Prevailing Rate Systems; Redefinition of the Austin, TX and Waco, TX, Appropriated Fund Federal Wage System Wage Areas, 19521-19522 [2012-7728]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
19521
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
Vol. 77, No. 63
Monday, April 2, 2012
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains regulatory documents having general
applicability and legal effect, most of which
are keyed to and codified in the Code of
Federal Regulations, which is published under
50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by
the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of
new books are listed in the first FEDERAL
REGISTER issue of each week.
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL
MANAGEMENT
5 CFR Part 532
RIN 3206–AM50
Prevailing Rate Systems; Redefinition
of the Austin, TX and Waco, TX,
Appropriated Fund Federal Wage
System Wage Areas
U.S. Office of Personnel
Management.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Office of Personnel
Management is issuing a final rule to
redefine the geographic boundaries of
the Austin, TX, and Waco, TX,
appropriated fund Federal Wage System
(FWS) wage areas. The final rule
redefines Burleson and Lampasas
Counties, TX, from the Austin wage area
to the Waco wage area. These changes
are based on recent consensus
recommendations of the Federal
Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee to
best match the counties proposed for
redefinition to a nearby FWS survey
area. This final rule makes an additional
correction to add the entire SyracuseUtica-Rome, NY, wage area to Appendix
C to Subpart B of Part 532—
Appropriated Fund Wage and Survey
Areas, which was inadvertently deleted
when the CFR was published in January
2004.
DATES: This regulation is effective on
May 2, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Madeline Gonzalez, (202) 606–2838;
email pay-performancepolicy@opm.gov; or Fax: (202) 606–
4264.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
On
November 14, 2011, the U.S. Office of
Personnel Management (OPM) issued a
proposed rule (76 FR 70365) to redefine
Burleson and Lampasas Counties, TX,
from the Austin wage area to the Waco
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:38 Mar 30, 2012
Jkt 226001
wage area. These changes are based on
recent consensus recommendations of
the Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory
Committee (FPRAC) to best match the
above counties to a nearby FWS survey
area. FPRAC did not recommend other
changes for the Austin and Waco wage
areas at this time. In addition, this final
rule adds the entire Syracuse-UticaRome, NY, FWS wage area to Appendix
C to Subpart B of Part 532—
Appropriated Fund Wage and Survey
Areas. The Syracuse-Utica-Rome wage
area was inadvertently deleted when the
CFR was published in January 2004.
This correction does not affect the pay
of any FWS employees. The proposed
rule had a 30-day comment period
during which OPM received no
comments.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
I certify that these regulations will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities
because they will affect only Federal
agencies and employees.
List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 532
Administrative practice and
procedure, Freedom of information,
Government employees, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Wages.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
John Berry,
Director.
Accordingly, the U.S. Office of
Personnel Management amends 5 CFR
part 532 as follows:
PART 532—PREVAILING RATE
SYSTEMS
1. The authority citation for part 532
continues to read as follows:
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Syracuse-Utica-Rome
Survey Area
*
New York:
Herkimer
Madison
Oneida
Onondaga
Oswego
*
*
*
*
*
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
New York:
Broome
Cayuga
Chenango
Cortland
Hamilton
Otsego
Tioga
Tompkins
*
*
2. Appendix C to subpart B is
amended for the State of New York by
adding ‘‘Syracuse-Utica-Rome’’ and its
constituent counties after ‘‘Rochester’’
and revising for the State of Texas the
wage area listings of the Austin, TX, and
Waco, TX, wage areas to read as follows:
■
Appendix C to Subpart B of Part 532—
Appropriated Fund Wage and Survey
Areas
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
TEXAS
Austin
Survey Area
*
*
Texas:
Hays
Milam
Travis
Williamson
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Texas:
Bastrop
Blanco
Burnet
Caldwell
Fayette
Lee
Llano
Mason
San Saba
*
*
■
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5343, 5346; § 532.707
also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552.
*
NEW YORK
*
Waco
Survey Area
*
*
Texas:
Bell
Coryell
McLennan
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Texas:
Anderson
Bosque
Brazos
Burleson
Falls
Freestone
Hamilton
Hill
Lampasas
Leon
Limestone
E:\FR\FM\02APR1.SGM
02APR1
19522
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 63 / Monday, April 2, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Mills
Robertson
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2012–7728 Filed 3–30–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325–39–P
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL
MANAGEMENT
5 CFR Part 890
48 CFR Parts 1602, 1615, 1632, and
1652
RIN 3206–AM39
Federal Employees Health Benefits
Program: New Premium Rating Method
for Most Community Rated Plans
U.S. Office of Personnel
Management.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) is issuing a final
regulation amending the Federal
Employees Health Benefits (FEHB)
regulations and also the Federal
Employees Health Benefits Acquisition
Regulation (FEHBAR). This final
regulation makes minor changes to an
interim final regulation on the same
subject published June 29, 2011. The
rule replaces the procedure by which
premiums for community rated FEHB
carriers are compared with the rates
charged to a carrier’s similarly sized
subscriber groups (SSSGs). The new
procedure utilizes a medical loss ratio
(MLR) threshold, analogous to that
defined in both the Affordable Care Act
(ACA), and in Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) regulations and
replaces the outdated SSSG
methodology with a more modern and
transparent calculation while still
ensuring that the FEHB Program is
receiving a fair rate. This will result in
a more streamlined process for plans
and increased competition and plan
choice for enrollees. The new process
will apply to all community rated plans,
except those required by their state to
use traditional community rating (TCR).
This new process will be phased in over
two years, with optional participation
for non-TCR plans in the first year.
DATES: This final rule is effective May 2,
2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Louise Dyer, Senior Policy Analyst,
(202) 606–0770.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office
of Personnel Management is issuing a
final regulation to establish a new ratesetting procedure for most FEHB plans
that are subject to community rating.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:38 Mar 30, 2012
Jkt 226001
This final rule makes minor changes to
an interim final rule published June 29,
2011 that replaced the current rate
negotiation process with a requirement
that most community rated plans meet
an FEHB-specific medical loss ratio
(MLR) target. Plans that are required to
use traditional community rating (TCR)
per their state regulator will be exempt
from this new rate-setting procedure.
This final rule makes several changes to
the interim final rule published June 29,
2011. First, OPM has removed a clause
that said that the previous year’s MLR
would have no effect on the current
plan year. The change was added in
response to public comments and is
intended to give OPM appropriate
flexibility to determine a fair and
accurate MLR for each plan in each
year. Second, OPM has laid out a
deadline for publishing the FEHBspecific MLR threshold. Third, OPM
made technical changes to a certificate
attesting to accurate pricing in order to
accommodate a change in timing.
Fourth, clarifying language explains that
OPM will substitute its own credibility
adjustment for that defined by HHS.
Analysis of and Responses to Public
Comments
We received two comment letters on
the interim final rule from FEHB
carriers and carrier groups. The
comments and OPM’s responses are
detailed below.
Comment: A commenter noted that
FEHB carriers will need as much
advance notice of the MLR threshold for
the following year as possible. This
commenter recommended early notice
by OPM, even in advance of the annual
Call Letter, to allow carriers to plan for
rating actions and complete filings.
Response: For the first years of MLRbased rate negotiation, OPM will be
gathering information about FEHB
carrier MLRs which will aid in setting
future MLR thresholds. OPM will make
every effort to provide such advance
notice as the rate negotiation
methodology matures. This final
regulation text states that OPM will
make the MLR threshold public no later
than twelve calendar months before
plan years beginning with 2014.
Comment: A commenter raised the
need for clarity and consistency
regarding the identification and
allocation of costs and revenues for the
MLR calculation. Specifically, the
commenter asked for additional
clarification on what can be included as
expenses, such as fees and charges
related to Affordable Care Act
implementation.
Response: As stated in the interim
final regulation, OPM will adopt the
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
HHS definition of MLR for purposes of
MLR-based rate negotiation in FEHB.
We anticipate that any clarifications
around this calculation that are offered
by HHS will be adopted by OPM. OPM
will only allow costs for items that are
allowed by the FEHB contract to be
included in the MLR calculation.
Comment: Both commenters raised
concerns about the subsidization
penalty reserve account. One
commenter stated that using penalty
funds to subsidize other plans is
inconsistent with both the current
similarly sized subscriber group (SSSG)
methodology and the ACA MLR rebates.
Another commenter stated that OPM
needs to be sure that this reserve does
not act as a disincentive for carriers to
operate in the most efficient way
possible.
Response: OPM has intentionally
structured the subsidization penalty
differently from either the SSSG
adjustments or the ACA MLR rebates.
The subsidization penalties are to be
shared among community rated plans in
order to avoid a plan paying a penalty
into an account from which it can solely
benefit.
In response to the concern about the
subsidization penalty reserve acting as a
disincentive to efficiency, OPM feels the
penalty will encourage plans to offer a
fair rate at the time of proposal and
therefore will not act as a disincentive
to efficiency.
Comment: Both commenters
expressed concern about OPM’s plan to
calculate MLR using one year of data, as
compared to a three year average for the
HHS calculation. The commenters were
concerned about large FEHB plans
having to manage between the two
methodologies. One commenter
mentioned that an annual MLR
calculation would not allow FEHB plans
to mitigate variation when carriers
engage in activities that entail large onetime start up costs.
Response: Regarding the commenters
concern about managing two
methodologies, OPM feels applying an
MLR calculation similar to the ACA
required calculation, instead of the
SSSG methodology, provides more
consistency than there would have been
without this regulatory change.
OPM must balance its goal of
negotiating the best rate for FEHB
payers every year with the concerns of
FEHB carriers about managing variation.
For example, OPM may consider the
MLR for one or more previous years
when calculating the current year’s
MLR. This allows OPM the flexibility to
prevent carriers who have historically
offered favorable rates from being overly
penalized for an unusually low MLR in
E:\FR\FM\02APR1.SGM
02APR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 63 (Monday, April 2, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19521-19522]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7728]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 63 / Monday, April 2, 2012 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 19521]]
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
5 CFR Part 532
RIN 3206-AM50
Prevailing Rate Systems; Redefinition of the Austin, TX and Waco,
TX, Appropriated Fund Federal Wage System Wage Areas
AGENCY: U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Office of Personnel Management is issuing a final
rule to redefine the geographic boundaries of the Austin, TX, and Waco,
TX, appropriated fund Federal Wage System (FWS) wage areas. The final
rule redefines Burleson and Lampasas Counties, TX, from the Austin wage
area to the Waco wage area. These changes are based on recent consensus
recommendations of the Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee to
best match the counties proposed for redefinition to a nearby FWS
survey area. This final rule makes an additional correction to add the
entire Syracuse-Utica-Rome, NY, wage area to Appendix C to Subpart B of
Part 532--Appropriated Fund Wage and Survey Areas, which was
inadvertently deleted when the CFR was published in January 2004.
DATES: This regulation is effective on May 2, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Madeline Gonzalez, (202) 606-2838;
email pay-performance-policy@opm.gov; or Fax: (202) 606-4264.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 14, 2011, the U.S. Office of
Personnel Management (OPM) issued a proposed rule (76 FR 70365) to
redefine Burleson and Lampasas Counties, TX, from the Austin wage area
to the Waco wage area. These changes are based on recent consensus
recommendations of the Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee
(FPRAC) to best match the above counties to a nearby FWS survey area.
FPRAC did not recommend other changes for the Austin and Waco wage
areas at this time. In addition, this final rule adds the entire
Syracuse-Utica-Rome, NY, FWS wage area to Appendix C to Subpart B of
Part 532--Appropriated Fund Wage and Survey Areas. The Syracuse-Utica-
Rome wage area was inadvertently deleted when the CFR was published in
January 2004. This correction does not affect the pay of any FWS
employees. The proposed rule had a 30-day comment period during which
OPM received no comments.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
I certify that these regulations will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they
will affect only Federal agencies and employees.
List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 532
Administrative practice and procedure, Freedom of information,
Government employees, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wages.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
John Berry,
Director.
Accordingly, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management amends 5 CFR
part 532 as follows:
PART 532--PREVAILING RATE SYSTEMS
0
1. The authority citation for part 532 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5343, 5346; Sec. 532.707 also issued under
5 U.S.C. 552.
0
2. Appendix C to subpart B is amended for the State of New York by
adding ``Syracuse-Utica-Rome'' and its constituent counties after
``Rochester'' and revising for the State of Texas the wage area
listings of the Austin, TX, and Waco, TX, wage areas to read as
follows:
Appendix C to Subpart B of Part 532--Appropriated Fund Wage and Survey
Areas
* * * * *
NEW YORK
* * * * *
Syracuse-Utica-Rome
Survey Area
New York:
Herkimer
Madison
Oneida
Onondaga
Oswego
* * * * *
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
New York:
Broome
Cayuga
Chenango
Cortland
Hamilton
Otsego
Tioga
Tompkins
* * * * *
TEXAS
Austin
Survey Area
Texas:
Hays
Milam
Travis
Williamson
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Texas:
Bastrop
Blanco
Burnet
Caldwell
Fayette
Lee
Llano
Mason
San Saba
* * * * *
Waco
Survey Area
Texas:
Bell
Coryell
McLennan
Area of Application. Survey area plus:
Texas:
Anderson
Bosque
Brazos
Burleson
Falls
Freestone
Hamilton
Hill
Lampasas
Leon
Limestone
[[Page 19522]]
Mills
Robertson
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-7728 Filed 3-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-39-P
