Proposed Rule2026-03610
Managing Senior Professional Performance
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
February 24, 2026
Issuing agencies
Personnel Management OfficeManagement and Budget Office
Abstract
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) are proposing to revise the rules governing the performance appraisal of senior-level (SL) and scientific or professional (ST) employees, collectively referred to as "senior professionals." This rulemaking would establish a new subpart specifically dedicated to senior professional performance appraisal. The new subpart would align more closely with the SES performance appraisal regulations, eliminate senior professional appraisal programs, remove the prohibition of a forced distribution of performance rating levels, and enhance oversight.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 36 (Tuesday, February 24, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 36 (Tuesday, February 24, 2026)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8763-8780]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-03610]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
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.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 36 / Tuesday, February 24, 2026 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 8763]]
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
5 CFR Parts 351, 430, 451, 534, 537, 630, and 894
[Docket ID: OPM-2025-0011]
RIN 3206-AO88
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
5 CFR Part 1330
RIN 0348-AB92
Managing Senior Professional Performance
AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management and the Office of Management and
Budget.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) are proposing to revise the rules governing
the performance appraisal of senior-level (SL) and scientific or
professional (ST) employees, collectively referred to as ``senior
professionals.'' This rulemaking would establish a new subpart
specifically dedicated to senior professional performance appraisal.
The new subpart would align more closely with the SES performance
appraisal regulations, eliminate senior professional appraisal
programs, remove the prohibition of a forced distribution of
performance rating levels, and enhance oversight.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 26, 2026.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by RIN number ``3206-
AO88,'' or docket number using the following method:
<bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Privacy Act Statement: OPM and OMB propose this rule to elicit
public views pursuant to the statutory authorities cited herein.
Submission of comments is voluntary. The information will be used to
inform sound decision-making. All comments and other submissions
received may be posted on the internet at <a href="https://regulations.gov">https://regulations.gov</a> as
they are received, without change, including any personal information
provided. As such, do not include any information you would not like to
be made publicly available. The OMB System of Records Notice, OMB
Public Input System of Records, OMB/INPUT/01, 88 FR 20913 (available at
<a href="http://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/04/07/2023-07452/privacy-act-of-1974-system-of-records">www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/04/07/2023-07452/privacy-act-of-1974-system-of-records</a>), includes a list of routine uses associated
with the collection of this information. The OPM System of Records
Notice, Federal Register Comments, OPM/Internal-29, 90 FR 6030
(available at <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/01/17/2025-01125/privacy-act-of-1974-system-of-records">https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/01/17/2025-01125/privacy-act-of-1974-system-of-records</a>), includes a list of
routine uses associated with the collection of this information.
All submissions must include the agency name and docket number or
RIN for this Federal Register document. Please arrange and identify
your comments about the regulatory text by subpart and section number.
If your comments relate to the supplementary information, please
reference the heading and page number in the supplementary section. All
comments must be received by the end of the comment period for them to
be considered.
As required by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this rule may be
found in the docket for this rulemaking at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Noah Peters, Senior Advisor to the
Director, 202-606-8046 or by email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#93c0d6c0e3fcfffaf0ead3fce3febdf4fce5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="94c7d1c7e4fbf8fdf7edd4fbe4f9baf3fbe2">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Senior-level (SL) and scientific or professional (ST) employees,
collectively referred to as ``senior professionals,'' are high-ranking
experts who serve in positions classified above GS-15 and just below
the Senior Executive Service (SES). These positions are filled with
renowned scientists, engineers, and technical/program experts and
require top talent in specialized fields critical to Federal
operations. SL employees generally provide subject matter expertise to
support agency leaders in driving successful organizational programs,
while ST employees carry out research and development functions in the
physical, biological, medical, or engineering sciences, or a closely
related field.
The past several decades of legislation, regulation, and policy
have seen increased alignment between senior professional and SES
compensation. The Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act of 1990 \1\
(FEPCA) established a pay system for certain senior-level positions to
replace grades 16, 17, and 18 of the General Schedule (GS), which were
abolished. Under FEPCA, positions allocated by the Director of OPM
under 5 U.S.C. 3104 and 5108 were placed in the new pay system under 5
U.S.C. 5376. FEPCA authorized OPM to establish pay rules for these
positions with a rate range from 120 percent of the rate payable for
GS-15 step 1 to the rate payable for level IV of the Executive Schedule
(EX-IV), supplemented by locality pay subject to a cap of EX-III.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Enacted as Section 529 of the Treasury, Postal Service and
General Government Appropriations Act, 1991 (Pub. L. 101-509, 104
Stat. 1427).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Senior Professional Performance Act of 2008, Public Law 110-372
(October 8, 2008) introduced significant changes to the SL/ST pay
system. The legislative history stated the principal purpose of the
underlying bill was to bring the pay system for SL and ST personnel
into line with that for SES members by eliminating locality pay and
authorizing an agency to use a level III or level II pay ceiling,
depending upon whether the agency appraisal system is certified. S.
Rep. No. 110-328, 110th Cong., 2nd Sess. (April 22, 2008). This made
the senior professional rate range equivalent to the SES rate range.
Additionally, agencies were authorized to establish pay-for-performance
systems for their senior professionals, meaning that pay increases
would be based on individual performance, rather than tenure or
automatic progression through a step-based system. In 2014 OPM issued
senior professional pay regulations to implement the provisions of the
2008 Senior Professional Performance Act. See 5 CFR part 534, subpart
E. These regulations primarily established the framework for
performance-based pay for senior
[[Page 8764]]
professionals, which is similar to the framework that applies to the
SES, requiring that pay determinations be based on individual
performance, contributions to the agency's performance, or both, as
determined through administration of the agency's performance
management system.
In addition to having the same applicable pay range as the SES,
there are several other important senior professional provisions under
current law and regulation that mirror the SES, including the aggregate
compensation limit, leave accrual rate, leave carryover limit, the
requirement for OPM to approve position allocations, and performance
appraisal system certification requirements. These provisions reflect
the similarity between senior professional and SES positions in terms
of their scope and complexity. However, the parity between senior
professionals and the SES has not been accompanied by changes to the
regulations governing senior professional performance appraisal.
Instead, senior professionals have remained subject to the same general
performance appraisal regulations that apply to most federal employees,
including rank-and-file GS and prevailing rate employees. As the
senior-most technical advisors on issues that have wide-scale impact
and application, senior professionals should be subject to performance
appraisal rules commensurate with their important roles and high level
of compensation.
Senior Professional Performance Management
Currently, subpart B of 5 CFR part 430 provides the requirements
for managing the performance of non-SES federal employees, including
senior professionals. These regulations have not been updated since the
mid-1990s and were designed to meet the needs of a broad population of
federal employees such as prevailing rate employees, seasonal
employees, and employees across all grades and steps of the General
Schedule. Over time, these regulations have become increasingly
incompatible with OPM's efforts to develop a dedicated modern senior
professional performance appraisal system. Some of the current
regulatory requirements present unnecessary administrative burdens,
while others present barriers to implementing needed performance
appraisal reform.
Appraisal Systems and Programs
Agencies must establish one or more appraisal systems, and OPM must
review and approve an agency's systems. 5 U.S.C. 4304(b)(1). When
developing the non-SES performance appraisal regulations at part 430,
subpart B, in 1995, OPM adopted recommendations by the National
Performance Review for flexible, decentralized performance management.
OPM decentralized performance management and increased agency
flexibility, in part through definitions. OPM defined an ``appraisal
system'' as the agency's framework of policies and parameters (i.e.,
guidelines, boundaries, limits) for the administration of performance
appraisal programs, and OPM defined ``appraisal program'' as the
specific procedures and requirements established under the policies and
parameters of an agency appraisal system. By creating these separate
terms, OPM was able to limit its approval role to just the content of
an agency appraisal system, as required by law, and leave agencies free
to establish and adapt one or more appraisal programs of specific
procedures and requirements, which OPM would not review. This move
towards agency flexibility and decentralization was a stark contrast to
the highly detailed regulatory requirements of the mid-1980s--a time
when there was a strong policy interest in achieving Governmentwide
uniformity. Aside from a few minor changes in the late 1990s, the part
430, subpart B, appraisal regulations have remained in place and
unchanged, failing to keep pace with a growing and evolving federal
workforce. While allowing agencies to create their own appraisal
programs under an OPM-approved performance appraisal system is a
flexibility that has worked well for most positions, for high-level
positions where accountability and alignment with organizational and
Administration priorities is critical, such as SES and senior
professional positions, increased uniformity of appraisal practices and
standards that apply Governmentwide is desirable. For example, SES have
dedicated performance appraisal regulations at 5 CFR part 430, subpart
C, that apply to all SES members and do not require the establishment
of separate SES appraisal programs.
In 2016, OPM issued a model SL/ST performance appraisal system and
program referred to as the ``Basic SL/ST System/Program.'' \2\ The
Basic SL/ST System/Program was designed to comply with requirements for
performance appraisal system approval and certification requirements
and to provide a uniform framework to communicate expectations and
evaluate the performance of senior professionals. OPM's intention was
to bring consistency to the Basic SL/ST System/Program similar to what
was provided for senior executives when OPM issued the Basic SES
Performance Appraisal System in 2012.\3\ However, the development of
the Basic SL/ST System/Program was constrained by an underlying
regulatory framework that was not created with senior professionals in
mind, and therefore certain ill-fitting requirements, procedures, and
definitions had to remain in the Basic SL/ST System/Program simply to
comply with antiquated appraisal regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ OPM, ``Senior-Level and Scientific and Professional
Performance Appraisal System/Program and Streamlined Certification
Process'' (August 9, 2016) available at <a href="https://www.opm.gov/chcoc/historical-memos/senior-level-and-scientific-and-professional-performance-appraisal-systemprogram-and-streamlined-certification-process-8-9-16-memo/">https://www.opm.gov/chcoc/historical-memos/senior-level-and-scientific-and-professional-performance-appraisal-systemprogram-and-streamlined-certification-process-8-9-16-memo/</a>.
\3\ OPM, Senior Executive Service Performance Appraisal System
available (January 4, 2012) available at <a href="https://www.opm.gov/chcoc/transmittals/2012/senior-executive-service-performance-appraisal-system_508.pdf">https://www.opm.gov/chcoc/transmittals/2012/senior-executive-service-performance-appraisal-system_508.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recognizing that reforms to federal performance management are long
overdue, on January 20, 2025, President Trump issued the Presidential
Memorandum titled ``Restoring Accountability for Career Senior
Executives'' (90 FR 8481, January 30, 2025) to ``reinvigorate the SES
system and prioritize accountability.'' Specifically, he sought to
``ensure[ ] that SES officials are properly accountable to the
President and the American people.'' President Trump directed OPM, in
coordination with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), to ``issue
SES Performance Plans that agencies must adopt.'' In accordance with
that direction, on February 25, 2025, OPM issued a revised SES
performance appraisal system and plan.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ OPM, ``New Senior Executive Service Performance Appraisal
System and Performance Plan, and Guidance on Next Steps for Agencies
to Implement Restoring Accountability for Career Senior Executives''
(February 25, 2025), available at <a href="https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/latest-memos/new-senior-executive-service-performance-appraisal-system-and-performance-plan-and-guidance-on-next-steps-for-agencies-to-implement-restoring-accountability-for-career-senior-executives.pdf">https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/latest-memos/new-senior-executive-service-performance-appraisal-system-and-performance-plan-and-guidance-on-next-steps-for-agencies-to-implement-restoring-accountability-for-career-senior-executives.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given that senior professionals also occupy important roles that
demand accountability to the President and the American people, on
April 3, 2025, in a continued effort to maintain established parity
with the SES, OPM issued a new senior professional performance
appraisal system and plan \5\
[[Page 8765]]
to be used by all senior professionals beginning October 1, 2025. Like
the new SES system, the new senior professional performance appraisal
system requires all senior professionals to be appraised on the same
standardized critical elements, be rated on the same fiscal-year cycle,
and utilize the same rating levels that are used for SES appraisal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ OPM, ``New Senior Professional Performance Appraisal System
and Plan'' (April 3, 2025) available at <a href="https://www.opm.gov/chcoc/latest-memos/new-senior-professional-performance-appraisal-system-and-plan.pdf">https://www.opm.gov/chcoc/latest-memos/new-senior-professional-performance-appraisal-system-and-plan.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the issuance of the new senior professional performance
appraisal system represents a good first step to deliver meaningful
reforms that will enhance accountability and ensure senior
professionals' performance is of the highest quality, OPM has concluded
that regulatory change is needed. OPM proposes to remove senior
professionals from their current performance appraisal regulation
coverage and establish a new subpart in part 430 specifically dedicated
to senior professional performance appraisal. The new subpart would
codify practices established in the new senior professional performance
appraisal system and plan, eliminate unnecessary requirements currently
imposed on senior professional performance appraisal, and more closely
mirror the structure and provisions of the SES performance appraisal
regulations.
Standardized Distribution of Performance Ratings
Currently, an agency may not require a particular distribution of
summary levels for any employee covered by subpart B of part 430, Code
of Federal Regulations, meaning that each senior professional can
potentially receive any rating irrespective of how other senior
professionals perform within the agency. In a 1979 rulemaking--the
first rulemaking implementing Chapter 43 of the CSRA--OPM adopted a
provision stating: ``An appraisal system shall not permit any
preestablished distributions of expected levels of performance (such as
a requirement to rate on a bell curve) that interfere with appraisal of
actual performance against standards.'' 44 FR 45587, 45590 (August 3,
1979). As is common in rulemakings from that time, there is virtually
no accompanying preamble explaining the rationale for the provision. In
a 1995 rulemaking, OPM proposed to eliminate the prohibition on forced
distributions. 60 FR 5542 (January 27, 1995). OPM did not adopt that
proposal in the final rule. 60 FR 43936 (August 23, 1995). In response
to commenters, OPM said it was persuaded by the arguments that ``forced
distributions were incompatible with effective performance
management,'' but there are no further details provided. Id. at 43941.
OPM proposes to remove this categorical prohibition on forced, or
standardized, distribution for senior professionals and provide that
OPM may establish a standardized distribution of some or all rating
levels for agencies to apply with respect to their senior professional
cohorts.\6\ This would further increase parity with SES performance
appraisal regulations since, in the final rule, Assuring Responsive and
Accountable Federal Executive Management, published on September 15,
2025 (90 FR 44299), OPM eliminated the prohibition of a forced
distribution within the SES.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ OPM uses the term ``standardized distribution''
interchangeably with the term ``forced distribution.'' OPM believes
the term ``standardized distribution'' better describes its intent
than ``forced distribution,'' which has appeared in other recent OPM
issuances. That is, OPM proposes to authorize consistent, normalized
standards for the distribution of some or all rating levels across
the agency's senior professional cohort. Among other things, OPM
believes that this will ensure that senior professionals can be
compared across government, without regard to the particular
practices of performance ratings within specific agencies or the
particular practices of specific managers. It will also help
agencies to better identify, and reward, truly outstanding
performers than under the current system, under which nearly 90% of
senior professionals receive the highest two performance ratings,
and will also help agencies identify and address poor performance,
as very few senior professionals receive the lowest performance
ratings. OPM also proposes to revise the terminology it used in 5
CFR 430.305 from ``forced distribution'' to ``standardized
distribution'' to ensure consistent terms are used to describe the
same concept.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For this rulemaking, ``standardized distribution'' refers to a
method of evaluating employees in which the rating official first
assesses each employee based on certain pre-determined parameters and
thereafter must develop for each employee a rating based on a pre-
determined number or percentage of ratings allowable. This new approach
would apply to senior professionals covered under a performance
appraisal system subject to the proposed subpart, except that senior
professionals appointed under Schedules C and G in the excepted service
may be excluded from such standardized distribution requirements, as
determined by OPM. This exclusion would provide flexibility for
standardized distribution requirements to be established, consistent
with OPM guidance, in a manner that best supports rigor and senior
professional accountability. In advance of rulemaking, OPM's new senior
professional performance appraisal system and plan incorporated the
implementation of a standardized distribution of Level 4 and 5 ratings
contingent upon this proposed rule being made final. Standardized
distribution, also sometimes referred to as ``stack ranking,'' can be
executed by assigning individual ranks to employees or by categorizing
them into groups, such as top performers, average performers, and low
performers. The practice has a well-documented history of private
sector adoption over the last several decades. Wijayanti, A., Sholihin,
M., Nahartyo, E. et al. (2024) conducted a review of the standardized
distribution literature.\7\ A total of 41 research articles published
from 1960 to 2022 were included in their review. These studies
highlight many notable benefits of utilizing standardized distributions
as well as areas for caution. For example, several studies indicated
that standardized distributions can increase rating accuracy by
eliminating leniency bias, which is the tendency for raters to provide
lenient ratings to avoid conflicts that arise from granting unfavorable
ratings. Findings also show that standardized distribution can quickly
enhance organizational performance and promote the success of merit-
based reward systems. Some studies also found that standardized
distribution can have negative consequences such as discrimination,
perceptions of unfairness, and reduced organizational citizenship
behavior and knowledge sharing. Nonetheless, the authors concluded
that, when implemented carefully, standardized distribution has been
shown to increase employee satisfaction and reduce turnover.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Wijayanti, A., Sholihin, M., Nahartyo, E., & Supriyadi, S.,
What do we know about the forced distribution system: A systematic
literature review and opportunities for future research, Management
Quarterly Review (2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed, while not the norm, a standardized distribution has been
used by many major private sector companies in senior level performance
plans over the past few decades, including Oracle, Meta, Amazon,
Microsoft, Uber, and Google.\8\ One recent source estimates that 30% of
Fortune 500 companies use a standardized distribution of some sort in
their performance evaluations.\9\ Even more pertinent, standardized
distributions have been used to evaluate the performance of civil
service employees in many other countries,
[[Page 8766]]
most notably Germany, Portugal, Italy, Latvia, Indonesia, and the
United Kingdom.\10\ After moving away from a standardized distribution
in 2019, the United Kingdom civil service returned to a system with an
``expected distribution'' of performance ratings in 2025.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See, e.g., ``Should a company rate its staff? A former
Amazon exec says `stack ranking' is useful when done right,'' CNBC,
December 5, 2023, available at <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/05/stack-ranking-ex-amazon-exec-explains-the-performance-review-system.html">https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/05/stack-ranking-ex-amazon-exec-explains-the-performance-review-system.html</a>.
\9\ ``Stack Ranking--All You Need to Know,'' Medium (April 3,
2020) available at <a href="https://medium.com/@corvisio/stack-ranking-all-you-need-to-know-a5339c27ad83">https://medium.com/@corvisio/stack-ranking-all-you-need-to-know-a5339c27ad83</a>.
\10\ ``Performance Appraisal in the EU Member States and the
European Commission,'' [Uacute]RAD VL[Aacute]DY SLOVENSKEJ REPUBLIKY
(2017) available at <a href="https://www.eupan.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/2016_2_SK_Performance_Appraisal_in_the_EU_Member_States_and_the_European_Commission.pdf">https://www.eupan.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/2016_2_SK_Performance_Appraisal_in_the_EU_Member_States_and_the_European_Commission.pdf</a>.
\11\ ``SCS performance management system to include new `minimum
standards' in 2025,'' Civil Service World (December 12, 2024)
available at <a href="https://www.civilserviceworld.com/professions/article/senior-civil-service-performance-management-minimum-standards-expected-distribution-2025">https://www.civilserviceworld.com/professions/article/senior-civil-service-performance-management-minimum-standards-expected-distribution-2025</a>. See also GOV.UK Civil Service Guidance,
``Performance management framework for the Senior Civil Service
(2025 to 2026 performance year)'' (February 6, 2025), available at
<a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/senior-civil-service-performance-management/performance-management-framework-for-the-senior-civil-service-2025-to-2026-performance-year">https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/senior-civil-service-performance-management/performance-management-framework-for-the-senior-civil-service-2025-to-2026-performance-year</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is even more reason to implement a standardized distribution
in the Federal Government than in the private sector. Private sector
companies typically do not operate under a statutory mandate requiring
that they have performance appraisal systems that ``permit the accurate
evaluation of performance.'' See 5 U.S.C. 4302(c)(1). In addition, the
Federal Government is entrusted with many critical responsibilities
from veterans' health care to law enforcement to disaster relief to
fighting pandemics.\12\ When senior professionals in the Federal
Government fail to perform at a high level, these crucial missions are
not sufficiently supported. Further, unlike the private sector, the
Federal Government lacks a profit motive to ensure meaningful
evaluations of its employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See, e.g., Titles 38, 34, and 42 of the United States Code.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent governmentwide ratings data have shown that virtually all
senior professionals receive the highest rating levels (i.e., Levels 4
and 5). Governmentwide senior professional performance rating data for
fiscal years 2023 and 2024 \13\ show that approximately 90 percent of
senior professionals received an ``Outstanding'' (Level 5) or ``Exceeds
Fully Successful'' (Level 4) rating and less than a half of one percent
of senior professionals were rated below ``Fully Successful'' (Level
3). These results suggest that senior professional ratings are
inflated, and poor-performing employees are likely not being identified
or held accountable through a rigorous appraisal process. In 2019, OPM
issued a memorandum \14\ to agencies on how to increase rigor in
performance management through well-developed performance standards
that make clear distinctions among what is required to achieve
performance at the various performance levels. However, the 2024
Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) results showed that only 47%
of federal employees agreed with the statement, ``In my work unit,
differences in performance are recognized in a meaningful way.'' This
was the lowest positive response rate for any question and has
consistently been the lowest over the past three years.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ SL and ST Governmentwide ratings data for fiscal years 2023
and 2024 obtained from OPM's Enterprise Human Resources Integration-
Statistical Data Mart.
\14\ OPM, ``Applying Rigor in the Performance Management Process
and Leveraging Awards Programs for a High-Performing Workforce,''
(July 12, 2019) available at <a href="https://www.opm.gov/chcoc/transmittals/2019/applying-rigor-performance-management-process-and-leveraging-awards-programs-high-performing_508_0.pdf">https://www.opm.gov/chcoc/transmittals/2019/applying-rigor-performance-management-process-and-leveraging-awards-programs-high-performing_508_0.pdf</a>.
\15\ FEVS Results for 2022 to 2024, available at <a href="https://www.opm.gov/fevs/reports/governmentwide-reports/">https://www.opm.gov/fevs/reports/governmentwide-reports/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Removing the prohibition on forced distribution would allow OPM to
establish and enforce limits on the highest senior professional rating
levels, thereby increasing rigor in the senior professional appraisal
process and leading to a more normalized distribution of senior
professional ratings across the Federal Government. The ability to
limit the highest rating levels for senior professionals is
increasingly vital given not only the inflated performance ratings but
also the rise in the number of senior professional positions. In
September of 2008, OPM had authorized a total of 659 SL position
allocations and 345 ST position allocations governmentwide. However, by
September of 2024, those numbers rose to 1,703 SL position allocations
and 768 ST position allocations governmentwide.\16\ Because the number
of senior professional positions has increased so dramatically, the
consequences of inadequate performance appraisal regulations are only
exacerbated. Although the 1995 amendments to the part 430, subpart B,
regulations were intended to curb rating inflation and alleviate
overall dissatisfaction with the one-size-fits-all approach to
appraisal of the mid-1980s, the recent governmentwide data suggest the
problem of rating inflation remains. In sum, it is particularly
important that the executive branch have the option to implement a
standardized distribution of at least some ratings given the systemic
and pervasive use of Level 4 and 5 ratings and the increased number of
senior professional positions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ OPM's Executive and Schedule C System (ESCS), Summary
Allocation and Filled Report with Executive Levels (September 30,
2008, and September 30, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feedback and Oversight
Good performance management requires ongoing feedback in which an
employee is not only kept informed about how he or she is doing but is
also given guidance and assistance to do even better in the future.\17\
This starts with developing clear performance expectations and rigorous
performance standards against which performance is assessed and then
continues through frequent communications between the rating official
and employee. The proposed rule would require that progress reviews be
conducted for senior professionals quarterly as opposed to one or more
times per appraisal period. This will provide more opportunities for
rating officials to clarify expectations for the senior professional,
evaluate how their performance compares to their performance
requirements, and take action based on unacceptable performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Office of Policy and
Evaluation, Performance Management is More than an Appraisal,
(Washington, DC: December 2015), available at <a href="https://www.mspb.gov/studies/publications/Performance_Management_is_More_than_an_Appraisal.pdf">https://www.mspb.gov/studies/publications/Performance_Management_is_More_than_an_Appraisal.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To provide oversight over senior professional ratings similar to
the oversight provided for SES members' ratings, OPM proposes not to
include the requirement for mandatory review of Level 1 ratings found
at 5 CFR 430.208(e) in the proposed rule and instead establish a formal
higher-level review process similar to the process provided to SES
members. For senior professionals, current regulations require
mandatory review of Level 1 (``Unacceptable'') ratings of record only.
However, the proposed rule requires that all senior professionals be
provided an opportunity for higher-level review of their initial
summary rating by an employee at a higher level in the agency.
Existing senior professional pay regulations provide for oversight
by requiring agencies with ten or more senior professionals to conduct
a centralized review of proposed ratings and pay actions by a panel
designated by the agency head. See 5 CFR 534.505(a)(5). This single
panel provides advice from an agency-wide perspective for authorized
agency officials to consider before approving pay adjustments. The
panel advises on whether ratings of record proposed for senior
professionals accurately reflect their individual performance,
contributions to agency performance, or
[[Page 8767]]
both, and take into account, as appropriate, assessment of the agency's
performance against program performance measures and other relevant
considerations, and whether proposed pay adjustments for senior
professionals conform to regulatory requirements and appropriately
correspond to proposed ratings of record. OPM proposes to retain the
requirement of centralized review, but under the proposed regulations
the agency-level Performance Review Board (PRB), required by Sec.
430.311, will be responsible for conducting the centralized review.
Agencies not subject to the SES and thus have no PRB but do employ ten
or more senior professionals would be required to establish a body
equivalent to the PRB, which would be responsible for satisfying the
requirements of centralized review in accordance with 5 CFR part 534,
subpart E.
Section-by-Section Summary of the Proposed Subpart
OPM has reviewed the non-SES and SES performance appraisal
regulations and is issuing this proposed rule pursuant to its
regulatory authority in 5 U.S.C. 4302(c). OPM proposes to amend 5 CFR
part 430 by adding a new subpart dedicated to senior professional
performance appraisal. The new subpart generally would mirror the
provisions and structure of the SES appraisal regulations at 5 CFR part
430, subpart C, but certain elements of the non-SES appraisal
regulations at 5 CFR part 430, subpart B, would be retained due to the
different statutory authorities and requirements that apply to the SES
and senior professionals. The following summarizes key provisions of
each section of the proposed subpart:
Section 430.501 General
The applicable authority remains chapter 43 of title 5, United
States Code, which provides for the establishment of agency performance
appraisal systems and requires OPM to prescribe regulations governing
such systems.
Section 430.502 Coverage
The proposed subpart would apply only to senior professionals paid
under 5 U.S.C. 5376, which includes all SL positions that are
classified above GS-15 pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 5108 and all ST positions
established under 5 U.S.C. 3104.
Section 430.503 Definitions
The proposed definition of ``agency'' reflects that, under 5 U.S.C.
5108, OPM determines the maximum number of SL positions that may be
established in an Executive agency and, under 5 U.S.C. 3104, OPM
determines the maximum number of ST positions in any agency, except for
the Library of Congress, which also may establish eight ST positions
under 5 U.S.C. 3104. The proposed definition of ``senior professional''
would be the same as that term is defined at 5 CFR 430.402.
This section would retain certain defined terms from the current
non-SES performance appraisal regulations at 5 CFR part 430, subpart B,
and adopt certain defined terms from the SES performance appraisal
regulations at 5 CFR part 430, subpart C.
The terms ``performance rating'' and ``rating of record'' would be
retained from the current non-SES regulations due to those terms being
widely used in other statutes and regulations that remain applicable to
senior professionals such as reduction in force regulations. Certain
other defined terms would not be carried over from the non-SES
regulations including ``additional performance element,'' ``appraisal
program,'' and ``non-critical element'' because, in the proposed
subpart, agencies would no longer be required to develop appraisal
programs and all elements in a senior professional's performance plan
would be critical elements.
Defined terms that would be adopted from the SES appraisal
regulations include ``initial summary rating,'' ``oversight official,''
``performance requirement,'' ``PRB,'' and ``strategic planning
initiatives.'' Also, instead of utilizing the term ``appointing
authority'' from the SES appraisal regulations, the term ``approving
official'' would be used and mean the agency designated official who
assigns the rating of record because the term ``appointing authority''
is used in the SES appraisal regulations to refer to the department or
agency head, or other official with authority to make appointments in
the SES.
The term ``rating official'' is a new term that would be defined in
the proposed subpart and mean the official, generally the supervisor of
the senior professional, who develops the initial summary rating and
forwards it to the PRB as the recommended rating of record.
Section 430.504 Senior Professional Performance Appraisal Systems
This section would require agencies to establish performance
appraisal systems specifically covering senior professionals and would
eliminate the requirement to develop appraisal programs for those
systems. Under this rulemaking, agencies would instead establish senior
professional performance appraisal systems that contain all the
policies, parameters, procedures, and requirements necessary for OPM
approval and be consistent with the criteria for performance appraisal
system certification. Since senior professionals are afforded access to
a higher maximum rate of pay and a higher aggregate pay limit if
covered by a certified performance appraisal system, agencies are
consistently motivated to obtain and maintain a certified performance
appraisal system. However, because senior professionals are currently
covered under the non-SES performance appraisal regulations, they have
been required to develop both a performance appraisal system and an
appraisal program. OPM is authorized by law to certify only performance
appraisal systems, not appraisal programs. See 5 U.S.C. 5307(d). This
led to cumbersome OPM guidance on implementing the Basic Senior
Professional System/Program.\18\ However, consistent with OPM's new
senior professional performance appraisal system and plan,\19\ the
proposed subpart would streamline senior professional performance
appraisal system development by eliminating senior professional
appraisal programs and thus create better alignment between 5 U.S.C.
5307(d) and OPM's practice of certifying senior professional
performance appraisal systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See, supra, footnote 2.
\19\ See, supra, footnote 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This section would also require that agencies develop and
administer one or more performance appraisal systems for its senior
professionals in accordance with the system standards as described in
this subpart, which mirror the system standards that apply to SES
appraisal systems. This section would also increase the frequency of
progress reviews from at least once during the appraisal period to
quarterly.
Under this section, the minimum period of performance established
for senior professionals would be 90 days, consistent with the minimum
period under SES appraisal regulations. However, unlike the SES
performance appraisal regulations, there would be no provision for
ending a senior professional's appraisal period early after the minimum
period is completed; instead, appraisals at times other than the end of
the appraisal period are addressed in Sec. 430.510. The SES was
designed with mobility in mind and ending an appraisal period early for
an SES member can support SES mobility and promote effectiveness by
enabling
[[Page 8768]]
the agency to provide an annual summary rating at a time other than the
end of the established rating cycle. Senior professional positions do
not have the same expectation for mobility or rotational assignments.
Therefore, providing a similar regulatory flexibility to end an
appraisal period early for senior professionals is not necessary.
Section 430.505 System Standards for Senior Professional Performance
Appraisal Systems
Under this section, an agency would be required to develop and
implement a performance appraisal system for its senior professionals
in accordance with the system standards specified in this section and
applicable OPM guidance. Senior professionals provide subject matter
expertise and strategic advice that directly supports SES members and
other key leaders in carrying out important agency functions. It
follows that senior professionals should be held to similarly high-
performance standards as the SES. Therefore, these standards mirror
those in the SES performance appraisal regulations but, because senior
professionals are neither executives nor supervisors, do not require
critical elements to be based on OPM-validated executive competencies.
Senior professionals would be evaluated using five summary performance
levels, consistent with the SES.
This section would also eliminate the prohibition on the use of a
forced distribution of ratings for senior professionals and would allow
OPM to require and enforce a pre-established agencywide and
governmentwide distribution of performance ratings for senior
professionals. Additionally, OPM would be authorized to exclude senior
professionals appointed under Schedules C and G in the excepted service
from such standardized distribution requirements. This would provide
flexibility for standardized distribution requirements to be
established, consistent with OPM guidance, in a manner that best
supports rigor and accountability in senior professional performance
appraisal. As discussed in the Background, recent governmentwide senior
professional ratings data show that the vast majority of ratings for
senior professionals are above the ``Fully Successful'' level, with
less than one percent rated below ``Fully Successful.'' By providing
for the establishment of a standardized distribution of rating levels,
OPM expects that the highest ratings will be received only by the
highest performing senior professionals.
Consistent with the new senior professional performance appraisal
system and plan issued on April 3, 2025, OPM intends that the
standardized distribution of senior professional ratings will only be
applied to limit the number of Level 4 and Level 5 ratings and would
not impose any requirements with respect to the number of senior
professionals rated at Levels 1 through 3. Establishing governmentwide
limits on rating levels will promote a high-performance culture where
only truly deserving performers receive the highest ratings. And,
although such a limit on the top rating levels would not directly
require a greater number of ratings indicating unacceptable work or
poor performance, a high-performance culture would encourage rating
officials to provide poor performers with ratings commensurate with
their performance.
Section 430.506 Planning and Communicating Performance
The provisions of this section would mirror the section on planning
and communicating performance in the SES appraisal regulations at 5 CFR
430.306. Rating officials would need to consult with senior
professionals on the development of their performance plan and issue
the plan in writing on or before the beginning of the appraisal period,
or upon appointment to a new SL or ST position. The plan would need to
describe individual and organizational expectations and include the
critical elements, performance standards, and performance requirements.
This section would also authorize an agency to require a review by the
PRB to review senior professional performance plans at the beginning of
the appraisal period to ensure consistency of agency-specific
performance requirements.
Section 430.507 Monitoring Performance
As discussed in the Background, good performance management
requires ongoing feedback in which an employee is kept informed about
how he or she is doing and also given guidance on how to improve.
Therefore, this section of the proposed subpart would increase the
frequency of progress reviews required for senior professionals from at
least once per appraisal period to quarterly. The rating official would
be required to inform them of how they are performing against their
performance plans, provide advice and assistance on how to improve
performance, and may use the progress review as an opportunity to
discuss development opportunities for senior professionals.
Section 430.508 Appraising Performance
The provisions of this section would generally mirror the
Appraising Performance section of the SES appraisal regulations at 5
CFR 430.308. Agencies would be required to have senior professional
performance appraisal systems that establish appropriate timelines for
communicating performance plans, conducting appraisals, and assigning
and communicating ratings of record. Agencies would have to appraise
each senior professional's performance on both individual and
organizational performance, taking into account factors such as results
achieved in accordance with agency mission and strategic planning
initiatives; overall quality of the performance rendered by the senior
professional; performance appraisal guidelines that are based upon
assessments of the agency's performance provided by the oversight
official; customer perspectives; and compliance with merit system
principles. However, unlike in the SES appraisal regulations, senior
professionals would not have ``employee perspectives'' included as a
performance factor. This is because senior professionals' unique roles
do not require the type of engagement with employees that is required
of SES members. Senior professionals are precluded from supervising
employees other than personal assistants. In accordance with 5 U.S.C.
3132(a)(2), a position classified above GS-15 with the authority to
supervise employees who are not personal assistants is to be placed in
the SES and may not be established as SL or ST, if it is within an
agency covered by the SES.
Section 430.509 Rating Performance
This section would incorporate certain provisions from the SES
appraisal regulations as well as retain certain provisions from the
non-SES appraisal regulations. For instance, in this section an agency
would be required to utilize its agency-level PRB, as described in
proposed 5 CFR 430.511, to fulfill the requirements of centralized
review under 5 CFR part 534, subpart E.
Other provisions adopted from the SES appraisal regulations include
the requirement for the rating official (normally the supervisor of the
senior professional) to develop an initial summary rating in writing,
share it with the senior professional, and provide the senior
professional an opportunity to respond in writing. Additionally, under
this section the higher-level review process that applies to SES
members would be available to senior
[[Page 8769]]
professionals. Whereas the non-SES appraisal regulations mandate that
an ``Unacceptable'' (Level 1) rating be reviewed by a higher-level
official, this section would replace that requirement with the option
for a senior professional to request higher-level review of any initial
summary rating before the rating is given to the PRB to conduct
centralized review, as applicable. Given the enhanced oversight by the
agency's PRB and expanded opportunity to have ratings reviewed by a
higher-level official, this section would not provide for a senior
professional to appeal a performance appraisal or rating, beyond what
is otherwise provided under applicable law or regulation.\20\ This
would further establish consistency with the SES appraisal rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Senior professional performance appraisals and ratings are
not directly appealable to the Merit Systems Protection Board but
may be subject to challenge through an individual agency and/or
union grievance process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This section would also contain provisions retained from the non-
SES appraisal regulations including the requirement that each rating of
record cover a specified appraisal period and the prohibition against
agencies carrying over a rating of record from a previous appraisal
period for a subsequent appraisal period(s) without an actual
evaluation of performance during the subsequent appraisal period. This
section would also provide that the rating of record assigned at the
end of an appraisal period (or a performance rating assigned at a time
other than the end of an appraisal period) for a disabled veteran must
not be lowered because the veteran has been absent from work to seek
medical treatment (see Executive Order 5396 (July 17, 1930), available
at <a href="https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=miua.4731703.proc.001&seq=632">https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=miua.4731703.proc.001&seq=632</a>).
Section 430.510 Details and Job Changes
This section would address how senior professional performance
appraisal systems are to handle employees who experience job changes
during the appraisal period. This section would closely mirror the SES
provisions at 5 CFR 430.310 and require that, when a senior
professional is detailed or temporarily reassigned for 120 days or
longer, the gaining organization must set performance goals and
requirements for the detail or temporary assignment. The gaining
organization must also appraise the senior professional's performance
in writing before the senior professional leaves and provide the
appraisal information to the senior professional. This section would
also require that, when a senior professional is reassigned or
transferred to another agency after completing the minimum period, the
rating official must appraise the senior professional's performance in
writing before the senior professional leaves and provide the appraisal
information to the senior professional. The most recent rating of
record and any subsequent appraisals would be transferred to the
gaining agency or organization and the gaining rating official would be
required to consider the rating and appraisals when deriving the
initial summary rating at the end of the appraisal period.
Section 430.511 Performance Review Boards
As discussed in the Background, current senior professional pay
regulations at 5 CFR part 534, subpart E, require agencies with ten or
more senior professionals to conduct a centralized review of proposed
ratings and pay actions by a panel designated by the agency head. This
single panel provides advice from an agency-wide perspective for the
approving official to consider before approving pay adjustments. To
ensure the integrity of an agency's centralized review panel, this
section would require agencies subject to the SES to use their
established agency-level PRB to conduct the centralized review,
including providing written recommendations to the approving official
on senior professional ratings of record, performance awards, and pay
adjustments. If the agency employs ten or more senior professionals but
is not subject to the SES, this section would require the agency to
establish a body equivalent to the PRB for the purpose of fulfilling
the requirements of centralized review. OPM expects that, in accordance
with the Presidential Memorandum titled ``Restoring Accountability for
Career Senior Executives'' (90 FR 8481; Jan. 30, 2025), re-constituted
PRBs made up of individuals committed to full enforcement of the SES
performance standards are best suited to carry out the responsibilities
of conducting the centralized review.
Section 430.512 Using Performance Results
This section would establish the requirements for using performance
results and would contain the same provisions that apply to the SES at
5 CFR 430.312 in terms of requiring agencies to use performance
appraisals as a basis for adjusting pay, granting awards, retaining
employees, and making other personnel decisions. It would also require
that appraisal be a factor in assessing a senior professional's
continuing development needs and require that agencies provide
appropriate incentives and recognition for excellence in performance.
However, this section would not include the performance-based removal
requirements that apply to SES in 5 CFR 430.312(c)(1)-(3) since those
requirements originate from 5 U.S.C. 4314(b)(3), which does not apply
to non-SES employees. Instead, this section would reiterate that senior
professionals may be suspended, demoted, or removed from the civil
service for unacceptable performance, subject to the provisions of 5
U.S.C. 4303, 7503, and 7513.
Section 430.513 Training and Evaluation
This section would establish training and performance appraisal
system evaluation requirements identical to those found in the SES
regulations at 5 CFR 430.313, including the requirement that agencies
must periodically evaluate the effectiveness of their performance
appraisal system(s) and implement improvements as needed. These
evaluations would assess both effectiveness of the performance
appraisal system and compliance with relevant laws, OPM regulations,
and OPM performance management policy. Unlike the SES regulations,
agencies would be required to retain performance-related records for a
minimum of 4 years as required by 5 CFR 293.404(a), as opposed to the 5
years as is required for SES performance records under 5 CFR
293.404(b).
Section 430.514 OPM Review of Agency Systems
Under this section, agencies would be required to submit proposed
senior professional performance appraisal systems to OPM that are
separate from performance appraisal systems covering SES or other non-
SES employees. A senior professional system would need to address the
system standards and requirements specified in this proposed subpart
and OPM would review the system for compliance with the requirements of
law, OPM regulations, and OPM performance management policy. If OPM
were to find that an agency's senior professional performance appraisal
system does not meet the requirements and intent of subchapter I of
chapter 43 of title 5, U.S. Code, or this proposed subpart, OPM would
identify the requirements that were not met and would direct the agency
to take corrective action, and the agency would be required to comply.
[[Page 8770]]
Conforming Amendments
This rulemaking would also make conforming changes to parts 351,
430, 451, 534, 537, 630, and 894, as described below to account for the
new proposed subpart that would be added to part 430.
Part 351
In an unrelated rulemaking, OPM plans to propose revisions to the
reduction in force regulations found in 5 CFR part 351. RIN 3206-AO86.
In this rule OPM proposes to make appropriate conforming changes to
part 351, the specifics of which could vary depending on any amendments
finalized in the reduction in force rulemaking. For example, based on
the current language, OPM would make conforming changes to the
definition of ``rating of record'' at 5 CFR 351.203 and language
pertaining to a ``single rating pattern'' at 5 CFR 351.504(d) to
incorporate references to the new proposed subpart as well as to
clarify that the summary levels established for senior professionals in
the proposed subpart are not considered to be a pattern of summary
levels as set forth in 5 CFR 430.208(d).
Part 430
The coverage statement at 5 CFR 430.202 would be amended to exclude
senior professionals from being covered under subpart B of part 430.
OPM proposes to amend 5 CFR 430.305 (in subpart C of part 430,
governing the SES) to replace the term ``forced distribution'' with the
term ``standardized distribution.'' As noted in footnote 6, OPM
believes the term ``standardized distribution'' better captures its
intent than ``forced distribution.'' That is, OPM proposes to authorize
consistent, normalized standards for the distribution of some or all
rating levels across the agency's SES cohort, along with its senior
professional cohort. Further, revising the terminology in this section
to ``standardized distribution'' would ensure the consistent usage of
terms that describe the same concept.
Subpart D of part 430 and the parallel regulations at subpart D of
part 1330 would also be amended. The definitions of ``appraisal
system'' and ``performance expectations'' at 5 CFR 430.402 and 1330.402
would be updated to remove the reference to appraisal programs and make
other minor adjustments to terminology. At 5 CFR 430.403 and 1330.403,
references to the proposed subpart would replace the 5 CFR 430, subpart
B references, and the provision allowing an agency to include system
features in its senior professional appraisal system(s) that are the
same as, or similar to, features of its SES appraisal system would be
removed, since under the proposed rule agencies would already have such
system features incorporated into their senior professional appraisal
system(s). At 5 CFR 430.404 and 1330.404, references to the proposed
subpart would replace 5 CFR part 430, subpart B references. Also, the
language that prohibits the guidance described in 5 CFR 430.404(a)(5)
from taking the form of quantitative limitations on ratings at any
given rating level would be removed along with the language that
prohibits ranking senior employees ``against each other'' for the
purpose of determining performance ratings at 5 CFR 430.404(a)(8), and
characterizing ``such ranking'' as ``prohibited.'' Those provisions
would be removed because they conflict with one purpose of the proposed
rule, which is to remove the prohibition of a forced distribution of
senior professional rating levels. At 5 CFR 430.405 and 1330.405,
references to the proposed subpart would replace 5 CFR part 430,
subpart B references, and language pertaining to the summary level
requirements would be modified so that only five summary levels may be
utilized, consistent with the proposed subpart.
Part 451
References to the new subpart would be added to 5 CFR 451.103 and
451.104.
Part 534
At 5 CFR 534.402, an erroneous citation would be fixed.
At 5 CFR 534.503, the definition of ``performance appraisal
system'' would be amended to replace the 5 CFR part 430, subpart B
reference with the reference to the proposed subpart, remove the
reference to appraisal programs, and make other minor adjustments to
terminology consistent with the new proposed subpart. The definition of
``performance rating'' would be amended to remove the reference to non-
critical elements since only critical elements are utilized for senior
professionals under the new proposed subpart, and language would be
removed to clarify that a summary level assigned to a senior
professional is not from a pattern of summary levels as specified in 5
CFR 430.208(d). The definition of ``rating of record'' would also be
amended to replace the 5 CFR part 430, subpart B reference with the
reference to the proposed subpart and to make other adjustments to
terminology consistent with the new proposed subpart. Sections 534.505
and 534.507 would be amended to replace the 5 CFR part 430, subpart B
references with the references to the proposed subpart. Section 534.507
would also be amended to remove language that applies to rating levels
under summary level patterns described in 5 CFR 430.208.
Part 537
At 5 CFR 537.108, a reference to the new proposed subpart would be
added.
Part 630
At 5 CFR 630.301, a reference to the new proposed subpart would be
added.
Part 1330
The regulations at 5 CFR part 1330, subpart D, are parallel
regulations to 5 CFR part 430 subpart D, which govern the performance
appraisal system certification requirements for the SES and senior
professionals. Performance appraisal system certification is co-
regulated by OPM and OMB and, therefore, conforming amendments to 5 CFR
part 1330, subpart D, would be made identical to the changes to 5 CFR
part 430, subpart D, described above.
Editorial Corrections
As a part of this rulemaking, OPM is proposing to make an editorial
correction at 5 CFR 894.302 to fix an erroneous citation. OPM is also
proposing to revise the authority citations for parts 534, 537, and 894
to comply with 1 CFR part 21, subpart B, without substantive change.
Expected Impact of This Rulemaking
A. Statement of Need
OPM is issuing this proposed rule pursuant to its authority to
issue regulations governing performance appraisals under subchapter I
of chapter 43 of title 5, United States Code. The purpose of this
rulemaking is to establish separate regulations that will be better
suited to the performance appraisal needs of senior professionals.
While many provisions applicable to senior professionals such as pay,
aggregate limit on compensation, leave accrual, and leave carryover
limit have evolved over the years to match what the SES receive, senior
professionals have remained subject to the same general performance
appraisal regulations that apply to most non-SES federal employees,
including rank-and-file GS and prevailing rate employees. The lack of
appraisal rules specifically tailored to senior professionals'
important roles and high level of compensation hinders agencies'
ability to fully leverage the strategic potential of these positions.
OPM found that, despite its previous efforts to promote rigor in
senior
[[Page 8771]]
professional performance appraisal by encouraging agencies to develop
more stringent performance requirements,\21\ senior professional
ratings distributions come nowhere close to resembling a normal bell
curve. As mentioned in the Background, governmentwide senior
professional performance rating data for fiscal years 2023 and 2024
\22\ show that approximately 90 percent of senior professionals
received a Level 5 (``Outstanding'') or Level 4 (``Exceeds Fully
Successful'') rating and less than a half of one percent of senior
professionals were rated below Level 3 (``Fully Successful''). The
distribution of these ratings suggests there is inflation of senior
professional ratings and poor performing employees are likely not being
identified or held accountable through a rigorous appraisal process. As
such, action must be taken to re-set and infuse rigor into the senior
professional performance appraisal process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See, e.g., OPM, ``Applying Rigor in the Performance
Management Process and Leveraging Awards Programs for a High-
Performing Workforce,'' (July 12, 2019) available at <a href="https://www.opm.gov/chcoc/transmittals/2019/applying-rigor-performance-management-process-and-leveraging-awards-programs-high-performing_508_0.pdf">https://www.opm.gov/chcoc/transmittals/2019/applying-rigor-performance-management-process-and-leveraging-awards-programs-high-performing_508_0.pdf</a>.
\22\ See, supra, footnote 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Impact
Establishing a new subpart that is specifically dedicated to the
performance appraisal of senior professionals and that more closely
resembles the SES appraisal system--including proposed changes to allow
OPM to establish and enforce a standardized distribution of performance
ratings--would enable agencies and senior professionals to be held to a
higher standard of accountability and ensure only the truly deserving
performers are rewarded for their performance.
Allowing for the establishment of limits on senior professional
ratings would result in a more normalized distribution of performance
ratings. OPM expects that a standardized distribution would incentivize
improved performance of senior professionals as they no longer would
expect to receive high ratings without demonstrating superior
performance relative to the other senior professionals in their agency.
This would ultimately improve the performance of the Federal Government
in providing services to the American public.
Establishing senior professional performance appraisal regulations
that more closely align with SES appraisal regulations would also
result in greater opportunities for oversight and review of senior
professional ratings. Under the proposed subpart, agencies employing 10
or more senior professionals would utilize their agency-level PRB to
conduct the centralized review required in subpart E of 5 CFR part 534.
Additionally, all senior professionals would be able to request higher-
level review of their initial summary rating, regardless of the rating
level, providing enhanced credibility, transparency, and accountability
to the rating process.
C. Costs
This proposed rule would affect the operations of more than 60
Federal agencies--ranging from cabinet-level departments to small
independent agencies--that have SL or ST employees. We estimate that
this rule would require individuals employed by these agencies to spend
time updating agency senior professional performance appraisal policies
and procedures. For this cost analysis, the assumed average salary rate
of federal employees performing this work will be the rate in 2025 for
GS-14, step 5, in the Washington, DC, locality pay table ($161,486
annual locality rate and $77.38 hourly locality rate). We assume the
total dollar value of labor, which includes wages, benefits, and
overhead, is equal to 200 percent of the wage rate, resulting in an
assumed labor cost of $154.76 per hour.
To comply with the regulatory changes in the proposed rule,
affected agencies would need to review the rule and update their
policies and procedures. We estimate that, in the first year following
publication of a final rule, this would require an average of 80 hours
of work by employees with an average hourly cost of $154.76 per hour.
This would result in estimated one-time costs of about $12,400 per
agency and about $744,000 Governmentwide.
Senior professionals revise their performance requirements each
year as they develop their performance plans. OPM anticipates that
adjusting their specific performance requirements to reflect the
updated critical elements may take each senior professional slightly
longer than usual in the first year. We estimate that this would
require approximately 15 additional minutes in the first year of
implementation compared to the time usually spent to develop specific
performance requirements for the annual performance plan. Based on the
average salary of the SL and ST pay plans in September 2024 (most
recent available data), we assume an overall average SL/ST salary rate
of $204,735, or $98.43 per hour.\23\ We assume the total dollar value
of labor, which includes wages, benefits, and overhead, is equal to 200
percent of the wage rate, resulting in an assumed labor cost of $196.86
per hour. There are approximately 1,420 employees with an SL or ST pay
plan in the executive branch. This would result in a one-year,
transitional increase in costs of about $70,000 Governmentwide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Average senior professional pay drawn from Office of
Personnel Management FedScope data, available at <a href="https://www.fedscope.opm.gov/">https://www.fedscope.opm.gov/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OPM anticipates that the overall implementation costs would be
limited in duration and would total about $814,000.
D. Benefits
Senior professionals are critical to the effective operation and
strategic direction of the Federal Government. These positions are
classified above the GS-15 level and receive compensation similar to
SES members; however, these employees are not covered by their own
dedicated performance appraisal regulations like the SES are. In
keeping with established parity between senior professionals and the
SES, the proposed subpart would provide for senior professional
appraisal rules that align more closely with the SES and would relieve
agencies of superfluous provisions found in subpart B of part 430 that
are not well-suited to senior professionals, such as the requirement to
establish one or more performance appraisal programs.
Providing senior professionals coverage under their own subpart for
performance appraisal allows for removing the prohibition of a forced
distribution of performance ratings without impacting that prohibition
for the employees who remain covered under subpart B of part 430. By
allowing OPM to establish a limit on the number of senior professionals
who can receive the highest ratings, there would be a clear distinction
of the highest performers across an agency and the Federal Government.
Agencies would no longer be able to rate virtually all their senior
professionals at the highest performance ratings, thus encouraging
senior professionals to strive for increased levels of performance and
ultimately provide better results for the Federal Government and the
American public.
Senior professionals will benefit from increased feedback and
oversight under the new subpart. It requires more frequent progress
reviews; the opportunity for a higher-level review of any proposed
ratings instead of a
[[Page 8772]]
mandatory review of an ``Unacceptable'' (Level 1) rating of record;
agency-level PRB oversight over recommended ratings of record, pay
adjustments, and performance awards; and overall provides increased
governmentwide consistency for senior professional performance
appraisal.
E. Regulatory Alternatives
An alternative to this rulemaking is to not establish a new subpart
in part 430 dedicated to senior professional performance appraisal and
instead OPM could issue further guidance encouraging agencies to be
increasingly rigorous in managing the performance of their senior
professionals. However, without the provisions in this proposed
subpart, agencies would continue to be prevented from applying a
standardized distribution of senior professional ratings by 5 CFR
430.208(c). As mentioned in the Statement of Need, previous attempts to
curb rating inflation through guidance have not been successful;
instead, it appears that the percentage of senior professionals
receiving Level 4 or 5 performance ratings has reached a point where
almost all senior professionals (i.e., approximately 90%) are receiving
a Level 4 or 5 rating.\24\ Without the ability to place limits on
senior professional ratings, the pervasive inflation of senior
professional ratings will likely continue, resulting in a lack of
meaningful rating distinction and thus, lack of accountability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Supra, footnote 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another alternative to this rulemaking is for OPM to pursue a
different rulemaking that would amend subpart B of part 430 by
excluding senior professionals from the forced distribution prohibition
contained in that subpart. While this approach would achieve some of
the intended purpose of the proposed rule, it would lack the meaningful
reforms to senior professional performance appraisal that increase
parity with the SES appraisal rules, such as providing for higher-level
review of initial summary ratings and the PRB providing centralized
review. Failing to establish a separate subpart in part 430 dedicated
to senior professional performance appraisal would result in senior
professionals continuing to be subject to the cumbersome provisions of
subpart B of part 430, which require agencies to establish both
appraisal systems and appraisal programs, which is burdensome and not
aligned with OPM's vision of centralized, effective senior professional
performance management.
Request for Comments
OPM requests comments on the implementation and potential impacts
of this proposed rule. Such information will be useful for better
understanding the effect of this new proposed subpart on senior
professional performance appraisal by Federal agencies. The type of
information in which OPM is interested includes, but is not limited to,
the following:
<bullet> Are there any beneficial provisions from part 430,
subparts B or C, that OPM did not incorporate into the proposed subpart
but should have? If so, what are they?
<bullet> Does the current senior professional performance
management system accurately distinguish excellent from satisfactory
from poor performance?
<bullet> Would having agencies utilize their agency-level PRB to
conduct centralized review and providing the opportunity for senior
professionals to request higher-level review of their initial summary
rating increase credibility or accountability in the senior
professional rating process?
<bullet> In what other ways could credibility and accountability be
increased?
<bullet> Are there any additional conforming amendments that should
be made but that OPM failed to identify?
Regulatory Compliance
A. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Director of OPM certifies that this rulemaking will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
because it will apply only to Federal agencies and employees.
B. Regulatory Review
OPM has examined the impact of this rule as required by Executive
Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563, which direct 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 must be prepared for major rules with
economically significant effects of $100 million or more in any one
year. This rulemaking does not reach that threshold but has otherwise
been designated a ``significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866. This rule is not an E.O. 14192 regulatory
action because it does not impose any more than de minimis regulatory
costs.
C. Federalism
This rulemaking will not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the National Government and the
States, or on distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive
Order 13132, it is determined that this proposed rule does not have
sufficient federalism implications to warrant preparation of a
Federalism Assessment.
D. Civil Justice Reform
This rulemaking meets the applicable standards set forth in section
3(a) and (b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before
issuing any rule that would impose spending costs on State, local, or
tribal governments in the aggregate, or on the private sector, in any 1
year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation.
That threshold is currently approximately $206 million. This rulemaking
will not result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, in excess of
the threshold. Thus, no written assessment of unfunded mandates is
required.
F. Paperwork Reduction Act
This regulatory action will not impose any reporting or
recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
List of Subjects
5 CFR Parts 430 and 451
Decorations, Government employees.
5 CFR Part 534
Government employees, Hospitals, Students, Wages.
5 CFR Part 537
Administrative practice and procedure, Government employees,
Students, Wages.
5 CFR Part 630
Emergency preparedness, Government employees, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Wages, Weather.
5 CFR Part 894
Administrative practice and procedure, Government employees, Health
facilities, Health insurance, Health professions, Hostages, Iraq,
[[Page 8773]]
Kuwait, Lebanon, Military personnel, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Retirement.
5 CFR Part 1330
Government employees.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, OPM proposes to amend 5 CFR
parts 430, 451, 534, 537, 630, and 894, and OMB proposes to amend 5 CFR
part 1330 as follows:
PART 430--PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
0
1. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. chapter 43 and 5307(d).
Subpart B--Performance Appraisal for General Schedule, Prevailing
Rate, and Certain Other Employees
0
2. Amend Sec. 430.202 by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 430.202 Coverage.
(a) * * *
(2) Section 4301(2) of title 5, United States Code, defines
employees covered by statute by this subpart. In addition to General
Schedule (GS/GM) employees, coverage includes, but is not limited to
prevailing rate employees, and excludes senior-level and scientific and
professional employees paid under 5 U.S.C. 5376.
* * * * *
Subpart C--Managing Senior Executive Performance
0
3. Amend Sec. 430.305 by revising paragraph (d) as follows:
(d) OPM may establish, and refine as needed, a standardized
distribution of some or all SES rating levels which agencies must apply
when rating SES members, except that noncareer SES members may be
excluded from such standardized distribution requirements, as
determined by OPM.
Subpart D--Performance Appraisal Certification for Pay Purposes
0
4. Amend Sec. 430.402 by revising the definition of ``Appraisal
system'' and ``Performance expectations'' to read as follows:
Sec. 430.402 Definitions.
* * * * *
Appraisal system means the policies, practices, and procedures an
agency establishes under 5 U.S.C. chapter 43 and subparts C and E of
this part, or other applicable legal authority, for planning,
monitoring, developing, evaluating, and rewarding employee performance.
This includes performance management systems as defined at Sec.
430.303 and performance appraisal systems as defined at Sec. 430.503.
* * * * *
Performance expectations means critical and other performance
elements and performance requirements that constitute the senior
executive performance plans (as defined in Sec. 430.303) established
for senior executives, the critical and other performance elements and
performance requirements that constitute the senior professional
performance plans (as defined in Sec. 430.503) established for senior
professionals, or other appropriate means authorized under performance
appraisal systems not covered by 5 U.S.C. chapter 43 for communicating
what a senior employee is expected to do and the manner in which he/she
is expected to do it, and may include contribution to agency
performance, where appropriate.
* * * * *
0
5. Amend Sec. 430.403 by revising paragraphs (b) through (d) to read
as follows:
Sec. 430.403 System certification.
* * * * *
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, agencies
subject to 5 U.S.C. chapter 43 and this part seeking certification of
their appraisal systems must submit systems that have been approved by
OPM under Sec. 430.312 or Sec. 430.514 as applicable. In some
agencies, the performance appraisal system(s) covers employees in many
organizations and/or components, and their ability to meet the
certification criteria in Sec. 430.404 may vary significantly. In such
cases, an agency may establish and/or submit separate performance
appraisal systems for each of these distinct organizations and/or
components to ensure timely certification of those performance
appraisal system(s) that meet the criteria. New appraisal systems
established under subpart C or E of this part, as applicable based on
the employees covered, must be approved by OPM.
(c) When an agency establishes a new appraisal system for the
purpose of seeking certification under this subpart, the agency may
submit that system for certification even if it has not yet been
approved by OPM under Sec. 430.312 or Sec. 430.514, as applicable.
OPM will certify, with OMB concurrence, only those systems that OPM
determines meet the approval requirements of subpart C or E of this
part, as applicable.
(d) An agency must establish an appraisal system(s), as defined in
Sec. 430.402, for its senior professionals that meets the requirements
of subpart E of this part, and is separate from the system(s)
established to cover its SES members under subpart C of this part. For
the purpose of certification under this subpart, such senior
professional appraisal system(s) must meet the certification criteria
set forth in Sec. 430.404.
* * * * *
0
6. Amend Sec. 430.404 by revising paragraphs (a)(2), (5), (7), and (8)
to read as follows:
Sec. 430.404 Certification criteria.
(a) * * *
(2) Consultation, so that the performance expectations for senior
employees meet the requirements of subparts C and E of this part, as
applicable, and/or other applicable legal authority; are developed with
the input and involvement of the individual senior employees who are
covered thereby; and are communicated to them at the beginning of the
applicable appraisal period, and/or at appropriate times thereafter;
* * * * *
(5) Appropriate assessments of the agency's performance--overall
and with respect to each of its particular missions, components,
programs, policy areas, and support functions--such as reports of the
agency's Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) goals, annual
performance plans and targets, program performance measures, and other
appropriate indicators, as well as evaluation guidelines based, in
part, upon those assessments, that are communicated by the agency head,
or an individual specifically designated by the agency head for such
purpose, to senior employees, appropriate senior employee rating and
reviewing officials, and PRB members. These assessments and guidelines
are to be provided at the conclusion of the appraisal period but before
individual senior employee performance ratings are recommended, so that
they may serve as a basis for individual performance evaluations, as
appropriate. The guidance provided must conform to subpart C or E of
this part, as applicable;
* * * * *
(7) Accountability, so that final agency head decisions and any PRB
recommendations regarding senior employee ratings consistent with
subparts C and E of this part, individually and overall, appropriately
reflect the employee's performance expectations, relevant program
performance measures, and such other relevant factors as the PRB may
find
[[Page 8774]]
appropriate; in the case of supervisory senior employees, ratings must
reflect the degree to which performance standards, requirements, or
expectations for individual subordinate employees clearly link to
organizational mission, GPRA strategic goals, or other program or
policy objectives and take into account the degree of rigor in the
appraisal of their subordinate employees;
(8) Performance differentiation, so that the system(s) includes at
least one summary level of performance above fully successful,
including a summary level that reflects outstanding performance, as
defined in Sec. 430.402, and so that its annual administration results
in meaningful distinctions based on relative performance that take into
account the assessment of the agency's performance against relevant
program performance measures, as described in paragraph (a)(6) of this
section, employee performance expectations, and such other relevant
factors as may be appropriate. For equivalent systems that do not use
summary ratings, the performance appraisal system must provide for
clear differentiation of performance at the outstanding level; and
* * * * *
0
7. Amend Sec. 430.405 by revising paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(B) and (C)
and (h)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 430.405 Procedures for certifying agency appraisal systems.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) * * *
(B) For the agency's senior professionals covered by subpart E of
this part, five summary levels--an outstanding level, a fully
successful level, a level between outstanding and fully successful, an
unacceptable level, and a level between fully successful and
unacceptable; and
(C) For agencies not subject to subparts C and E of this part, a
summary rating level that reflects outstanding performance or a
methodology that clearly differentiates outstanding performance, as
defined in Sec. 430.402;
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(2) An agency's system certification is automatically suspended
when OPM withdraws performance appraisal system approval or mandates
corrective action because of misapplication of the system as authorized
under Sec. Sec. 430.312(c), 430.403(e), and 430.514(c).
* * * * *
0
8. Add subpart E to read as follows:
Subpart E--Managing Senior Professional Performance
Sec.
430.501 General.
430.502 Coverage.
430.503 Definitions.
430.504 Senior professional performance appraisal systems.
430.505 System standards for senior professional performance
appraisal systems.
430.506 Planning and communicating performance.
430.507 Monitoring performance.
430.508 Appraising performance.
430.509 Rating performance.
430.510 Details and job changes.
430.511 Performance Review Boards (PRBs).
430.512 Using performance results.
430.513 Training and evaluation.
430.514 OPM review of agency systems.
Sec. 430.501 General.
(a) Statutory authority. Chapter 43 of title 5, United States Code,
provides for the establishment of agency performance appraisal systems
and requires the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to prescribe
regulations governing such systems. The regulations in this subpart in
combination with statute set forth the requirements for managing the
performance for senior-level (SL) positions classified above GS-15
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 5108 and scientific or professional (ST) positions
established under 5 U.S.C. 3104, and which are compensated under 5
U.S.C. 5376.
(b) Equivalent ratings of record. (1) If an agency has
administratively adopted and applied the procedures of this subpart to
evaluate the performance of its employees, the ratings of record
resulting from that evaluation are considered ratings of record for
reduction in force purposes.
(2) Other performance evaluations given while an employee is not
covered by the provisions of this subpart are considered ratings of
record for reduction in force purposes when the performance
evaluation--
(i) Was issued as an officially designated evaluation under the
employing agency's performance evaluation system;
(ii) Was derived from the appraisal of performance against
expectations that are established and communicated in advance and are
work related; and
(iii) Identified whether the employee performed acceptably.
(3) When the performance evaluation does not include five summary
levels comparable to those established at Sec. 430.505(a)(6), the
agency may identify a level based on information related to the
appraisal process.
Sec. 430.502 Coverage.
(a) Covered positions. This subpart applies to the following types
of positions:
(1) Senior-level (SL) positions classified above GS-15 pursuant to
5 U.S.C. 5108 and paid under 5 U.S.C. 5376; and
(2) Scientific or professional (ST) positions established under 5
U.S.C. 3104 and paid under 5 U.S.C. 5376.
(b) Administrative exclusions. OPM may exclude any position or
group of positions in the excepted service under the authority of 5
U.S.C. 4301(2)(G). Excepted service positions for which employment is
not reasonably expected to exceed the minimum period established under
Sec. 430.504(b)(4) in a consecutive 12-month period are not subject to
this subpart.
Sec. 430.503 Definitions.
In this subpart--
Agency means--
(1) An Executive agency as defined in 5 U.S.C. 105;
(2) Any other entity that is not part of an Executive agency and
for which OPM has approved establishment of one or more scientific or
professional positions under 5 U.S.C. 3104.
Appraisal period means the established period of time for which a
senior professional's performance will be appraised and rated.
Approving official means an agency designated official with
authority to make SL or ST appointments and who assigns the rating of
record.
Critical element means a key component of a senior professional's
work that contributes to organizational goals and results and is so
important that unacceptable performance on the element would make the
senior professional's overall job performance unacceptable.
Initial summary rating means an overall rating level the rating
official derives, from appraising the senior professional's performance
during the appraisal period in relation to the critical elements and
performance standards and requirements, and forwards to the Performance
Review Board as the recommended rating of record.
Oversight official means the agency head or the individual
specifically designated by the agency head who provides oversight of
the performance management system and issues performance appraisal
guidelines.
[[Page 8775]]
Performance means the accomplishment of the work described in the
senior professional's performance plan.
Performance appraisal means the review and evaluation of a senior
professional's performance against critical elements and performance
standards and requirements.
Performance appraisal system means the policies, practices, and
procedures an agency establishes under 5 U.S.C. chapter 43 and this
subpart, or other applicable legal authority, for planning, monitoring,
developing, evaluating, and rewarding employee performance.
Performance rating means the written, or otherwise recorded,
appraisal of performance compared to the performance standard(s) for
each critical element on which there has been an opportunity to perform
for the minimum period. A performance rating may include the assignment
of a numerical summary performance level.
Performance requirement means a description of what a senior
professional must accomplish, or the competencies demonstrated, for a
critical element. A performance requirement establishes the criteria to
be met to be rated at a specific level of performance and generally
includes quality, quantity, timeliness, cost savings, manner of
performance, or other factors.
Performance standard means a normative description of a single
level of performance within five such described levels of performance
ranging from unacceptable performance to outstanding performance.
Performance standards provide the benchmarks for developing performance
requirements against which actual performance will be assessed.
PRB means Performance Review Board, which for the purposes of this
subpart includes a PRB established under Sec. 430.311 or an equivalent
body, as described in Sec. 430.511.
Progress review means a review of the senior professional's
progress in meeting the performance requirements. A progress review is
not a performance rating.
Rating official means the official, generally the supervisor of the
senior professional, who develops the initial summary rating and
forwards it to the Performance Review Board, as the recommended rating
of record.
Rating of record means the final official performance rating at the
end of an appraisal period for performance of agency-assigned duties
over the entire period after the initial summary rating has been
reviewed and approved by the approving official.
Senior professional means an employee in a senior-level (SL) or
scientific or professional position (ST) paid under 5 U.S.C. 5376.
Senior professional performance plan means the written critical
elements and performance requirements against which performance will be
evaluated during the appraisal period by applying the established
performance standards. The plan includes all critical elements,
performance standards, and performance requirements, including any
specific goals, targets, competencies, objectives, or other measures
established for the senior professional.
Strategic planning initiatives means agency strategic plans as
required by the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, annual performance
plans, organizational work plans, and other related initiatives.
Sec. 430.504 Senior professional performance appraisal systems.
(a) Each agency must develop and administer one or more performance
appraisal systems for its senior professionals in accordance with the
system standards established in Sec. 430.505.
(b) Performance appraisal systems must provide for--
(1) Identifying employees covered by the system;
(2) Monitoring progress in accomplishing critical elements and
performance requirements and conducting progress reviews at least
quarterly during the appraisal period, including informing senior
professionals on how well they are performing;
(3) Establishing an official performance appraisal period for which
a rating of record must be prepared;
(4) Establishing a minimum appraisal period of at least 90 days;
(5) Establishing criteria and procedures to address performance of
senior professionals who are on detail, temporarily reassigned, or
transferred as described at Sec. 430.510, and for other special
circumstances established by the agency.
Sec. 430.505 System standards for senior professional performance
appraisal systems.
(a) Each agency performance appraisal system must incorporate the
following system standards:
(1) Use critical elements to evaluate the quality of the senior
professional's job performance for the designated appraisal period;
(2) Align performance requirements with agency mission and
strategic planning initiatives;
(3) Define performance standards for each of the summary rating
performance levels, which also may be used for the individual elements
or performance requirements being appraised;
(4) Appraise each senior professional's performance at least
annually against performance requirements based on established
performance standards and other measures;
(5) Derive a rating of record through a mathematical method that
ensures the senior professional's performance aligns with level
descriptors contained in performance standards that clearly
differentiate levels above fully successful;
(6) Establish five summary performance levels. Level 1 through
Level 5 are ordered categories, with Level 1 as the lowest and Level 5
as the highest, as follows:
(i) An outstanding level (Level 5);
(ii) An exceeds fully successful level (Level 4);
(iii) A fully successful level (Level 3);
(iv) A minimally satisfactory level (Level 2); and
(v) An unacceptable level (Level 1);
(7) Include equivalency statements in the system description for
agency-specific terms for the five summary performance levels aligning
them with the five performance levels required in paragraph (a)(6) of
this section; and
(8) Use performance appraisals as a basis to adjust pay, reward,
retain, and develop senior professionals or make other personnel
decisions, including removals as described in Sec. 430.512.
(b) An agency must develop and implement a performance appraisal
system for its senior professionals in accordance with the requirements
of this section and applicable OPM guidance.
(c) OPM may establish, and refine as needed, a governmentwide
performance management system incorporating all requirements of this
section for agencies to adopt, with limited adaptation, for performance
appraisal of its senior professionals.
(d) OPM may establish, and refine as needed, a standardized
distribution of some or all rating levels for senior professionals
which agencies must apply when rating senior professionals, except that
senior professionals appointed under Schedules C or G in the excepted
service may be excluded from such standardized distribution
requirements, as determined by OPM.
Sec. 430.506 Planning and communicating performance.
(a) Each senior professional must have a performance plan that
describes the
[[Page 8776]]
individual and organizational expectations for the appraisal period
that clearly fall within the senior professional's area of
responsibility and control.
(b) Rating officials must develop performance plans in consultation
with senior professionals and communicate the plans to them in writing,
including through the use of automated systems, on or before the
beginning of the appraisal period, or upon appointment to a new SL or
ST position.
(c) A senior professional performance plan must include--
(1) Critical elements. Critical elements must reflect individual
performance results or competencies as well as organizational
performance priorities within each senior professional's respective
area of responsibility and control.
(2) Performance standards. Performance plans must include the
performance standards describing each level of performance at which a
senior professional's performance can be appraised. Performance
standards describe the general expectations that must be met to be
rated at each level of performance and provide the benchmarks for
developing performance requirements.
(3) Performance requirements. At a minimum, performance
requirements must describe expected accomplishments or demonstrated
competencies for fully successful performance by the senior
professional. An agency may establish performance requirements
associated with other levels of performance as well. These performance
requirements must align with agency mission and strategic planning
initiatives. Performance requirements must contain measures of the
quality, quantity, timeliness, cost savings, or manner of performance,
as appropriate, expected for the applicable level of performance.
(d) Agencies may require a review of senior professional
performance plans at the beginning of the appraisal period to ensure
consistency of agency-specific performance requirements. Such reviews
may be performed by the PRB or another body of the agency's choosing.
Sec. 430.507 Monitoring performance.
Rating officials must monitor each senior professional's
performance throughout the appraisal period and hold at least quarterly
progress reviews. At a minimum, rating officials must inform senior
professionals during the progress review about how well they are
performing with regard to their performance plan. Rating officials must
provide advice and assistance to senior professionals on how to improve
their performance. Rating officials and senior professionals may also
discuss available development opportunities for the senior
professional.
Sec. 430.508 Appraising performance.
(a) Agencies must establish appropriate timelines for communicating
performance plans, conducting appraisals, and assigning and
communicating ratings of record.
(b) At least annually, agencies must appraise each senior
professional's performance in writing, including through the use of
automated systems, and assign a rating of record at the end of the
appraisal period.
(c) Agencies must appraise a senior professional's performance on
the critical elements and performance requirements in the senior
professional's performance plan.
(d) Agencies must base appraisals of senior professional
performance on both individual and organizational performance as it
applies to the senior professional's area of responsibility and
control, taking into account factors such as--
(1) Results achieved in accordance with agency mission and
strategic planning initiatives;
(2) Overall quality of performance rendered by the senior
professional;
(3) Performance appraisal guidelines that must be based upon
assessments of the agency's performance and are provided by the
oversight official to senior professionals, rating and reviewing
officials, PRB members, and approving officials at the conclusion of
the appraisal period and before completion of the initial summary
ratings;
(4) Customer perspectives;
(5) Compliance with the merit system principles set forth under 5
U.S.C. 2301.
Sec. 430.509 Rating performance.
(a) When rating senior professional performance, each agency must
use its agency-level PRB, as described at Sec. 430.511 to fulfill the
requirements of centralized review under part 534, subpart E, of this
chapter.
(b) The rating of record or performance rating for a disabled
veteran shall not be lowered because the veteran has been absent from
work to seek medical treatment as provided in Executive Order 5396.
(c) Each rating of record shall cover a specified appraisal period.
Agencies are prohibited from carrying over a rating of record prepared
for a previous appraisal period as the rating of record for a
subsequent appraisal period(s) without an actual evaluation of the
employee's performance during the subsequent appraisal period.
(d) When a rating of record cannot be prepared at the time
specified, the appraisal period must be extended. Once the conditions
necessary to complete a rating of record have been met, a rating of
record must be prepared as soon as practicable.
(e) Senior professional performance appraisals and ratings are not
appealable, beyond what is otherwise provided under applicable law or
regulation.
(f) Procedures for rating senior professionals must provide for the
following:
(1) Initial summary rating. The rating official must develop an
initial summary rating of the senior professional's performance, in
writing, including through the use of automated systems, and share that
rating with the senior professional. The senior professional may
respond in writing.
(2) Higher-level review (HLR). A senior professional may ask for a
higher-level official to review the initial summary rating before the
rating is given to the PRB. The agency must provide each senior
professional an opportunity for review of the initial summary rating by
an employee, or (with the consent of the senior professional) a
commissioned officer in the uniformed services on active duty in the
agency, in a higher level in the agency than the rating official who
issued the initial summary rating.
(i) A single review by an official at a higher level who did not
participate in determining the senior professional's initial summary
rating will satisfy this requirement. An official providing HLR may not
change the initial summary rating but may recommend a different rating
to the PRB. HLR may be provided by an official who is at a higher level
in the agency than the approving official who will approve the final
rating under paragraph (f)(4) of this section.
(ii) When an agency cannot provide review by a higher-level
official for a senior professional who receives an initial summary
rating from the agency head because no such official exists in the
agency, the agency must offer an alternative review as it determines
appropriate, except that the review may not be provided by a member of
the PRB or an official who participated in determining the initial
summary rating.
(iii) If a senior professional declines review by agency-designated
higher-level officials, the agency may offer an alternative review but
is not obligated to do so. The agency must document the senior
professional's declination of the
[[Page 8777]]
HLR opportunity provided by the agency before offering an alternative
review.
(iv) Copies of findings and recommendations of the HLR official or
the official performing an alternative review under paragraph
(f)(2)(ii) through (iii) of this section must be given to the senior
professional, the rating official, and the PRB.
(3) PRB review. For agencies with ten or more senior professionals,
the agency-level PRB must receive and review the initial summary
rating, the senior professional's response to the initial rating if
made, and findings and recommendations of any HLR or any alternative
review under paragraph (f)(2) of this section before making
recommendations to the approving official, as provided in Sec. 430.511
and consistent with the requirements in part 534, subpart E, of this
chapter pertaining to centralized review. Centralized review is not
required for agencies employing fewer than ten senior professionals.
(4) Rating of record. The approving official must assign the rating
of record of the senior professional's performance after considering
the applicable PRB's recommendations. This rating is the official final
rating for the appraisal period and must be communicated to the senior
professional in writing, including through the use of automated
systems, in accordance with the timelines developed under Sec.
430.508(a).
(g) A performance rating may be prepared at such other times as may
be necessary, such as for special circumstances including, but not
limited to, transfers and performance on details.
Sec. 430.510 Details and job changes.
(a) When a senior professional is detailed or temporarily
reassigned for 120 days or longer, the gaining organization must set
performance goals and requirements for the detail or temporary
assignment. The gaining organization must appraise the senior
professional's performance in writing, including through the use of
automated systems, and the rating official must consider this appraisal
when deriving the initial summary rating.
(b) When a senior professional is reassigned or transferred to
another agency after completing the minimum appraisal period, the
rating official must appraise the senior professional's performance in
writing, including through the use of automated systems, before the
senior professional leaves and provide this information to the senior
professional.
(c) The most recent rating of record and any subsequent appraisals
must be transferred to the gaining agency or organization. The gaining
rating official must consider the rating and appraisals when deriving
the initial summary rating at the end of the appraisal period.
Sec. 430.511 Performance Review Boards (PRBs).
Each agency that employs ten or more senior professionals must use
its agency-level PRB established under Sec. 430.311, or an equivalent
body if the agency is not subject to the SES, to make written
recommendations to the approving official on ratings of record,
performance awards, and pay adjustments regarding senior professionals.
The agency-level PRB or equivalent body will be responsible for
fulfilling all requirements of centralized review found in part 534,
subpart E, of this chapter.
Sec. 430.512 Using performance results.
(a) Agencies must use performance appraisals as a basis for
adjusting pay, granting awards, retaining senior professionals, and
making other personnel decisions. Performance appraisals must be a
factor in assessing a senior professional's continuing development
needs.
(b) Agencies must provide appropriate incentives and recognition
(including pay adjustments under subpart E of part 534 of this chapter
and performance awards under part 451, subpart A, of this chapter) for
excellence in performance.
(c) A senior professional may be suspended, demoted, or removed
from the civil service for unacceptable performance, subject to the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 4303, 7503, and 7513.
Sec. 430.513 Training and evaluation.
(a) To assure effective implementation of agency performance
appraisal systems, agencies must provide appropriate information and
training to agency leadership, rating officials, and senior
professionals on performance management, including planning and
appraising performance.
(b) Agencies must periodically evaluate the effectiveness of their
performance appraisal system(s) and implement improvements as needed.
Evaluations must provide for both assessment of effectiveness and
compliance with relevant laws, OPM regulations, and OPM performance
management policy.
(c) Agencies must maintain all performance-related records for no
fewer than 4 years from the date the rating of record is issued, as
required in Sec. 293.404(a)(1) of this chapter.
Sec. 430.514 OPM review of agency systems.
(a) Agencies must submit proposed senior professional performance
appraisal systems to OPM for approval. Agency systems must address the
system standards and requirements specified in this subpart.
(b) OPM will review agency systems for compliance with the
requirements of law, OPM regulations, and OPM performance management
policy, including the system standards specified at Sec. 430.505.
(c) If OPM finds that an agency system does not meet the
requirements and intent of subchapter I of chapter 43 of title 5,
United States Code, or of this subpart, OPM will identify the
requirements that were not met and direct the agency to take corrective
action, and the agency must comply.
PART 451--AWARDS
0
9. The authority citation for part 451 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 4302, 4501-4509; E.O. 11438, 33 FR 18085, 3
CFR, 1966-1970 Comp., p. 755; E.O. 12828, 58 FR 2965, 3 CFR, 1993
Comp., p. 569.
Subpart A--Agency Awards
0
10. Amend Sec. 451.103 by revising paragraph (c)(2) to read as
follows:
Sec. 451.103 Agency award program(s).
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) Documenting justification for awards that are not based on a
rating of record (as defined in Sec. Sec. 430.203 and 430.503 of this
chapter).
* * * * *
0
11. Amend Sec. 451.104 by revising paragraph (a)(3) to read as
follows:
Sec. 451.104 Awards.
(a) * * *
(3) Performance as reflected in the employee's most recent rating
of record (as defined in Sec. Sec. 430.203 and 430.503 of this
chapter), provided that the rating of record is at the fully successful
level (or equivalent) or above, except that performance awards may be
paid to SES members only under Sec. 534.405 of this chapter and not on
the basis of this subpart.
* * * * *
PART 534--PAY UNDER OTHER SYSTEMS
0
12. The authority citation for part 534 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 1104, 3161(d), 5304, 5307, 5351, 5352, 5353,
5376, 5382, 5383, 5384, 5385, 5541, 5550a, 7302; 18 U.S.C. 207.
[[Page 8778]]
Subpart D--Pay and Performance Awards Under the Senior Executive
Service
0
13. Amend Sec. 534.402 by revising the definition for ``PRB'' to read
as follows:
Sec. 534.402 Definitions.
* * * * *
PRB means Performance Review Board, as described in Sec. 430.311
of this chapter.
* * * * *
Subpart E--Pay for Senior-Level and Scientific or Professional
Positions
0
14. Amend Sec. 534.503 by revising the definitions for ``Performance
appraisal system,'' ``Performance rating,'' and ``Rating of record'' to
read as follows:
Sec. 534.503 Definitions.
* * * * *
Performance appraisal system means the framework of policies,
practices, and procedures an agency establishes under subchapter I of
chapter 43 of title 5, United States Code, subpart A of this part, and
this subpart for planning, monitoring, developing, evaluating, and
rewarding both individual and organizational performance and for using
resulting performance information in making personnel decisions.
* * * * *
Performance rating means the written, or otherwise recorded,
appraisal of performance compared to the SL or ST employee's
performance standard(s) for each critical element on which there has
been an opportunity to perform for a minimum of 90 days. A performance
rating may include the assignment of a summary level.
* * * * *
Rating of record means the performance rating prepared at the end
of an appraisal period for performance of agency-assigned duties over
the entire period and the assignment of a summary level that has been
reviewed and approved in accordance with Sec. 534.505(a).
* * * * *
0
15. Amend Sec. 534.505 by revising and republishing paragraph (a)(5)
introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 534.505 Written procedures.
(a) * * *
(5) The administrative and management controls that will be applied
to assure compliance with applicable statutes, OPM regulations, the
agency's written procedures established under this section, the
applicable maximum rate of basic pay in Sec. 534.504(a), and, where
applicable, the certification requirements set forth in part 430,
subpart D, of this chapter. In an agency that employs ten or more
senior professionals, these controls must include centralized review of
ratings proposed under Sec. 430.509 of this chapter and pay actions
proposed under Sec. 534.507 by a panel of individuals designated by
the agency head to provide advice from an agency-wide perspective for
authorized agency officials to consider before approving pay
adjustments on whether--
* * * * *
0
16. Amend Sec. 534.507 by revising paragraphs (c)(2), (f), and (h) to
read as follows:
Sec. 534.507 Annual increases in basic pay.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) A performance rating that covers a period of at least 90 days
and is assigned in accordance with subpart E of part 430 of this
chapter and the centralized review required by Sec. 534.505(a)(5), but
only if a rating of record is not available or does not reflect current
performance.
* * * * *
(f) Except as required by paragraph (g) of this section, a pay
increase under this section may not be provided to an employee--
(1) Who has a current rating of record below Level 3 (Fully
Successful or equivalent), as described in Sec. 430.509 of this
chapter; or
(2) Who, after receiving a rating of record at Level 3 or above,
receives a more recent performance rating as defined at Sec. 430.503
of this chapter that rates performance in a critical element at a level
below Fully Successful.
* * * * *
(h)(1) If the rates of basic pay under the General Schedule are
increased under 5 U.S.C. 5303 on the date specified in paragraph (a)(1)
of this section and the agency head decides upon a zero adjustment for
an SL or ST employee who has a current rating of record or applicable
performance rating at Level 3 or above, the agency must communicate the
reasons for that decision to the employee in writing.
(2) Paragraph (h)(1) of this section does not apply to a senior
professional with a rate of basic pay described in Sec. 534.505(c)(1)
unless--
(i) The rates of basic pay for the Executive Schedule are also
increased on the date specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section;
and
(ii) The senior professional has a current rating of record or
applicable performance rating at Level 5.
(3) Paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of this section may not be construed
to require a pay increase for any senior professional employee.
PART 537--REPAYMENT OF STUDENT LOANS
0
17. The authority citation for part 537 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 2301, 2302, and 5379(g). E.O. 11478, 3 CFR
1966-1970 Comp., p. 803, unless otherwise noted; E.O. 13087, 63 FR
30097, 3 CFR 1998 Comp., p. 191; and E.O. 13152, 65 FR 26115, 3 CFR
2000 Comp., p. 264.
0
18. Amend Sec. 537.108 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 537.108 Loss of eligibility for student loan repayment benefits.
* * * * *
(b) For the purpose of applying paragraph (a)(2) of this section,
an acceptable level of performance is one that is equivalent to level 3
(``Fully Successful'' or equivalent) or higher, as described in Sec.
430.208(d) or Sec. 430.505 of this chapter, as applicable. An employee
loses eligibility for student loan repayment benefits if his or her
most recent official performance evaluation does not meet this
requirement.
PART 630--ABSENCE AND LEAVE
0
19. The authority citation for part 630 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Subparts A through E issued under 5 U.S.C. 6133(a)
(read with 5 U.S.C. 6129), 6303(e) and (f), 6304(d)(2), 6306(b),
6308(a) and 6311; subpart F issued under 5 U.S.C. 6305(a) and 6311
and E.O. 11228, 30 FR 7739, 3 CFR, 1974 Comp., p. 163; subpart G
issued under 5 U.S.C. 6305(c) and 6311; subpart H issued under 5
U.S.C. 6133(a) (read with 5 U.S.C. 6129) and 6326(b); subpart I
issued under 5 U.S.C. 6332, 6334(c), 6336(a)(1) and (d), and 6340;
subpart J issued under 5 U.S.C. 6340, 6363, 6365(d), 6367(e),
6373(a); subpart K issued under 5 U.S.C. 6391(g); subpart L issued
under 5 U.S.C. 6383(f) and 6387; subpart M issued under Sec. 2(d),
Pub. L. 114-75, 129 Stat. 641 (5 U.S.C. 6329 note); subpart N issued
under 5 U.S.C. 6329a(c); subpart O issued under 5 U.S.C. 6329b(h);
and subpart P issued under 5 U.S.C. 6329c(d).
Subpart C--Annual Leave
0
20. Amend Sec. 630.301 by revising paragraph (b)(3) to read as
follows:
Sec. 630.301 Annual leave accrual and accumulation--Senior Executive
Service, Senior-Level, and Scientific and Professional Employees.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) Covered positions are subject to a performance appraisal system
established under 5 U.S.C. chapter 43 and 5 CFR part 430, subpart B, C,
or E or other applicable legal authority, for
[[Page 8779]]
planning, monitoring, developing, evaluating, and rewarding employee
performance.
* * * * *
PART 894--FEDERAL EMPLOYEES DENTAL AND VISION INSURANCE PROGRAM
0
21. The authority citation for part 894 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 8962; 5 U.S.C. 8992. Subpart C also issued
under 2 U.S.C. 2051. Sec. 894.601(b) also issued under sec. 1111,
Pub. L. 116-92, 133 Stat. 1600 (5 U.S.C. 8956 note).
Subpart C--Eligibility
0
22. Amend Sec. 894.302 by revising paragraph (k)(1) to read as
follows:
Sec. 894.302 What is an excluded position?
* * * * *
(k) * * *
(1) An employee appointed to perform ``part-time career
employment,'' as defined in section 3401 (2) of title 5, U.S.C., and 5
CFR part 340, subpart B; or
* * * * *
PART 1330--HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
0
23. The authority citation for part 1330 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5307(d).
Subpart D--Performance Appraisal Certification for Pay Purposes
0
24. Amend Sec. 1330.402 by revising the definitions of ``Appraisal
system'' and ``Performance expectations'' to read as follows:
Sec. 1330.402 Definitions.
* * * * *
Appraisal system means the policies, practices, and procedures an
agency establishes under 5 U.S.C. chapter 43 and 5 CFR part 430,
subparts C and E, or other applicable legal authority, for planning,
monitoring, developing, evaluating, and rewarding employee performance.
This includes performance management systems as defined at Sec.
430.303 and performance appraisal systems as defined at Sec. 430.503.
* * * * *
Performance expectations means critical and other performance
elements and performance requirements that constitute the senior
executive performance plans (as defined in 5 CFR 430.303) established
for senior executives, the critical and other performance elements and
performance requirements that constitute the senior professional
performance plans (as defined in 5 CFR 430.503) established for senior
professionals, or other appropriate means authorized under performance
appraisal systems not covered by 5 U.S.C. chapter 43 for communicating
what a senior employee is expected to do and the manner in which he/she
is expected to do it, and may include contribution to agency
performance, where
* * * * *
0
25. Amend Sec. 1330.403 by revising paragraphs (b) through (d) to read
as follows:
Sec. 1330.403 System certification.
* * * * *
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, agencies
subject to 5 U.S.C. chapter 43 and 5 CFR part 430 seeking certification
of their appraisal systems must submit systems that have been approved
by OPM under 5 CFR 430.312 or 430.514, as applicable. In some agencies,
the performance appraisal system(s) covers employees in many
organizations and/or components, and their ability to meet the
certification criteria in Sec. 1330.404 may vary significantly. In
such cases, an agency may establish and/or submit separate performance
appraisal systems for each of these distinct organizations and/or
components to ensure timely certification of those performance
appraisal system(s) that meet the criteria. New appraisal systems
established under 5 CFR part 430, subpart C or E, as applicable based
on the employees covered, must be approved by OPM.
(c) When an agency establishes a new performance appraisal system
for the purpose of seeking certification under this subpart, the agency
may submit that system for certification even if it has not yet been
approved by OPM under 5 CFR 430.312 or 430.514, as applicable. OPM will
certify, with OMB concurrence, only those systems that OPM determines
meet the approval requirements of 5 CFR part 430, subpart C or E, as
applicable.
(d) An agency must establish an appraisal system(s), as defined in
Sec. 1330.402, for its senior professionals that meets the
requirements of 5 CFR part 430, subpart E, and is separate from the
system(s) established to cover its SES members under 5 CFR part 430,
subpart C. For the purpose of certification under this subpart, such
senior professional appraisal system(s) must meet the certification
criteria set forth in Sec. 1330.404.
* * * * *
0
26. Amend Sec. 1330.404 by revising paragraphs (a)(2), (5), (7), and
(8) to read as follows:
Sec. 1330.404 Certification criteria.
(a) * * *
(2) Consultation, so that the performance expectations for senior
employees meet the requirements of 5 CFR part 430, subparts C and E, as
applicable, and/or other applicable legal authority; are developed with
the input and involvement of the individual senior employees who are
covered thereby; and are communicated to them at the beginning of the
applicable appraisal period, and/or at appropriate times thereafter;
* * * * *
(5) Appropriate assessments of the agency's performance--overall
and with respect to each of its particular missions, components,
programs, policy areas, and support functions--such as reports of the
agency's GPRA goals, annual performance plans and targets, program
performance measures, and other appropriate indicators, as well as
evaluation guidelines based, in part, upon those assessments, that are
communicated by the agency head, or an individual specifically
designated by the agency head for such purpose, to senior employees,
appropriate senior employee rating and reviewing officials, and PRB
members. These assessments and guidelines are to be provided at the
conclusion of the appraisal period but before individual senior
employee performance ratings are recommended, so that they may serve as
a basis for individual performance evaluations, as appropriate. The
guidance provided must conform to 5 CFR part 430, subpart C or E, as
applicable;
* * * * *
(7) Accountability, so that final agency head decisions and any PRB
recommendations regarding senior employee ratings consistent with 5 CFR
part 430, subparts C and E, individually and overall, appropriately
reflect the employee's performance expectations, relevant program
performance measures, and such other relevant factors as the PRB may
find appropriate; in the case of supervisory senior employees, ratings
must reflect the degree to which performance standards, requirements,
or expectations for individual subordinate employees clearly link to
organizational mission, GPRA strategic goals, or other program or
policy objectives and take into account the degree of rigor in the
appraisal of their subordinate employees;
(8) Performance differentiation, so that the system(s) includes at
least one summary level of performance above fully successful,
including a summary level that reflects outstanding
[[Page 8780]]
performance, as defined in Sec. 1330.402, and so that its annual
administration results in meaningful distinctions based on relative
performance that take into account the assessment of the agency's
performance against relevant program performance measures, as described
in paragraph (a)(6) of this section, employee performance expectations,
and such other relevant factors as may be appropriate. For equivalent
systems that do not use summary ratings, the appraisal system must
provide for clear differentiation of performance at the outstanding
level; and
* * * * *
0
27. Amend Sec. 1330.405 by revising paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(B) and (C)
and (h)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 1330.405 Procedures for certifying agency appraisal systems.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) * * *
(B) For the agency's senior professionals covered by 5 CFR part
430, subpart E, five summary levels--an outstanding level, a fully
successful level, a level between outstanding and fully successful, an
unacceptable level, and a level between fully successful and
unacceptable; and
(C) For agencies not subject to 5 CFR part 430, subparts C and E, a
summary rating level that reflects outstanding performance or a
methodology that clearly differentiates outstanding performance, as
defined in Sec. 1330.402;
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(2) An agency's system certification is automatically suspended
when OPM withdraws performance appraisal system approval or mandates
corrective action because of misapplication of the system as authorized
under 5 CFR 430.312(c), 430.514(c), and 1330.403(e).
* * * * *
Office of Personnel Management.
Scott A. Kupor,
Director. Office of Management and Budget.
Russell T. Vought,
Director.
[FR Doc. 2026-03610 Filed 2-23-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-39-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on February 24, 2026.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.