategies.
(9) In 1988, OSHA added paragraph
(h) to 29 CFR 1910.217 (53 FR 8353).
Paragraph (h) allows employers to
install and use PSDI systems, but
requires that OSHA-approved third
parties validate the PSDI systems at the
time of installation and annually
thereafter. To date, no third party has
requested OSHA’s approval to validate
PSDI systems. In the interim, Interlake
continued operating mechanical power
presses using PSDI systems under the
interim order granted in 1978. However,
on March 24, 2011, OSHA informed
Interlake that it must submit an
application for a permanent variance if
it wanted to continue this practice (Ex.
OSHA–2013–0011–002).
B. Interlake’s Application for a
Permanent Variance
On April 8, 2011, OSHA received
Interlake’s application seeking a
permanent variance from Appendices A
and C of 29 CFR 1910.217 (see Ex.
OSHA–2013–0011–002). Appendix A
sets forth requirements for certification/
validation of PSDI systems, and
Appendix C specifies requirements for
OSHA recognition of third-party
validation organizations for PSDI
systems. Interlake proposed to use PSDI
systems as tripping mechanisms under
conditions similar to the conditions
specified by the experimental variance
granted to Interlake by OSHA in 1976
(see previous discussion).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:39 Mar 06, 2014
Jkt 232001
In its variance application, and in its
responses to OSHA’s follow-up
questions (Ex. OSHA–2013–0011–004),
Interlake provided a detailed
description of its proposed alternate
means of worker protection during
operation of the PSDI system, including
a description of the power presses and
light curtains used; the equipmentguarding means and worker training
provided; and inspection, testing, and
maintenance procedures. Additionally,
in its responses to OSHA’s follow-up
questions, Interlake stated that it never
had a worker injured while using PSDI
systems during the 36 years it operated
the systems under the conditions
specified by the experimental variance.
On August 2, 2012, OSHA conducted
a site-evaluation visit at Interlake’s
Willoughby, Ohio, plant. The purpose of
the visit was to review and confirm the
continued safe operation of the two
mechanical power presses equipped
with PSDI systems. Based on the results
of the site-evaluation visit, OSHA, on
March 13, 2013, proposed in a letter to
Interlake several additional conditions
that the Agency believed Interlake
should include in its variance
application (Ex. OSHA–2013–0011–
005). On April 30, 2013, Interlake
responded to this proposal (Ex. OSHA–
2013–0011–006). OSHA reviewed
Interlake’s responses and modified
several of the proposed conditions. In a
letter dated September 4, 2013, OSHA
notified Interlake of the Agency’s
revisions to the proposed conditions
(Ex. OSHA–2013–0011–007). After
reviewing these revisions, Interlake
notified OSHA on September 17, 2013,
that it is withdrawing its application for
a permanent variance, stating:
[T]he management team at Interlake
Stamping has decided not to pursue the
permanent variance for use of the Presence
Sensing Device Initiation (PSDI). We feel it
would be too costly for us to comply with all
of the requirements mandated in the OSHA
response going forward, and would be more
economical for us to discontinue its use
completely. We understand that the
experimental variance that Interlake was
granted will no longer be in effect and we
have removed the connections completely
disabling the PSDI system as of this date.
(Emphasis in original; Ex. OSHA–2013–
0011–008.)
II. Revocation of Interlake’s
Experimental Variance
Based on its review of the record, and
the applicant’s request to withdraw its
application for a permanent variance,
OSHA finds that Interlake no longer
needs the experimental variance.
Therefore, under the authority specified
by 29 CFR 1905.13(a)(2), OSHA is
revoking the experimental variance
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
13079
granted to Interlake on August 31, 1976,
and extended through April 30, 1982.
With this notice, OSHA also is revoking
the interim order granted to Interlake on
March 17, 1978, under which Interlake
continued to comply with the
conditions of the experimental variance
from May 1, 1982, to September 17,
2013.
Accordingly, Interlake must comply
fully with the requirements of 29 CFR
1910.217(h) if it decides to use PSDI
systems.
III. Authority and Signature
David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC, authorized
the preparation of this notice. OSHA is
issuing this notice under the authority
specified by 29 U.S.C. 655, Secretary of
Labor’s Order No. 1–2012 (76 FR 3912;
Jan. 25, 2012), and 29 CFR part 1905.
Signed at Washington, DC, on March 4,
2014.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2014–04982 Filed 3–6–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50–346; NRC–2010–0298]
License Renewal Application for DavisBesse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Draft supplemental generic
environmental impact statement;
issuance, public meeting, and request
for comment.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is issuing for public
comment a draft plant-specific
Supplement 52 to the ‘‘Generic
Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS)
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants,’’
NUREG–1437, regarding the renewal of
operating license NPF–3 for an
additional 20 years of operation for
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit
1 (Davis-Besse). Davis-Besse is located
in Ottawa County, Ohio. Possible
alternatives to the proposed action
(license renewal) include no action and
reasonable alternative energy sources.
The NRC staff plans to hold two public
meetings during the public comment
period to present an overview of the
draft plant-specific supplement to the
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\07MRN1.SGM
07MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 45 (Friday, March 7, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13078-13079]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04982]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
[Docket No. OSHA-2013-0011]
Interlake Stamping Corp. (Also Doing Business as Interlake
Industries, Inc.); Revocation of an Experimental Variance and Interim
Order
AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this notice, the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (``OSHA'' or the ``Agency'') revokes an experimental
variance and interim order granted by OSHA in 1976 and 1978,
respectively, to Interlake Stamping Corp., (``Interlake'' or the
``applicant'') from several provisions of the OSHA standard that
regulates mechanical power presses at 29 CFR 1910.217. In April 2011,
Interlake submitted an application request for a permanent variance
from these provisions, but later withdrew the application, stating that
it would be too costly to comply with the conditions of the variance.
Therefore, OSHA is revoking Interlake's experimental variance and the
interim order.
DATES: The revocation becomes effective on March 7, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information regarding this notice is
available from the following sources:
Press inquiries: Contact Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office of
Communications, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Room N-3647, Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-1999; email:
Meilinger.francis2@dol.gov.
General and technical information: Contact David Johnson, Director,
Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities, Directorate
of Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue NW., Room N-3655, Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-
2110; email: johnson.david.w@dol.gov. OSHA's Web page includes
information about the Variance Program (see https://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/variances/ ).
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. Previous Experimental Variance
On August 31, 1976, OSHA granted Interlake Stamping Corp., 4732
East 355th Street, Willoughby, OH 44094, an experimental variance from
the provisions of OSHA standards that regulate mechanical power presses
at 29 CFR 1910.217 (41 FR 36702). Below is a description of the history
of this experimental variance:
(1) On May 20, 1974, OSHA published a notice in the Federal
Register announcing that Interlake submitted an application pursuant to
Section 6(d) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the
Act; 29 U.S.C. 655) and 29 CFR 1905.11 for a permanent variance from
several provisions of OSHA's mechanical power-presses standard (39 FR
17806); these provisions were 29 CFR 1910.217(c)(3)(iii)(c), which
prohibited the use of presence-sensing-device-initiation (PSDI)
systems, and 29 CFR 1910.217(d)(1), which regulated conduct of
mechanical power-press operations. According to the May 20, 1974,
Federal Register notice, Interlake proposed the following alternate
means of compliance in its variance application:
The applicant states that he has purchased a 22-ton Bliss OBI
mechanical power press equipped with an air friction clutch and an
Erwin Sick electronic light curtain. The press is equipped with
special controls and a highly reliable brake monitoring system. The
applicant further proposes to use the electronic light curtain as
both a protective device and as a means of cycling the press. The
applicant states that electronic light curtain devices are used as a
tripping means in Europe and a large body of standards governing
their design and use in this manner has been accumulated . . . .
(2) On June 3, 1974, OSHA published a notice in the Federal
Register extending for 30 days the comment period on Interlake's
application for a permanent variance (39 FR 19543).
(3) On February 3, 1976, OSHA published a Federal Register notice
announcing that Interlake was abandoning its application for a
permanent variance and, instead, was applying for an experimental
variance pursuant to Section 6(b)(6)(c) of the Act (41 FR 4994).
Interlake took this action because OSHA revised the requirements in 29
CFR 1910.217(d)(1) on May 20, 1974 (39 FR 41841), which obviated the
applicant's need for a variance from that provision. Concurrently, OSHA
renumbered 29 CFR 1910.217(c)(3)(iii)(c) as 29 CFR
1910.217(c)(3)(iii)(b). The new application, therefore, sought an
experimental variance from 29 CFR 1910.217(c)(3)(iii)(b). According to
the February 3, 1976, Federal Register notice, Interlake was seeking to
conduct an experiment designed to demonstrate that it can use the
presence-sensing-point-of-operation device on a mechanical power press
as a tripping mechanism, in addition to its function as a safety
device, while maintaining employee safety at or above the level
provided by the standard. Interlake also claimed that the experiment
would validate Swedish and German data showing that employers use this
tripping mechanism virtually free of accidents.
(4) On August 31, 1976, OSHA published a notice in the Federal
Register granting Interlake an experimental variance for a one-year
period, August 31, 1976, to August 30, 1977 (41 FR 36702).
(5) On September 9, 1977, OSHA published a Federal Register notice
extending the experimental variance for a six-month period, September
1, 1977, to February 28, 1978, to allow Interlake to collect additional
information on a number of factors, including the effects of the
experimental conditions on worker safety and productivity (42 FR
45389).
(6) On March 17, 1978, OSHA published a notice in the Federal
Register extending the experimental variance for a two-year period,
March 1, 1977, to February 28, 1979 (43 FR 11275). This extension
allowed Interlake to continue collecting information on the effects of
the experimental conditions on worker safety and productivity, but also
allowed the Agency to collect information for a possible new standard
regulating PSDI systems, including information on the need for a
certification program and the level of interest in the regulated
community for using PSDI systems. In this notice,
[[Page 13079]]
OSHA also granted Interlake an interim order to preserve the continuity
of the experimental conditions pending a final decision on the
variance.
(7) On March 6, 1979, OSHA published a notice in the Federal
Register extending the experimental variance for an additional two-year
period, March 6, 1979, to March 5, 1981, to continue collecting safety
and productivity information, and to preserve the continuity of the
experimental conditions (44 FR 12288).
(8) On May 29, 1981, OSHA published a Federal Register notice
extending the experimental variance for an additional one-year period
from May 29, 1981, to May 28, 1982 (46 FR 29010). The main purpose of
this extension was to allow the Purdue Research Foundation, under
contract to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health,
to: (1) Observe and evaluate the self-tripping experiment at Interlake;
(2) research the design and application practices that could develop if
OSHA expanded the experiment to other sites or modified 29 CFR
1910.217(c)(3)(iii)(b); and (3) develop design and performance-criteria
approval procedures, and continuing research strategies.
(9) In 1988, OSHA added paragraph (h) to 29 CFR 1910.217 (53 FR
8353). Paragraph (h) allows employers to install and use PSDI systems,
but requires that OSHA-approved third parties validate the PSDI systems
at the time of installation and annually thereafter. To date, no third
party has requested OSHA's approval to validate PSDI systems. In the
interim, Interlake continued operating mechanical power presses using
PSDI systems under the interim order granted in 1978. However, on March
24, 2011, OSHA informed Interlake that it must submit an application
for a permanent variance if it wanted to continue this practice (Ex.
OSHA-2013-0011-002).
B. Interlake's Application for a Permanent Variance
On April 8, 2011, OSHA received Interlake's application seeking a
permanent variance from Appendices A and C of 29 CFR 1910.217 (see Ex.
OSHA-2013-0011-002). Appendix A sets forth requirements for
certification/validation of PSDI systems, and Appendix C specifies
requirements for OSHA recognition of third-party validation
organizations for PSDI systems. Interlake proposed to use PSDI systems
as tripping mechanisms under conditions similar to the conditions
specified by the experimental variance granted to Interlake by OSHA in
1976 (see previous discussion).
In its variance application, and in its responses to OSHA's follow-
up questions (Ex. OSHA-2013-0011-004), Interlake provided a detailed
description of its proposed alternate means of worker protection during
operation of the PSDI system, including a description of the power
presses and light curtains used; the equipment-guarding means and
worker training provided; and inspection, testing, and maintenance
procedures. Additionally, in its responses to OSHA's follow-up
questions, Interlake stated that it never had a worker injured while
using PSDI systems during the 36 years it operated the systems under
the conditions specified by the experimental variance.
On August 2, 2012, OSHA conducted a site-evaluation visit at
Interlake's Willoughby, Ohio, plant. The purpose of the visit was to
review and confirm the continued safe operation of the two mechanical
power presses equipped with PSDI systems. Based on the results of the
site-evaluation visit, OSHA, on March 13, 2013, proposed in a letter to
Interlake several additional conditions that the Agency believed
Interlake should include in its variance application (Ex. OSHA-2013-
0011-005). On April 30, 2013, Interlake responded to this proposal (Ex.
OSHA-2013-0011-006). OSHA reviewed Interlake's responses and modified
several of the proposed conditions. In a letter dated September 4,
2013, OSHA notified Interlake of the Agency's revisions to the proposed
conditions (Ex. OSHA-2013-0011-007). After reviewing these revisions,
Interlake notified OSHA on September 17, 2013, that it is withdrawing
its application for a permanent variance, stating:
[T]he management team at Interlake Stamping has decided not to
pursue the permanent variance for use of the Presence Sensing Device
Initiation (PSDI). We feel it would be too costly for us to comply
with all of the requirements mandated in the OSHA response going
forward, and would be more economical for us to discontinue its use
completely. We understand that the experimental variance that
Interlake was granted will no longer be in effect and we have
removed the connections completely disabling the PSDI system as of
this date. (Emphasis in original; Ex. OSHA-2013-0011-008.)
II. Revocation of Interlake's Experimental Variance
Based on its review of the record, and the applicant's request to
withdraw its application for a permanent variance, OSHA finds that
Interlake no longer needs the experimental variance. Therefore, under
the authority specified by 29 CFR 1905.13(a)(2), OSHA is revoking the
experimental variance granted to Interlake on August 31, 1976, and
extended through April 30, 1982. With this notice, OSHA also is
revoking the interim order granted to Interlake on March 17, 1978,
under which Interlake continued to comply with the conditions of the
experimental variance from May 1, 1982, to September 17, 2013.
Accordingly, Interlake must comply fully with the requirements of
29 CFR 1910.217(h) if it decides to use PSDI systems.
III. Authority and Signature
David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC, authorized the preparation of
this notice. OSHA is issuing this notice under the authority specified
by 29 U.S.C. 655, Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (76 FR 3912;
Jan. 25, 2012), and 29 CFR part 1905.
Signed at Washington, DC, on March 4, 2014.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2014-04982 Filed 3-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
