5 U.S.C. § 8913

Regulations

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 5 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) The Office of Personnel Management may prescribe regulations necessary to carry out this chapter.(b) The regulations of the Office may prescribe the time at which and the manner and conditions under which an employee is eligible to enroll in an approved health benefits plan described by section 8903 or 8903a of this title. The regulations may exclude an employee on the basis of the nature and type of his employment or conditions pertaining to it, such as short-term appointment, seasonal or intermittent employment, and employment of like nature. The Office may not exclude—(1) an employee or group of employees solely on the basis of the hazardous nature of employment;(2) a teacher in the employ of the Board of Education of the District of Columbia, whose pay is fixed by section 1501 of title 31, District of Columbia Code, on the basis of the fact that the teacher is serving under a temporary appointment if the teacher has been so employed by the Board for a period or periods totaling not less than two school years;(3) an employee who is occupying a position on a part-time career employment basis (as defined in section 3401(2) of this title); or(4) an employee who is employed on a temporary basis and is eligible under section 8906a(a).(c) The regulations of the Office shall provide for the beginning and ending dates of coverage of employees, annuitants, members of their families, and former spouses under health benefits plans. The regulations may permit the coverage to continue, exclusive of the temporary extension of coverage described by section 8902(g) of this title, until the end of the pay period in which an employee is separated from the service, or until the end of the month in which an annuitant or former spouse ceases to be entitled to annuity, and in case of the death of an employee or annuitant, may permit a temporary extension of the coverage of members of his family for not to exceed 90 days.(d) The Secretary of Agriculture shall prescribe regulations to effect the application and operation of this chapter to an individual named by section 8901(1)(H) of this title.(Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 607; Pub. L. 95–437, § 4(c)(1), Oct. 10, 1978, 92 Stat. 1058; Pub. L. 95–454, title IX, § 906(a)(2), (3), (c)(2)(F), (H), Oct. 13, 1978, 92 Stat. 1224, 1227; Pub. L. 98–615, § 3(7), Nov. 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3204; Pub. L. 99–53, § 2(a), June 17, 1985, 99 Stat. 94; Pub. L. 100–654, title III, § 301(c), Nov. 14, 1988, 102 Stat. 3846.)

Historical and Revision Notes
Derivation	U.S. Code	Revised Statutes and Statutes at Large
(a)	5 U.S.C. 3009(a).	Sept. 28, 1959, Pub. L. 86–382, § 10(a), 73 Stat. 715.
(b)	5 U.S.C. 3002(a) (words between 1st and 4th commas of 1st sentence, and 2d sentence), (f) (words between 1st and 2d commas of 1st sentence).	Sept. 28, 1959, Pub. L. 86–382, § 3(a) (words between 1st and 4th commas of 1st sentence, and 2d sentence), 73 Stat. 710. July 1, 1960, Pub. L. 86–568, § 115(d) “(f) (words between 1st and 2d commas of 1st sentence)”, 74 Stat. 303.
		Oct. 6, 1964, Pub. L. 88–631, § 1, 78 Stat. 1007.
(c)	5 U.S.C. 3009(b).	Sept. 28, 1959, Pub. L. 86–382, § 10(b), 73 Stat. 715.
(d)	5 U.S.C. 3002(f) (2d sentence).	July 1, 1960, Pub. L. 86–568, § 115(d) “(f) (2d sentence)”, 74 Stat. 303.

In subsection (b)(2), the words “section 1501 of title 31, District of Columbia Code” are substituted for “section 1 of the District of Columbia Teachers’ Salary Act of 1955 (69 Stat. 521), as amended (sec. 31–1501, D.C. Code, 1961 edition)”.

Standard changes are made to conform with the definitions applicable and the style of this title as outlined in the preface to the report.

Editorial NotesAmendments

1988—Subsec. (b)(4). Pub. L. 100–654 added par. (4).

1985—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 99–53 inserted reference to section 8903a of this title.

1984—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 98–615, § 3(7), substituted “employees, annuitants, members of their families, and former spouses” for “employees and annuitants and members of their families”, and “in which an annuitant or former spouse” for “in which an annuitant”.

1978—Subsecs. (a), (b). Pub. L. 95–454, § 906(a)(2), (3), substituted “Office of Personnel Management” for “Civil Service Commission” and “Office” for “Commission” wherever appearing.

Subsec. (b)(3). Pub. L. 95–454, § 906(c)(2)(F), (H), substituted “3401” for “3391”.

Pub. L. 95–437 added par. (3).

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 95–454, § 906(a)(3), substituted “Office” for “Commission”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1988 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 100–654 effective 120 days after Nov. 14, 1988, see section 301(d) of Pub. L. 100–654, set out as an Effective Date note under section 8906a of this title.

Effective Date of 1984 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 98–615 effective May 7, 1985, with enumerated exceptions, and applicable to any individual who is married to an employee or annuitant on or after that date, see section 4(a)(2) of Pub. L. 98–615, as amended, set out as a note under section 8341 of this title.

Effective Date of 1978 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 95–454 effective 90 days after Oct. 13, 1978, see section 907 of Pub. L. 95–454, set out as a note under section 1101 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 32 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1977–2024 · leading case: Bruce F. Botsford v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Montana, Inc. Blue Cross & Blue Shield Ass'n, 314 F.3d 390 (9th Cir. 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bruce F. Botsford v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Montana, Inc. Blue Cross & Blue Shield Ass'n, 314 F.3d 390 (9th Cir. 2002). · cites it 2× “§ 8902 (a) (power to contract); 5 U.S.C. § 8913 (a) (power to promulgate necessary regulations).”

In re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litig., 162 F. Supp. 3d 953 (N.D. Cal. 2016). “§ 8902 (e), and “may prescribe regulations necessary to carry out” FEHBA, 5 U.S.C. § 8913 (a). Third, and finally, the Federal BCBSA contract includes several provisions that address data privacy.”

Helfrich v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield Assoc, 804 F.3d 1090 (10th Cir. 2015). · cites it 2× “But Blue Cross did argue that the district court should defer to an OPM letter expressing its position that contractual rights to reimbursement and subrogation fall within the purview of § 8902(m)(1).”

GHS Health Maint. Org., Inc. v. United States, 76 Fed. Cl. 339 (Fed. Cl. 2007). · cites it 3× “Specifically, 5 U.S.C. § 8913 (a) states: “The Office of Personnel Management may prescribe regulations necessary to carry out this chapter.”

Marilyn Goepel Ronald Goepel v. Nat'l Postal Mail Handlers Union, a Div. of Liuna, D/B/A Mail Handlers Benefit Plan, 36 F.3d 306 (3rd Cir. 1994). “Under the FEHBA, however, there is no preemption, even in the area of FEHBA health insurance and plans, unless there is a conflict between the particular state law being relied upon in the litigation and a specific contractual provision in am FEHBA policy.”

Gonzalez v. Blue Cross Blue Shield, 62 F.4th 891 (5th Cir. 2023). “43 5 U.S.C. § 8913 . 44 5 C.F.R. § 890.107 (c) (emphasis added).”

State Farm Indem. v. Fornaro, 227 F. Supp. 2d 229 (D.N.J. 2002). “5 U.S.C. § 8913 (a) provides that OPM “may prescribe regulations necessary to carry out this chapter.”

Kobold v. Aetna Life Ins., 370 P.3d 128 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “The OPM is specifically tasked with “preserib[ing] regulations necessary to carry out [the FEHBA],” 5 U.S.C. § 8913 (a), and the regulations at issue here were the product of a formal notice-and-comment rule-making process.”

Pedersen v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 881 F. Supp. 2d 294 (D. Conn. 2012). “(citing 5 U.S.C. § 8913 ). Under these regulations, those eligible for coverage may elect to enroll for individual coverage, or for both individual and family coverage.”

Bridges v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield Ass'n, 935 F. Supp. 37 (D.D.C. 1996). “Pursuant to the broad regulatory authority conferred by 5 U.S.C. § 8913 (a), the OPM has promulgated detailed regulations governing FEHBA contracts.”

In Re LymeCare, Inc., 301 B.R. 662 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2003). “5 U.S.C. § 8913 . Scholl v. QualMed, Inc.”

Horvath v. Dodaro, 160 F. Supp. 3d 32 (D.D.C. 2015). “Utilizing its rulemaking authority, OPM created a remedial scheme for the resolution of enrollment disputes.”

Show all 32 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.