Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 126 / Tuesday, July 1, 2014 / Proposed Rules 37261 

certified Woodstock Soapstone stove 

and two EPA-certified stoves produced 

by another manufacturer show 

particulate emission rates (g/hr) using 

cord wood that are equal to or less than 

the corresponding test data using crib 

wood for all burn rates. The EPA asks 

for comments on these data and how 

they may influence the final rule. 

3. Details of Cord Wood Testing by 

Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL), 

under Contract to the EPA, of an EPAcertified Noncatalytic Wood Stove. 

Numerous comments on the February 3, 

2014, proposal suggest that 

manufacturers tune their stoves to the 

EPA crib wood certification test method 

and that they would need to re-tune 

their stoves for the proposed Step 2 cord 

wood certification test method. We 

believe this is true and that 

manufacturers will soon adjust the 

combustion air flows, directions and 

proportions to better match the change 

in hydrocarbon volatilization rate due to 

the difference in surface area to volume 

ratio for crib wood versus cord wood. 

However, numerous non-catalytic stove 

manufacturers have indicated that they 

are waiting for the proposed NSPS 

revisions to become final before they 

undergo the expense of such testing. At 

this time, no manufacturer has 

submitted particulate matter emissions 

test data for non-catalytic wood stoves 

tuned to burn cord wood during tests 

similar to the EPA certification tests or 

the ASTM (formerly known as the 

American Society for Testing and 

Materials) draft cord wood test method. 

In June 2014, BNL (under an EPA 

contract) conducted new emissions 

testing of a popular non-catalytic EPAcertified wood stove using cord wood. 

Existing EPA certification test data for 

crib wood based on the current EPA 

Test Method 5G (http://www.epa.gov/

ttnemc01/promgate/m-05g.pdf) were 

compared to the new test data for using 

cord wood (with no stove design 

changes). Use of existing crib wood data 

were used for the comparison in order 

to minimize the cost of the additional 

testing. We note that this raises the 

question whether new crib wood testing 

would have produced similar results as 

the previous crib wood testing. Also, we 

note that the new cord wood testing was 

conducted with Method 5H, whereas 

the previous certification testing was 

conducted with Method 5G. The results 

of the test show: 

a. For a popular, current model noncatalytic stove that was not adjusted by 

the manufacturer for burning cord wood 

instead of crib wood during the 

certification test, the emission test 

results can be significantly higher than 

the crib emission test results. As 

discussed above, the proposed Step 2 

reasonably anticipates that the 

manufacturers would adjust the 

combustion air flows, directions and 

proportions to better match the change 

in hydrocarbon volatilization rate due to 

the difference in surface area to volume 

ratio for cribs versus cord wood. 

However, that was not done for this new 

test series. 

b. Repeatability of cord wood test 

method results can sometimes be very 

good. For example, the results for three 

replicate tests for burn rate Category 4 

(the maximum burn rate) were within 

15 percent of each other. 

c. Higher moisture content of the fuel 

can increase particulate matter 

emissions. 

The complete BNL test report and 

summary have been added to the docket 

for the proposed rule at: http://www 

.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EPAHQ-OAR-2009-0734. The EPA asks for 

comments on these data and how they 

may influence the final rule. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Hazardous substances, 

Intergovernmental relations, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: June 24, 2014. 

Mary E. Henigin, 

Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards. 

[FR Doc. 2014–15469 Filed 6–30–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 272 

[EPA–R06–RCRA–2013–0461; FRL 9911– 

75–Region 6] 

Oklahoma: Incorporation by Reference 

of State Hazardous Waste Management 

Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) proposes to codify in the 

regulations entitled ‘‘Approved State 

Hazardous Waste Management 

Programs’’, Oklahoma’s authorized 

hazardous waste program. The EPA will 

incorporate by reference into the Code 

of Federal Regulations (CFR) those 

provisions of the State regulations that 

are authorized and that the EPA will 

enforce under the Solid Waste Disposal 

Act, commonly referred to as the 

Resource Conversation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA). 

DATES: Send written comments by July 

31, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to 

Alima Patterson, Region 6 Regional 

Authorization Coordinator, or Julia 

Banks Codification Coordinator, State/

Tribal Oversight Section (6PD–O), 

Multimedia Planning and Permitting 

Division, EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross 

Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, 

Phone number: (214) 665–8533 or (214) 

665–8178. You may also submit 

comments electronically or through 

hand delivery/courier; please follow the 

detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES

section of the immediate final rule 

which is located in the Rules section of 

this Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alima Patterson, (214) 665–8533. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of this 

Federal Register (FR), the EPA is 

codifying and incorporating by 

reference the State’s hazardous waste 

program as direct final rule. The EPA 

did not make a proposal prior to the 

direct final rule because we believe 

these actions are not controversial and 

do not expect comments that oppose 

them. We have explained the reasons for 

this codification and incorporation by 

reference in the preamble to the direct 

final rule. Therefore, the purpose of this 

FR document is to codify Oklahoma’s 

base hazardous waste management 

program and its program revisions 

through RCRA Cluster XXI (see 78 FR 

32161) May 29, 2013. The EPA provided 

notices and opportunity for comments 

on the Agency’s decisions to authorize 

the Oklahoma program, and the EPA is 

not now reopening the decisions, nor 

requesting comments, on the Oklahoma 

authorizations as published in the FR 

notices specified in Section B of the 

direct final rule FR document. 

This document incorporates by 

reference Oklahoma’s hazardous waste 

statutes and regulations and clarifies 

which of these provisions are included 

in the authorized and federally 

enforceable program. By codifying 

Oklahoma’s authorized program and by 

amending the Code of Federal 

Regulations, the public will be more 

easily able to discern the status of 

federally approved requirements of the 

Oklahoma hazardous waste 

management program. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
37262 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 126 / Tuesday, July 1, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Dated: May 22, 2014. 

Ron Curry, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2014–15268 Filed 6–30–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

45 CFR Parts 155 and 156 

[CMS–9941–P] 

RIN 0938–AS32 

Patient Protection and Affordable Care 

Act; Annual Eligibility 

Redeterminations for Exchange 

Participation and Insurance 

Affordability Programs; Health 

Insurance Issuer Standards Under the 

Affordable Care Act, Including 

Standards Related to Exchanges 

AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would 

specify additional options for annual 

eligibility redeterminations and renewal 

and re-enrollment notice requirements 

for qualified health plans offered 

through the Exchange, beginning with 

annual redeterminations for coverage for 

plan year 2015. In particular, this 

proposed rule would provide additional 

flexibility for Marketplaces, including 

the ability for Marketplaces to propose 

unique approaches that meet the 

specific needs of their State, while 

streamlining the consumer experience. 

DATES: To be assured consideration, 

comments must be received at one of 

the addresses provided below, no later 

than 5 p.m. on July 28, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: In commenting, please refer 

to file code CMS–9941–P. Because of 

staff and resource limitations, we cannot 

accept comments by facsimile (FAX) 

transmission. 

You may submit comments in one of 

four ways (please choose only one of the 

ways listed): 

1. Electronically. You may submit 

electronic comments on this regulation 

to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the ‘‘Submit a comment’’ instructions. 

2. By regular mail. You may mail 

written comments to the following 

address ONLY: Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services, Department of 

Health and Human Services, Attention: 

CMS–9941–P, P.O. Box 8010, Baltimore, 

MD 21244–8010. 

Please allow sufficient time for mailed 

comments to be received before the 

close of the comment period. 

3. By express or overnight mail. You 

may send written comments to the 

following address only: Centers for 

Medicare & Medicaid Services, 

Department of Health and Human 

Services, Attention: CMS–9941–P, Mail 

Stop C4–26–05, 7500 Security 

Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244–1850. 

4. By hand or courier. Alternatively, 

you may deliver (by hand or courier) 

your written comments only to the 

following addresses prior to the close of 

the comment period: 

a. For delivery in Washington, DC— 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services, Department of Health and 

Human Services, Room 445–G, Hubert 

H. Humphrey Building, 200 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20201. 

(Because access to the interior of the 

Hubert H. Humphrey Building is not 

readily available to persons without 

Federal government identification, 

commenters are encouraged to leave 

their comments in the CMS drop slots 

located in the main lobby of the 

building. A stamp-in clock is available 

for persons wishing to retain a proof of 

filing by stamping in and retaining an 

extra copy of the comments being filed.) 

b. For delivery in Baltimore, MD— 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services, Department of Health and 

Human Services, 7500 Security 

Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244–1850. 

If you intend to deliver your comments 

to the Baltimore address, call telephone 

number (410) 786–7195 in advance to 

schedule your arrival with one of our 

staff members. 

Comments erroneously mailed to the 

addresses indicated as appropriate for 

hand or courier delivery may be delayed 

and received after the comment period. 

For information on viewing public 

comments, see the beginning of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Benjamin Walker, (301) 492–4430. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Inspection of Public Comments: All 

comments received before the close of 

the comment period are available for 

viewing by the public, including any 

personally identifiable or confidential 

business information that is included in 

a comment. We post all comments 

received before the close of the 

comment period on the following Web 

site as soon as possible after they have 

been received: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the search 

instructions on that Web site to view 

public comments. 

Comments received timely will also 

be available for public inspection as 

they are received, generally beginning 

approximately 3 weeks after publication 

of a document, at the headquarters of 

the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, 

Baltimore, Maryland 21244, Monday 

through Friday of each week from 8:30 

a.m. to 4 p.m. To schedule an 

appointment to view public comments, 

phone 1–800–743–3951. 

Electronic Access 

This Federal Register document is 

also available from the Federal Register 

online database through Federal Digital 

System (FDsys), a service of the U.S. 

Government Printing Office. This 

database can be accessed via the 

internet at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. Legislative Overview 

B. Stakeholder Consultation and Input 

C. Structure of the Proposed Rule 

II. Provisions of the Proposed Rule 

A. Part 155—Exchange Establishment 

Standards and Other Related Standards 

Under the Affordable Care Act; Subpart 

D—Exchange Functions in the 

Individual Market: Eligibility 

Determinations for Exchange 

Participation and Insurance Affordability 

Programs 

B. Part 156—Health Insurance Issuer 

Standards Under the Affordable Care 

Act, Including Standards Related to 

Exchanges; Subpart M—Qualified Health 

Plan Issuer Responsibilities 

III. Response to Comments 

IV. Collection of Information Requirements 

V. Regulatory Impact Statement 

I. Background 

A. Legislative Overview 

The Patient Protection and Affordable 

Care Act (Pub. L. 111–148) was enacted 

on March 23, 2010. The Health Care and 

Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 

(Pub. L. 111–152), which amended and 

revised several provisions of the Patient 

Protection and Affordable Care Act, was 

enacted on March 30, 2010. In this 

proposed rule, we refer to the two 

statutes collectively as the ‘‘Affordable 

Care Act.’’ Subtitles A and C of Title I 

of the Affordable Care Act reorganized, 

amended, and added to the provisions 

of part A of Title XXVII of the Public 

Health Service Act (PHS Act) relating to 

group health plans and health insurance 

issuers in the group and individual 

markets. 

Starting on October 1, 2013 for 

coverage starting as soon as January 1, 

2014, qualified individuals and 

qualified employers have been able to 

purchase qualified health plans 

(QHPs)—private health insurance that 

has been certified as meeting certain 

standards—through competitive 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS