Request for Information Regarding Reporting on Pharmacy Benefits and Prescription Drug Costs
| Published date | 23 June 2021 |
| Record Number | 2021-13138 |
| Section | Proposed rules |
| Court | Employee Benefits Security Administration,Internal Revenue Service,Personnel Management Office,Treasury Department |
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
32813
Vol. 86, No. 118
Wednesday, June 23, 2021
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL
MANAGEMENT
5 CFR Part 890
RIN 3206–AO27
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
26 CFR Part 54
RIN 1545–BQ10
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employee Benefits Security
Administration
29 CFR Part 2590
RIN 1210–AC07
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
45 CFR Part 149
[CMS–9905–NC]
RIN 0938–AU66
Request for Information Regarding
Reporting on Pharmacy Benefits and
Prescription Drug Costs
AGENCY
: Office of Personnel
Management; Internal Revenue Service,
Department of the Treasury; Employee
Benefits Security Administration,
Department of Labor; Centers for
Medicare & Medicaid Services,
Department of Health and Human
Services.
ACTION
: Request for information.
SUMMARY
: This document is a request for
information on issues related to certain
reporting requirements under section
204 of Title II of Division BB of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021
(CAA) that are applicable to group
health plans and health insurance
issuers offering group or individual
health insurance coverage. The
Departments of Health and Human
Services, Labor, and the Treasury (the
Departments) are issuing this request for
information to gather input from the
public regarding implementation
considerations for the data collection
required under section 204 of Title II of
Division BB of the CAA, and the
associated impact on group health plans
and health insurance issuers. As part of
this request for information, the Office
of Personnel Management (OPM) is also
seeking input from the public regarding
implementation considerations for the
data collection required under section
204 of Title II of Division BB of the CAA
as it pertains to Federal Employees
Health Benefits (FEHB) carriers
(whether or not they are also health
insurance issuers). The Departments
and OPM also seek input on specific
data elements, including the level of
detail that is feasible to report for
entities subject to the data collection
requirements and the associated
burdens and potential compliance costs.
Public comments will inform the
Departments’ and OPM’s
implementation of section 204 through
rulemaking and the establishment of
processes to receive the required
information.
DATES
: To be assured consideration,
comments must be received at one of
the addresses provided below, no later
than 5 p.m. on July 23, 2021.
ADDRESSES
: Written comments may be
submitted to the addresses specified
below. Any comment that is submitted
will be shared among the Departments
and OPM. Please do not submit
duplicates.
Comments will be publicly posted on
Regulations.gov. Warning: Do not
include any personally identifiable
information (such as name, address, or
other contact information) or
confidential business information that
you do not want publicly disclosed.
Comments may be submitted
anonymously.
In commenting, refer to file code
CMS–9905–NC. Because of staff and
resource limitations, we cannot accept
comments by facsimile (FAX)
transmission.
Comments, including mass comment
submissions, must be submitted in one
of the following three ways (please
choose only one of the ways listed):
1. Electronically. You may submit
electronic comments on this regulation
to https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow
the ‘‘Submit a comment’’ instructions.
2. By regular mail. You may mail
written comments to the following
address ONLY:
Office of Health Plan Standards and
Compliance Assistance, Employee
Benefits Security Administration, US
Department of Labor, Attention: Request
for Information Regarding Reporting on
Pharmacy Benefits and Prescription
Drug Costs, 200 Constitution Avenue
NW, Room N–5653, Washington, DC
20210.
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:
Office of Health Plan Standards and
Compliance Assistance, Employee
Benefits Security Administration, US
Department of Labor, Attention: Request
for Information Regarding Reporting on
Pharmacy Benefits and Prescription
Drug Costs, 200 Constitution Avenue
NW, Room N–5653, Washington, DC
20210.
For information on viewing public
comments, see the beginning of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
: Rina
Shah, Office of Personnel Management,
at (202) 606–0004.
Christopher J. Dellana, Internal
Revenue Service, Department of the
Treasury, at (202) 317–5500.
Matthew Litton, Employee Benefits
Security Administration, Department of
Labor, at (202) 693–8335.
Christina Whitefield, Centers for
Medicare & Medicaid Services,
Department of Health and Human
Services, at (301) 492–4172.
Customer Service Information:
Individuals interested in obtaining
information from the Department of
Labor (DOL) concerning employment-
based health coverage laws may call the
Employee Benefits Security
Administration (EBSA) Toll-Free
Hotline at 1–866–444–EBSA (3272) or
visit the DOL’s website (www.dol.gov/
agencies/ebsa). In addition, information
from the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) on private
health insurance coverage and non-
Federal governmental group health
plans can be found on the Centers for
Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)
website (www.cms.gov/cciio), and
information on health care reform can
be found at www.HealthCare.gov.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:39 Jun 22, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23JNP1.SGM 23JNP1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
32814
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 23, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Information from OPM on Federal
Employees Health Benefits (FEHB)
plans can be found on the OPM website
(www.opm.gov/healthcare-insurance).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
:
Inspection of Public Comments:
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. Comments received before
the close of the comment period are
posted on the following website as soon
as possible after they have been
received: https://www.regulations.gov/.
Follow the search instructions on that
website to view public comments.
I. Background
A. Purpose
In recent years, there has been a broad
effort toward promoting greater price
transparency in health care as a means
to promote competition and bring down
overall costs. Section 204 of Title II of
Division BB of the CAA added parallel
provisions at section 2799A–10 of the
Public Health Service Act (PHS Act),
section 725 of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA),
and section 9825 of the Internal
Revenue Code (Code). These provisions
include certain reporting requirements
for group health plans (plans) and
health insurance issuers offering group
or individual health insurance coverage
(issuers). The reporting requirements
primarily relate to prescription drug
expenditures, requiring that plans and
issuers submit the relevant information
to the Departments. The provisions also
require the Departments to issue
biannual public reports on prescription
drug reimbursements under group
health plans and individual health
insurance coverage, prescription drug
pricing trends, and the impact of
prescription drug costs on premium
rates, aggregated in such a way so that
no drug or plan specific information
will be made public.
Title I of Division BB also amended 5
U.S.C. 8902(p) to include specified
provisions of the CAA into FEHB carrier
contracts. Although section 204 is not
enumerated as a specified provision in
section 8902(p), FEHB carrier
compliance with the Departments’
collection pursuant to this section helps
accomplish the CAA’s intended purpose
of achieving national health data
transparency and lower costs. Therefore,
references to ‘‘plans’’ for purposes of
this request for information include
FEHB health benefits plans.
The Departments and OPM are
requesting input from the public
regarding implementation of the data
collection, the data elements to be
collected, and the associated impact on
plans and issuers. Public input will
inform the Departments’ and OPM’s
implementation through rulemaking
and establishment of processes to
receive the information that must be
reported. Using the information
obtained through this data collection,
the Departments and OPM intend to
analyze trends in overall spending on
prescription drugs and other health care
services by plans and issuers and to
publish the analysis in the required
reports in a format that the Departments
and OPM intend to enable plans and
issuers to ultimately negotiate fairer
rates and lower costs for participants,
beneficiaries, and enrollees.
B. Reporting Requirements
By December 27, 2021, and not later
than June 1 of each year thereafter,
plans and issuers must submit to the
Departments certain information with
respect to the health plan or coverage
for the previous plan year. This includes
general information on the plan or
coverage, such as the beginning and end
dates of the plan year, the number of
participants, beneficiaries, or enrollees,
as applicable, and each state in which
the plan or coverage is offered. Plans
and issuers must also report the 50 most
frequently dispensed brand prescription
drugs, and the total number of paid
claims for each such drug; the 50 most
costly prescription drugs by total annual
spending, and the annual amount spent
by the plan or coverage for each such
drug; and the 50 prescription drugs with
the greatest increase in plan
expenditures over the plan year
preceding the plan year that is the
subject of the report, and, for each such
drug, the change in amounts expended
by the plan or coverage in each such
plan year. Additionally, plans and
issuers must report total spending by
the plan or coverage broken down by
the type of health care services;
spending on prescription drugs by the
plan or coverage as well as by
participants, beneficiaries, and
enrollees, as applicable; and the average
monthly premiums paid by participants,
beneficiaries, and enrollees and paid by
employers on behalf of participants,
beneficiaries, and enrollees, as
applicable. Plans and issuers must
report rebates, fees, and any other
remuneration paid by drug
manufacturers to the plan or coverage or
its administrators or service providers,
including the amount paid with respect
to each therapeutic class of drugs and
for each of the 25 drugs that yielded the
highest amount of rebates and other
remuneration under the plan or
coverage from drug manufacturers
during the plan year. Finally, plans and
issuers must report any reduction in
premiums and out-of-pocket costs
associated with these rebates, fees, or
other remuneration.
C. Public Report and Privacy Protections
Not later than 18 months after the
date on which plans and issuers must
first submit the information described in
section B and biannually thereafter, the
Departments and OPM will publish on
the internet reports on prescription drug
reimbursements under group health
plans and group and individual health
insurance coverage, prescription drug
pricing trends, and the role of
prescription drug costs in contributing
to premium increases or decreases
under such plans or coverage,
aggregated so that no drug or plan
specific information is made public.
Furthermore, these reports will not
include any confidential or trade secret
information submitted pursuant to the
reporting requirements of PHS Act
section 2799A–10, ERISA section 725,
and Code section 9825.
II. Solicitation of Comments
The Departments and OPM request
comments from all interested
stakeholders to gain a better
understanding of the issues related to
compliance with this provision,
including reporting on premiums,
enrollment, pharmacy drug benefits,
and prescription drug costs, and to
estimate the impact of any potential
rules, both generally and with respect to
the following specific areas:
A. General Implementation Concerns
1. What, if any, challenges do plans
and issuers anticipate facing in meeting
the statutory reporting obligations? For
example, do plans or issuers currently
have access to all the information they
are required to report under PHS Act
section 2799–10, ERISA section 725,
and Code section 9825? If not, which
statutory data elements are not readily
accessible to plans and issuers, and how
could plans and issuers obtain the
information necessary to comply with
the reporting requirements? Are there
ways in which the Departments and
OPM could structure the reporting
requirements to facilitate compliance?
2. Are FEHB carriers (including those
that are also issuers) able to report data
separately for each FEHB plan?
3. After the Departments and OPM
finalize rulemaking and publish the
reporting format and instructions, how
much time will plans and issuers need
to prepare their data and submit it to the
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:39 Jun 22, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23JNP1.SGM 23JNP1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
32815
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 23, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Departments and OPM? What data
sources are readily available and which
data may take longer to compile? Are
there operational, formatting, or
technical considerations that the
Departments and OPM should be aware
of that may impact plans’ and issuers’
abilities to meet the statutory deadline
for reporting?
4. Are there different considerations
regarding data reporting by health
insurance issuers versus group health
plans that would affect their ability to
comply with the statutory reporting
obligations? Among group health plans,
are there different considerations for
reporting by fully-insured versus self-
insured plans, or for insured plans with
small group versus large group
coverage? Are there different
considerations for reporting FEHB
carrier data versus other plans and
issuers? Are there different
considerations for reporting of
premiums, spending, and other data by
partially-insured group health plans,
such as those that utilize minimum
premium, stop-loss, or similar coverage?
Are there special considerations the
Departments should take into account
for multiemployer plans, or that OPM
should take into account for policies
offered by FEHB carriers that are not
issuers?
5. What data reporting tools and
systems should the Departments and
OPM consider when deciding on the
format of the data collection? What are
the operational advantages and
disadvantages of various reporting
formats, such as Excel spreadsheets,
fillable PDF forms, or flat files? How can
the Departments and OPM reduce the
need for manual data entry? What are
the ways in which the Departments and
OPM could implement the reporting
requirements to facilitate compatibility
with the systems most commonly used
by plans and issuers?
6. Are there state laws with similar
reporting requirements that could serve
as models for implementing the
requirements under PHS Act section
2799A–10, ERISA section 725, and Code
section 9825? If so, in what ways are
these state laws directly comparable to
PHS Act section 2799A–10, ERISA
section 725, and Code section 9825, and
what should the Departments and OPM
consider when deviating from the state
requirements?
B. Definitions
1. What considerations should the
Departments and OPM take into account
in defining ‘‘rebates, fees, and any other
remuneration’’? Should bona fide
service fees—for example,
administrative fees, data sharing fees,
formulary placement fees, credits, and
market share incentives—be included in
this definition? Are there additional fees
that the Departments and OPM should
include in this definition? How should
manufacturer copay assistance programs
and coupon cards be accounted for?
How should copay accumulator
programs be accounted for?
2. What considerations should the
Departments and OPM take into account
in defining the term ‘‘pharmacy’’? Are
there different considerations for retail
pharmacies versus mail order or
specialty pharmacies? Are there
different considerations for prescription
drugs dispensed in an inpatient,
outpatient, office, home, or other
setting?
3. What considerations should the
Departments and OPM take into account
in defining the term ‘‘prescription
drug’’? Should prescription drugs be
identified by National Drug Codes
(NDCs)? Are there other prescription
drug classification systems that should
be considered, such as the first nine
digits of the NDC, the RxNorm Concept
Unique Identifier (RxCUI), or the United
States Pharmacopeia Drug Classification
(USP–DC)? How does the choice of
prescription drug classification
influence plan and issuer operational
costs?
4. Should there be different
definitions of ‘‘prescription drug’’ for
different elements of the PHS Act
section 2799A–10, ERISA section 725,
and Code section 9825 data collection,
such as the 9-digit NDC for identifying
the 25 drugs with the highest rebates
and the RxCUI for identifying the 50
most costly drugs? What classification
systems do plans and issuers currently
use for internal needs and compliance
with reporting requirements other than
those under PHS Act section 2799A–10,
ERISA section 725, and Code section
9825?
5. What considerations should the
Departments and OPM take into account
in defining the term ‘‘therapeutic
class’’? How do plans and issuers
currently classify prescription drugs by
therapeutic class? Does the
classification method rely on
proprietary software, and how would
the choice of therapeutic classification
method influence plan and issuer
operational costs?
6. What considerations should the
Departments and OPM take into account
in defining ‘‘health care services’’? It is
preferable to define the term as a service
or bundle of services necessary to treat
an illness (for example, by Diagnosis-
Related Group code)? Or would it be
preferable to disaggregate by particular
services (for example, by Current
Procedure Technology code)? In what
ways could this definition help reduce
burdens or increase the utility of data
reporting?
C. Entities That Must Report
1. Are there special considerations for
certain types or sizes of group health
plans, such as individual coverage
health reimbursement arrangements and
other account-based plans, that make it
challenging or not feasible for these
plans to satisfy the reporting
requirements? What are those specific
challenges? If exemptions are provided
for certain plans, how might that affect
the value of the required public
analysis?
2. Should the Departments expect that
self-insured and partially-insured group
health plans will contract with third-
party administrators or other service
providers to submit the required data on
their behalf? Is there any relevant
information or data that may be helpful
in determining how widespread this
approach may be?
3. Are there ways for issuers and plan
service providers to submit data on
behalf of multiple plans and coverage
options, consistent with the statutory
requirements? What benefit would there
be to issuers and plan service providers
having the ability to submit aggregated
data as opposed to reporting
information separately for each group
health plan, to the extent consistent
with the statutory requirements? What
considerations exist with respect to
issuers that participate in the FEHB
Program submitting FEHB-specific data
separately as opposed to including
FEHB data in their general book of
business?
4. What role, if any, will Pharmacy
Benefits Managers (PBMs) play in
furnishing necessary information to
plans and issuers, or to the Departments
or OPM? If permitted, would plans and
issuers rely on PBMs to help satisfy
their reporting obligations, such as by
retaining PBMs to conduct some or all
of the reporting? Could PBMs obtain all
the information required to be reported,
including general information on the
plan or coverage, such as the number of
participants, beneficiaries, and
enrollees; each state in which the plan
or coverage is offered; monthly
premiums paid by employers and by
participants, beneficiaries, and
enrollees; total spending on health care
services broken down by type; and the
impact on premiums of prescription
drug rebates, fees, and any other
remuneration paid by drug
manufacturers to the plan or coverage or
its administrators or service providers?
If not, would allowing separate
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:39 Jun 22, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23JNP1.SGM 23JNP1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
32816
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 23, 2021 / Proposed Rules
1
Section 1150A of the Social Security Act, and
its implementing regulations at 45 CFR 156.295 and
45 CFR part 184, require issuers of QHPs or their
PBMs to report certain prescription drug
information to HHS.
2
Id.
reporting forms, modules, or data
collection systems for PBMs and issuers
and plan administrators to report such
information be administratively and
operationally feasible? How would
separate reporting forms change the
costs or burdens associated with
compliance?
D. Information Required To Be Reported
1. What considerations are important
for plans and issuers in determining the
50 brand prescription drugs that are
most frequently dispensed by
pharmacies for claims paid by the plan
or coverage, and the total number of
paid claims for each drug? Should the
determination be based on the number
of claims, the number of days’ supply,
or something else? Should the unique
number of participants, beneficiaries, or
enrollees that received a prescription be
taken into account, and, if so, how?
2. What considerations are important
for plans and issuers in determining the
50 prescription drugs with the greatest
increase in plan expenditures? Should
the increase be measured based on the
absolute increase in dollars; percentage
increase in price; the increase relative to
another measure, such as overall
spending by the plan or issuer; or
something else? What factors should the
Departments and OPM consider in
selecting an approach? If the
Departments and OPM define the
increase in proportion to the change in
overall spending, should the increase be
measured in comparison to total
spending or only to spending on
prescription drugs?
3. If the top prescription drugs are
identified by RxCUI (or any
classification other than NDC), is it
feasible for plans and issuers to report
the required information separately by
NDC for each NDC associated with the
given RxCUI?
4. Which data elements can be
directly tied to a specific prescription
drug or class of prescription drugs, and
which data elements must be allocated
among prescription drugs or
prescription drug classes? If an amount
must be allocated, what allocation
method(s) are preferable, and why?
5. What considerations are important
for plans and issuers in determining the
25 drugs that yielded the highest
amount of rebates and other
remuneration from drug manufacturers
during the plan year? Should rebates
and other remuneration be measured by
total dollar amount? Should rebates and
other remuneration be measured in
comparison to another measure, such as
total spending on a drug or a unit price?
If a price measure is used, which price
measure should be used and why?
6. PHS Act section 2799A–10, ERISA
section 725, and Code section 9825
require plans and issuers to report total
spending on health care services
separately for hospital costs, health care
provider and clinical service costs (for
primary care and specialty care
separately), prescription drug costs, and
other medical costs, including wellness
services. Which cost elements should be
included in each category? Should the
Departments and OPM collect
prescription drug spending information
separately based on the setting of care?
7. Should the Departments collect
information separately by market, state,
or employer size? If so, are there data
elements that must be allocated among
the categories? What allocation methods
should be used? Are there differences in
the capacities of different size entities to
comply with the Departments’ and
OPM’s reporting requirements, or in the
costs and burdens of compliance?
8. What considerations are important
for plans and issuers in measuring the
impact of drug manufacturer rebates on
premiums and out-of-pocket costs?
What quantitative or qualitative
analyses might plans and issuers
perform? What analyses do plans and
issuers currently perform?
9. Should the Departments and OPM
collect information on rebates, fees, and
any other remuneration at the total level
or broken out by relevant subcategories?
For example, in the PBM Transparency
for Qualified Health Plans (QHPs) data
collection,
1
PBMs will report
information for retained rebates, rebates
expected but not yet received, PBM
incentive payments, price concessions
for administrative services from
manufacturers, all other price
concessions from manufacturers,
amounts received and paid to
pharmacies, and spread amounts for
retail and mail order pharmacies.
Should the Departments use the same or
similar subcategories for the reporting
requirements under PHS Act section
2799A–10, ERISA section 725, and Code
section 9825?
10. Are there types of payments that
flow from plans, issuers, or PBMs
directly to drug manufacturers? If so,
how should these payments be treated?
Should they be netted against rebates
and other price concessions that are
received from drug manufacturers?
11. Are there types of rebates and
price concessions that are passed
directly to the participant, beneficiary,
or enrollee? If so, how should they be
treated? Should they be included or
acknowledged in this data collection?
E. Coordination With Other Reporting
Requirements
1. Are there opportunities to remove
other reporting requirements applicable
to plans and issuers or to leverage or
combine those requirements with the
reporting requirements under PHS Act
section 2799A–10, ERISA section 725,
and Code section 9825 to reduce
administrative burdens or costs
associated with complying with the new
requirements? For example, the
Departments are aware that there may
be some overlap between the data
subject to collection under PHS Act
section 2799A–10, ERISA section 725,
and Code section 9825 and the data
subject to collection in the PBM
Transparency for QHPs data collection,
2
which requires issuers of QHPs or their
PBMs to report prescription drug
information to HHS.
F. Public Report and Privacy Protections
1. In what ways can the Departments
and OPM facilitate use of the reports by
a variety of interested parties, such as
government entities, academics,
industry entities, and consumers and
their advocates?
2. Should OPM issue a public report
specifically for FEHB carriers?
3. Would the Departments’ and OPM’s
reports have greater value and utility if
data were collected on a calendar year
basis, by plan or policy years, or by
some combination, to the extent
consistent with the statutory
requirements? If data were to be
collected by plan or policy year, are
there any considerations the
Departments and OPM should take into
account when determining the plan or
policy year effective dates for reporting
periods? For example, what is the last
plan or policy year end date that should
be included in data submitted by June
1 of each year?
4. Are there any examples of similar
reports published by state agencies? If
so, what are any strengths or limitations
of the reports published by the state
agencies that would be relevant to the
Departments and OPM? In what ways
should the Departments and OPM
consider adapting or differentiating the
process under PHS Act section 2799A–
10, ERISA section 725, and Code section
9825 from any similar state reporting
processes?
5. Should the public report include a
comparative analysis of prescription
drug costs for plans and issuers, relative
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:39 Jun 22, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23JNP1.SGM 23JNP1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
32817
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 23, 2021 / Proposed Rules
to costs under Medicare or in other
countries?
G. Regulatory Impact Analysis
1. What benefits, costs, and other
impacts do plans, issuers, or other
stakeholders anticipate from the
reporting requirements of PHS Act
section 2799A–10, ERISA section 725,
and Code section 9825?
2. Are there benefits to academics or
other researchers? How will consumers
benefit?
3. What data, research, or other
information is available to help quantify
the benefits, costs, and other impacts of
the reporting requirements? Are there
existing data, research, or reporting
analogues that could be extrapolated
from to predict market impacts?
4. What actions could the
Departments and OPM take to minimize
the compliance costs of the reporting
requirements?
5. Operationally, which types of
employees will be necessary to ensure
compliance with the reporting
requirements? Will staff specialized in
medical billing coding be needed for the
purpose of reporting?
6. Will new or additional technology
be needed for the collection,
maintenance, or storage of the data to be
reported?
7. Will there be coordination costs or
benefits from simultaneously complying
with state regulations that require the
reporting of medical services costs or
prescription drug costs?
8. Would greater alignment with other
Federal reporting requirements reduce
associated compliance costs, and if so,
how?
III. Collection of Information
Requirements
This document does not impose
information collection requirements,
that is, reporting, recordkeeping, or
third-party disclosure requirements
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (PRA). However, Section II of this
document does contain a general
solicitation of comments in the form of
a request for information. In accordance
with the implementing regulations of
the PRA, specifically 5 CFR
1320.3(h)(4), this general solicitation is
exempt from the PRA. Facts or opinions
submitted in response to general
solicitations of comments from the
public, published in the Federal
Register or other publications,
regardless of the form or format thereof,
provided that no person is required to
supply specific information pertaining
to the commenter, other than that
necessary for self-identification, as a
condition of the agency’s full
consideration, are not generally
considered information collections and
therefore not subject to the PRA.
Consequently, there is no need for
review by the Office of Management and
Budget under the authority of the PRA.
Signed at Washington DC.
Laurie Bodenheimer,
Associate Director, Healthcare and Insurance,
Office of Personnel Management.
Signed at Washington DC.
Rachel D. Levy,
Associate Chief Counsel (Employee Benefits,
Exempt Organizations, and Employment
Taxes), Internal Revenue Service, Department
of the Treasury. Signed at Washington DC.
Carol A. Weiser,
Benefits Tax Counsel, Department of the
Treasury.
Signed at Washington DC.
Ali Khawar,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Employee Benefits
Security Administration, Department of
Labor.
Signed at Washington DC.
Xavier Becerra,
Secretary, Department of Health and Human
Services.
[FR Doc. 2021–13138 Filed 6–21–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–29–P; 6523–63–P; 4120–01–P;
4830–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
10 CFR Chapter I
[NRC–2017–0214]
Retrospective Review of
Administrative Requirements
AGENCY
: Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION
: Availability of comment
evaluation summary; public meeting
and status of rulemaking activities.
SUMMARY
: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC), on February 4,
2020, requested input from its licensees
and members of the public on any
administrative requirements that may be
modified or eliminated without an
adverse effect on public health or safety,
common defense and security,
protection of the environment, or
regulatory efficiency and effectiveness.
The public comment period ended on
May 6, 2020, and the NRC evaluated the
comments. This document announces
the availability of the comment
evaluation summary and provides the
status of the NRC’s Retrospective
Review of Administrative Requirements
initiative. The NRC plans to hold a
public meeting to discuss the comment
evaluation process and answer
stakeholder questions.
DATES
: The comment evaluation
summary is available on June 23, 2021.
A public meeting will be held on June
30, 2021.
ADDRESSES
: Please refer to Docket ID
NRC–2017–0214 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of
information for this action. You may
obtain publicly available information
related to this action by any of the
following methods:
•Federal Rulemaking website: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2017–0214. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Dawn
Forder; telephone: 301–415–3407;
email: Dawn.Forder@nrc.gov. For
technical questions contact the
individual listed in the
FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT
section of this
document.
•NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly
available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.html. To begin the search, 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 ADAMS accession number
for each document referenced (if it is
available in ADAMS) is provided the
first time that it is mentioned in this
document.
•Attention: The PDR, where you may
examine and order copies of public
documents, is currently closed. You
may submit your request to the PDR via
email at pdr.resource@nrc.gov or call 1–
800–397–4209 or 301–415–4737,
between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. (EST),
Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
:
Andrew G. Carrera, telephone: 301–
415–1078, email: Andrew.Carrera@
nrc.gov; or Solomon Sahle, telephone:
301–415–3781, email: Solomon.Sahle@
nrc.gov. Both are staff of the Office of
Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555–0001.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
:
I. Background
On February 4, 2020, the NRC
published a document in the Federal
Register (85 FR 6103) requesting input
from its licensees and members of the
public on any administrative
requirements that may be modified or
eliminated without an adverse effect on
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:39 Jun 22, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23JNP1.SGM 23JNP1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
