[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 67 (Monday, April 7, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18729-18730]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-7152]



48 CFR Part 1633

RIN 3206-AL35

Federal Employees Health Benefits Acquisition Regulation: Board 
of Contract Appeals

AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.

ACTION: Proposed rule.


SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is issuing a proposed 
rule to remove the designation of the Armed Services Board of Contract 
Appeals (ASBCA) from the Federal Employees Health Benefits Acquisition 
Regulation (FEHBAR). The ASBCA designation is no longer appropriate 
since the creation of the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals by the 
National Defense Authorization Act of 2006.

DATES: Effective Date: Effective May 7, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may submit written comments, identified by RIN 3206-
AL35, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail: [email protected]. Include RIN 3206-AL35 
in the subject line of the message.
     Fax: 202-606-0633.
     Mail: Marguerite Martel, 1900 E Street, NW., Room 3415, 
Washington, DC 20415. 202-606-0004.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name 
and docket number or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) for this 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Contract Disputes Act (41 U.S.C. 601-
613) (CDA) allows Federal Government contractors, including carriers 
participating in the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program, 
to appeal official decisions made by a contracting officer to an agency 
board of contract appeals. Prior to the enactment of the National 
Defense Authorization Act of 2006 (NDAA), the CDA authorized each 
agency to create their own board or, in the alternative, to designate 
another agency's board for this purpose. Previously, the Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) served as the agency board of 
contract appeals for appeals between FEHB carriers and the Office of 
Personnel Management (OPM).
    The NDAA of 2006, in addition to eliminating agency board 

[[Page 18730]]

authority, dismantled most existing agency boards, creating as a 
replacement the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA) with 
authority extending to most civilian agencies, including OPM. 
Accordingly, the CBCA has now replaced the ASBCA as the venue for 
claims brought under the Act for the FEHB Program. OPM is updating the 
FEHBAR to reflect this change in the law.

Collection of Information Requirement

    This rulemaking makes a minor clarifying amendment to the Federal 
Employees Health Benefits Acquisition Regulations. The rule does not 
impose information collection and recordkeeping requirements that meet 
the definition of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995's term 
``collection of information,'' which means obtaining, causing to be 
obtained, soliciting, or requiring the disclosure to third parties or 
the public, of facts or opinions by or for an agency, regardless of 
form or format, calling for either answers to identical questions posed 
to, or identical reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed on ten 
or more persons, other than agencies, instrumentalities, or employees 
of the United States; or answers to questions posed to agencies, 
instrumentalities, or employees of the United States which are to be 
used for general statistical purposes. Consequently, it need not be 
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of 
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires agencies to analyze 
options for regulatory relief of small businesses. For purposes of the 
RFA, small entities include small businesses, nonprofit organizations, 
and government agencies with revenues of $11.5 million or less in any 
one year. This rulemaking affects FEHB Program carriers and their 
contractual arrangements that exceed the dollar threshold. Therefore, I 
certify that this regulation will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Regulatory Impact Analysis

    We have examined the impact of this proposed rule as required by 
Executive Order 12866 (September 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review), 
the RFA (September 16, 1980, Pub. L. 96-354), section 1102(b) of the 
Social Security Act, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 
104-4), and Executive Order 13132. Executive Order 12866 (as amended by 
Executive Order 13258, which merely assigns responsibility of duties) 
directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available 
regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select 
regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential 
economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive 
impacts, and equity). A regulatory impact analysis (RIA) must be 
prepared for major rules with economically significant effects ($100 
million or more in any one year). This rule is not considered a major 
rule, as defined in title 5, United States Code, section 804(2), 
because we estimate it will affect only FEHB carriers. Any resulting 
economic impact would not be expected to exceed the dollar threshold.

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Review

    This rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget 
in accordance with Executive Order 12866.

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 1633

    Government employees, Government procurement, Health insurance.

Office of Personnel Management.
Linda M. Springer,
    Accordingly, by the authority of 5 U.S.C. 8913; 41 U.S.C. 401 et 
seq.; 48 CFR 1.301, OPM is amending chapter 16 of title 48 of the Code 
of Federal Regulations by removing part 1633:


 [FR Doc. E8-7152 Filed 4-4-08; 8:45 am]