This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

25375 

Vol. 77, No. 83 

Monday, April 30, 2012 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Grain Inspection, Packers and 

Stockyards Administration 

7 CFR Part 810 

RIN 0580–AB12 

United States Standards for Wheat 

Correction 

PART 810 [CORRECTED] 

In proposed rule document 2012– 

9182 appearing on page 23420 in the 

issue of Thursday, April 19, 2012, make 

the following correction: 

On page 23420, in § 810.2240(a), the 

table is corrected to read as set forth 

below: 

Grades and Grade Requirements 

* * * * * 

Maximum percent limits of: 

Defects: 

Damaged kernels 

Heat (part of total) ......................................................................................... 0.2 0.2 0.5 1.0 .3.0 

Total ............................................................................................................... 2.0 4.0 7.0 10.0 15.0 

Foreign material .................................................................................................... 0.4 0.7 1.3 3.0 5.0 

Shrunken and broken kernels .............................................................................. 2.0 4.0 8.0 12.0 20.0 

Total 1 ............................................................................................................. 3.0 5.0 8.0 12.0 20.0 

Wheat of other classes: 2

Contrasting classes ....................................................................................... 1.0 2.0 3.0 10.0 10.0

Total 3 ............................................................................................................. 3.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 

Stones ................................................................................................................... 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 

[FR Doc. C1–2012–9182 Filed 4–27–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Parts 50 and 52 

[PRM–50–104; NRC–2012–0046] 

Emergency Planning Zone 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; notice 

of receipt and request for comment. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC or the Commission) 

is publishing for public comment a 

notice of receipt for a petition for 

rulemaking (PRM), dated February 15, 

2012, which was filed with the NRC by 

Mr. Michael Mariotte on behalf of the 

Nuclear Information and Resource 

Service (NIRS or the petitioner) and 37 

co-petitioners. The petition was 

docketed by the NRC on February 17, 

2012, and assigned Docket No. PRM– 

50–104. The petitioner requests that the 

NRC amend its regulations to expand 

the Emergency Planning Zones (EPZs) 

for nuclear power plants. 

DATES: Submit comments by July 16, 

2012. Comments received after this date 

will be considered if it is practical to do 

so, but the NRC is able to assure 

consideration only for comments 

received on or before this date. 

ADDRESSES: You may access information 

and comment submissions related to 

this petition for rulemaking, which the 

NRC possesses and is publicly available, 

by searching on http:// 

www.regulations.gov under Docket ID 

NRC–2012–0046. You may submit 

comments by the following methods: 

• Federal rulemaking Web site: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2012–0046. Address 

questions about NRC dockets to Carol 

Gallagher; telephone: 301–492–3668; 

email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. 

• Email comments to: 

Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov. If you 

do not receive an automatic email reply 

confirming receipt, then contact us at 

301–415–1677. 

• Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 301– 

415–1101. 

• Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001, ATTN: 

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. 

• Hand deliver comments to: 11555 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 

20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. 

(Eastern Time) Federal workdays; 

telephone: 301–415–1677. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
25376 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 83 / Monday, April 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

For additional direction on accessing 

information and submitting comments, 

see ‘‘Accessing Information and 

Submitting Comments’’ in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules, 

Announcements, and Directives Branch, 

Division of Administrative Services, 

Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001, telephone: 301–492– 

3667, email: Cindy.Bladey@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Accessing Information and 

Submitting Comments 

A. Accessing Information 

Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2012– 

0046 when contacting the NRC about 

the availability of information for this 

petition for rulemaking. You may access 

information related to this petition for 

rulemaking, which the NRC possesses 

and is publicly available, by the 

following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2012–0046. 

• NRC’s Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management System 

(ADAMS): You may access publicly 

available documents online in the NRC 

Library at http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html. To begin the search, 

select ‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and 

then select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS 

Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS, 

please contact the NRC’s Public 

Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 

1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by 

email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The 

PRM is available in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML12048B004. 

• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and 

purchase copies of public documents at 

the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One 

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. 

B. Submitting Comments 

Please include Docket ID NRC–2012– 

0046 in the subject line of your 

comment submission, in order to ensure 

that the NRC is able to make your 

comment submission available to the 

public in this docket. 

The NRC cautions you not to include 

identifying or contact information in 

comment submissions that you do not 

want to be publicly disclosed. The NRC 

posts all comment submissions at 

http://www.regulations.gov as well as 

entering the comment submissions into 

ADAMS, and the NRC does not edit 

comment submissions to remove 

identifying or contact information. 

If you are requesting or aggregating 

comments from other persons for 

submission to the NRC, then you should 

inform those persons not to include 

identifying or contact information in 

their comment submissions that they do 

not want to be publicly disclosed. Your 

request should state that the NRC will 

not edit comment submissions to 

remove such information before making 

the comment submissions available to 

the public or entering the comment 

submissions into ADAMS. 

II. The Petitioner and the 37 CoPetitioners 

The PRM describes the petitioner and 

the 37 co-petitioners as ‘‘environmental 

and civic organizations with members 

who live within 100 miles of U.S. 

nuclear power plants and who are 

concerned that current NRC emergency 

planning requirements are not adequate 

to protect their health and safety in the 

event of an accident at the plant.’’ 

The NIRS is a non-profit organization 

founded in 1978, which serves as a 

‘‘national information and networking 

center for people concerned about 

nuclear power, radioactive waste, 

radiation and sustainable energy 

issues.’’ In addition, the NIRS is 

described as an organization that 

provides public education on issues 

such as deregulation of radioactive 

materials, new reactor licensing, 

transportation of radioactive waste, and 

nuclear reactor safety. 

III. The Petition 

The petitioner requests that the NRC 

amend Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR) 50.47, ‘‘Emergency 

Plans,’’ and Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 

50, ‘‘Emergency Planning and 

Preparedness for Production and 

Utilization Facilities,’’ and include the 

modifications in 10 CFR Part 52, 

‘‘Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals 

for Nuclear Power Plants.’’ Specifically, 

the petitioner requests that (1) the 

Plume Exposure Pathway EPZ radius be 

expanded from a 10-mile radius to a 

25-mile radius, (2) a new 50-mile radius 

Emergency Response Zone, with more 

limited requirements than the Plume 

Exposure Pathway EPZ, be established, 

(3) the Ingestion Pathway EPZ radius be 

expanded from a 50-mile radius to a 

100-mile radius, and (4) the ‘‘emergency 

plans are tested to encompass initiating 

and/or concurrent natural disasters that 

may affect both accident progression 

and evacuation conduct.’’ The petitioner 

asserts that ‘‘the requested amendments 

are essential for the protection of public 

health and safety in light of the realworld experience of the Chernobyl and 

Fukushima disasters, which were more 

severe and affected a much larger 

geographical area than provided for in 

NRC regulations.’’ 

The petitioner states that ‘‘[t]he NRC 

should amend 10 CFR 50.47(c)(2) to 

create a three-tiered emergency 

planning zone * * *.’’ The petitioner’s 

three-tiered EPZ includes a 25 mile 

Plume Exposure Pathway EPZ, 50 mile 

Emergency Response Zone, and 100 

mile Ingestion Exposure Pathway Zone. 

The following paragraphs provide a 

summary of the petitioner’s proposed 

revisions to 10 CFR 50.47(c)(2). 

25 Mile Plume Exposure Pathway EPZ 

The petitioner proposes the following 

revision to 10 CFR 50.47(c)(2) with 

regards to the plume exposure pathway 

EPZ: 

A Plume Exposure Pathway zone shall 

consist of an area about 25 miles (40 km) in 

radius. Within this zone, detailed plans must 

be developed to provide prompt and effective 

evacuation and other appropriate protective 

measures, including conducting of biannual 

full-scale emergency evacuation drills. Sirens 

will be installed within this zone to alert the 

population of the need for evacuation. 

Transportation for elderly, prison and school 

populations shall be provided within this 

zone. Emergency shelters shall be located 

outside of the 25-mile zone. 

The petitioner asserts that the 

expansion of the plume exposure 

pathway EPZ from a 10 mile radius to 

a 25 mile radius ‘‘would provide no new 

requirements other than expansion of 

the EPZ.’’ 

50 Mile Emergency Response Zone 

The petitioner proposes the following 

revision to 10 CFR 50.47(c)(2) with 

regards to an Emergency Response 

Zone: 

The [emergency response zone] shall be 

about 50 miles in radius. Within this 50 mile 

zone, the licensee must identify evacuation 

routes for all residents within this zone and 

annually provide information to all residents 

within this zone about these routes and 

which they are supposed to take in the event 

of an emergency. The licensee must make 

basic pre-arrangements for potential transport 

of disabled/hospital/prison populations. 

Emergency centers for the public currently 

located less than 25 miles out shall be 

relocated to 25 miles or further out. 

Information shall be made available to the 

public within this zone through television, 

internet and radio alerts, text message 

notices, and other appropriate means of 

public communication. 

The petitioner notes that this revision 

‘‘would require measures be carried out 

between the new 25 mile Plume 

Exposure Pathway EPZ and a new 

Emergency Response Zone of about a 50 

mile radius.’’ The petitioner states that 

the Plume Exposure Pathway EPZ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 83 / Monday, April 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules 25377 

emergency evacuation requirements and 

biannual exercises are not required in 

the Emergency Response Zone. The 

petitioner further states ‘‘this new zone 

would provide a modest level of preplanning that would enable rapid 

expansion of the 25 mile zone when 

necessary. Information regarding 

evacuation such as identification of 

evacuation routes and locations of 

emergency shelters in the event of a 

large scale disaster would be identified 

and would be provided to members of 

the public annually, and a limited 

number of other pre-arrangements 

would be made.’’ 

100 Mile Ingestion Exposure Pathway 

Zone 

The petitioner proposes the following 

revision to 10 CFR 50.47(c)(2) with 

regards to the ingestion pathway EPZ: 

The ingestion pathway EPZ shall be about 

100 miles in radius. In the event of a 

radioactive release, the deposition of 

radionuclides on crops, other vegetation, 

bodies of surface water and ground surfaces 

can occur. Measures will be implemented to 

protect the public from eating and drinking 

food and water that may be contaminated. 

Information shall be made available to the 

public within this zone through television 

and radio alerts, text message notices, and 

other appropriate means of public 

communication. 

The petitioner states that ‘‘[t]he 

current Ingestion Exposure Pathway 

Zone exists to protect food, water and 

anything intended for human 

consumption within 50 miles of a 

nuclear power plant.’’ The petitioner 

further states ‘‘[g]iven that radiation can, 

and does, have far-reaching effects on 

food on a large radius, the Ingestion 

Pathway EPZ should be expanded.’’ 

Drills and Exercises 

The petitioner proposes amending 10 

CFR 50.47(b)(14) with regards to drills 

and exercises by adding: 

Within the emergency evacuation zone full 

scale drills and exercises will be conducted 

on a biannual basis. Every other exercise and 

drill shall include a scenario involving an 

initiating or concurrent regionallyappropriate natural disaster. 

IV. The Petitioner’s Bases 

The petitioner states, ‘‘[w]ith the 

exception of a 2011 rule requiring 

licensees to use current U.S. census data 

to prepare evacuation time estimates 

(ETEs) and update them every 10 years, 

the NRC has made few significant 

improvements to its offsite emergency 

response regulations since they were 

promulgated in 1980.’’ The petitioner 

notes that ‘‘the NRC denied a set of 

petitions [submitted by the Citizens 

Task Force of Chapel Hill, et al.] to 

increase the size of the plume exposure 

pathway EPZ and the ingestion pathway 

EPZ’’ in 1990. The petitioner asserts that 

‘‘[t]he Commission declined to revisit 

the assumptions about severe reactor 

accident risks that underlie its 

emergency planning regulations, 

concluding that the existing size of the 

EPZs was adequate to achieve 

‘reasonable and feasible dose reduction’ 

under the circumstances of each 

individual reactor site.’’ The petitioner’s 

bases for the petition are further 

presented in the following paragraphs. 

Chernobyl, September 11, and 

Fukushima Experiences 

The petitioner cites reports and 

findings regarding the Chernobyl and 

Fukushima Dai-ichi accidents, and the 

September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to 

support the petition. The petitioner 

asserts that ‘‘[t]he accident at 

Fukushima, added to the experience of 

the Chernobyl disaster, demonstrates 

that the 10 mile plume exposure 

pathway EPZ and the 50 mile ingestion 

pathway EPZ are inadequate to protect 

the public health and safety, both 

because severe accidents are clearly 

more likely than any government 

previously has estimated and because 

their effects are far more widespread.’’ 

The petitioner specifically cites the 

‘‘Recommendations for Enhancing 

Reactor Safety in the 21st Century: The 

Near-Term Task Force Review of 

Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi 

Accident’’ (Fukushima Task Force 

Report, ADAMS Accession No. 

ML111861807), dated July 12, 2011. The 

petitioner notes that the Task Force 

formed to examine the Fukushima 

disaster ‘‘addressed the issues of 

protecting against accidents resulting 

from natural phenomena, mitigating the 

consequences of such accidents, and 

ensuring emergency preparedness’’ in 

the Fukushima Task Force Report. The 

petitioner also notes that the Task Force 

‘‘made several recommendations, 

including strengthening and integrating 

onsite emergency response capabilities 

such as emergency operating 

procedures, severe accident 

management guidelines, and extensive 

damage mitigation guidelines.’’ The 

petitioner asserts that ‘‘the task force 

failed to make any recommendations on 

improving emergency response 

capabilities or expanding EPZ size, 

despite the Task Force’s 

acknowledgement that it was necessary 

to evacuate Japanese residents up to and 

beyond a 20-kilometer (12-mile) area 

around Fukushima.’’ As the petitioner 

notes, the NRC is evaluating several 

Task Force recommendations related to 

emergency preparedness. More 

information about these activities is 

available through the NRC’s public Web 

site at http://www.nrc.gov/japan/japaninfo.html. 

Real-World Experience and Improved 

Understanding of Severe Accident Risks 

at Nuclear Reactors 

The petitioner states that ‘‘[t]he NRC’s 

existing emergency planning regulations 

(and the NRC’s decision in Citizens 

Task Force of Chapel Hill) are based 

primarily on experience gained by the 

Three Mile Island accident and on NRC 

reactor safety studies conducted from 

the 1950s through the 1970s (for 

example, WASH–1400 and NUREG– 

1150) and are encapsulated in NUREG– 

0396.’’ The petitioner notes that in 2006, 

‘‘the NRC began the State-of-the-Art 

Reactor Consequence Analyses 

(SOARCA) project to re-evaluate the 

‘realistic consequences of a severe 

reactor accident.’ ’’ The petitioner cites 

an October 2010 draft of the SOARCA 

report to support the petition. The 

petitioner asserts that ‘‘real-world 

experience at Fukushima trumps the 

computer modeling of SOARCA in any 

case and has presented the world—and 

the NRC—with an actual accident that 

exceeds postulated scenarios.’’ The 

petitioner continues by stating 

‘‘[c]omputer models, simulations, 

evaluations of projected scenarios—all 

can be useful tools in evaluating the 

relative risks of complex systems like 

nuclear reactors. They can even be 

useful—in the absence of real-world 

information—in establishing 

regulations. But they exist primarily to 

generate postulated data in the absence 

of actual data—they are not a substitute 

for actual, real-world experience.’’ 

Real-World Experience and Improved 

Understanding of Severe Accident Risks 

at [Spent] Fuel Pools 

The petitioner states that ‘‘[spent] fuel 

pools pose a serious and dangerous 

threat to the populations surrounding 

nuclear plants. Accidents could cause 

widespread contamination of highly 

radioactive materials.’’ The petitioner 

asserts that ‘‘[r]adiation exposure would 

be significantly worse if there were to be 

[a spent] fuel pool accident in addition 

to a reactor accident.’’ The petitioner 

makes the following statement regarding 

spent fuel pools: ‘‘In theory, this form of 

storage is meant to be temporary. But, 

because offsite storage of irradiated fuel 

is currently unavailable, high density 

storage of this material has been 

permitted to occur.’’ The petitioner also 

states, ‘‘Aside from concerns associated 

with the dense packing of a pool, the 

pools themselves are located outside of 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
25378 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 83 / Monday, April 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

the primary containment which is 

designed to keep radiation which is 

released during an emergency event 

from escaping in to the environment. 

Because they are outside of the primary 

containment structure, they are more 

vulnerable than the core to natural 

disasters and terrorist attacks.’’ 

Improved Understanding of Health 

Effects of Radiation 

The petitioner states ‘‘[t]here is no 

‘safe’ dose of radiation, and as such the 

consideration of the effects of release of 

radiation should be given greater 

consideration.’’ The petitioner cites the 

2006 National Research Council of the 

National Academy of Sciences 

Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation 

(BEIR) VII Report and asserts the report 

confirms that ‘‘any exposure to 

radiation—including background 

radiation—increases a person’s risk of 

developing cancer.’’ The petitioner 

states that ‘‘the NRC and licensees must 

recognize that their emergency response 

programs must be designed to protect 

not only against radiation levels that 

would cause acute effects, but also 

radiation levels that would exceed 

annual exposure limits * * *.’’ The 

petitioner asserts that ‘‘a government 

policy that implicitly states, as do NRC’s 

existing emergency planning 

regulations, that radiation exposure 

levels higher than normally allowable— 

by orders of magnitude—are acceptable 

under emergency conditions, is a 

government policy that is unsupportable 

and without basis in reality.’’ 

Particular Problems Associated With 

Pressure Suppression Containments 

The petitioner asserts that ‘‘[t]he 

failure of a pressure suppression 

containment can result in widespread 

radioactive contamination of areas 

surrounding nuclear plants.’’ The 

petitioner states, ‘‘In Japan, hydrogen 

explosions occurred at (at least) three 

GE Mark I reactors using a pressure 

suppression system.’’ The petitioner 

also states, ‘‘There are 23 GE Mark I 

nuclear reactors—about one-quarter of 

the nation’s reactors—essentially 

identical to the reactors that were 

destroyed at Fukushima, that are 

operational in the United States.’’ The 

petitioner makes the following 

statement: ‘‘Not only can the NRC no 

longer dismiss such accidents in the 

U.S., the NRC must instead assume that 

such accidents can occur in the U.S. and 

even, given the history of the nuclear 

age that large nuclear accidents are 

occurring at a much greater frequency 

than previously postulated, the NRC—at 

least for emergency planning purposes if 

nothing else—must assume that such 

accidents will occur in the U.S.’’ 

Natural Disasters and Emergency 

Response Planning 

The petitioner states that ‘‘[n]atural 

disasters have become increasingly 

prevalent in recent years causing 

concerns for nuclear reactors that are 

susceptible to various weather 

phenomena and disasters.’’ The 

petitioner asserts that ‘‘[c]urrent NRC 

emergency planning regulations do not 

reflect that natural disasters can both 

cause nuclear accidents and/or may 

occur concurrently with nuclear 

accidents.’’ The petitioner requests the 

following: 

Emergency response planning for nuclear 

facilities must incorporate regionally-relevant 

initiating and concurrent natural disasters as 

a regular part of emergency exercises, to 

assure the most effective possible emergency 

response in the event of a nuclear accident 

triggered by or complicated by a natural 

disaster. For this reason, we propose that 

every other emergency exercise include a 

scenario that includes a regionally-relevant 

initiating and concurrent natural disaster. By 

‘‘regionally relevant’’ we mean that plans 

should be made and exercises undertaken for 

the type of natural disaster most likely to 

affect a given licensee site * * *. However, 

for areas that may be affected by more than 

one type of natural disaster * * * each 

exercise should include a different regionally 

relevant scenario. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day 

of April 2012. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Annette L. Vietti-Cook, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2012–10314 Filed 4–27–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Internal Revenue Service 

26 CFR Part 301 

[REG–119632–11] 

RIN 1545–BK87 

Regulations Pertaining to the 

Disclosure of Return Information To 

Carry Out Eligibility Requirements for 

Health Insurance Affordability 

Programs 

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 

Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

and notice of public hearing. 

SUMMARY: This document contains 

proposed regulations relating to the 

disclosure of return information under 

section 6103(l)(21) of the Internal 

Revenue Code, as enacted by the Patient 

Protection and Affordable Care Act and 

the Health Care and Education 

Reconciliation Act of 2010. The 

regulations define certain terms and 

prescribe certain items of return 

information in addition to those items 

prescribed by statute that will be 

disclosed, upon written request, under 

section 6103(l)(21) of the Internal 

Revenue Code. 

DATES: Written (including electronic) 

comments must be received by July 30, 

2012. Outlines of topics to be discussed 

at the public hearing scheduled for 

Friday, August 31, 2012, must be 

received by July 30, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Send submissions to: 

CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG–119632–11), Room 

5203, Internal Revenue Service, PO Box 

7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, 

DC 20044. Submissions may be handdelivered Monday through Friday 

between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. 

to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG–119632–11), 

Courier’s Desk, Internal Revenue 

Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC, or sent electronically 

via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov (IRS REG–119632– 

11). The public hearing will be held in 

the IRS Auditorium, Internal Revenue 

Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue 

NW., Washington, DC. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Concerning the proposed regulations, 

Steven Karon, (202) 622–4570; 

concerning the submission of 

comments, the public hearing, and to be 

placed on the building access list to 

attend the public hearing, 

Olumafunmilayo Taylor, (202) 622– 

7180 (not toll-free numbers). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Beginning in 2014, under the Patient 

Protection and Affordable Care Act, 

Public Law 111–148 (124 Stat. 119 

(2010)), and the Health Care and 

Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, 

Public Law 111–152 (124 Stat. 1029 

(2010)) (collectively, the Affordable Care 

Act), Affordable Insurance Exchanges 

(Exchanges) will provide competitive 

marketplaces for individuals and small 

employers to directly compare available 

private health insurance options 

(qualified health plans, or QHPs) on the 

basis of price, quality, and other factors, 

and to purchase such coverage. A 

Federally-facilitated Exchange will 

operate on behalf of States electing not 

to pursue a State-based Exchange. In 

general, a QHP is a health plan offered 

by a health insurance issuer that meets 

minimum standards in the law and set 

by an Exchange. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS