Home/Federal/Federal Register/2026-21319

Rule2026-21319

Elimination of Time-in-Grade

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

October 19, 2026

Effective

January 19, 2027

Issuing agencies

Personnel Management Office

Abstract

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is adopting, substantially as proposed, its proposed rule eliminating the Time-in- Grade (TIG) restriction on advancement to competitive service positions in the General Schedule (GS). Under the prior regulations, a candidate generally could not be advanced to a covered position at GS-6 or above without completing 52 weeks in a position no more than one grade lower--or two grades lower for certain positions in two-grade-interval lines of work. This final rule removes that requirement. Employees remain subject to all applicable occupational qualification standards and any additional job-related qualification requirements established by their employing agency.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 200 (Monday, October 19, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 200 (Monday, October 19, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65887-65904]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-21319]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2026 /
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 65887]]

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

5 CFR Parts 300, 315, 316, 352, and 410

[Docket ID: OPM-2026-0067]
RIN 3206-AP05

Elimination of Time-in-Grade

AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is adopting,
substantially as proposed, its proposed rule eliminating the Time-in-
Grade (TIG) restriction on advancement to competitive service positions
in the General Schedule (GS). Under the prior regulations, a candidate
generally could not be advanced to a covered position at GS-6 or above
without completing 52 weeks in a position no more than one grade
lower--or two grades lower for certain positions in two-grade-interval
lines of work. This final rule removes that requirement. Employees
remain subject to all applicable occupational qualification standards
and any additional job-related qualification requirements established
by their employing agency.

DATES: This rule is effective January 19, 2027.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Melissa Cuffari (202) 936-2638 or
by email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2374736a4d57424846634c534e0d444c55">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Executive Summary

OPM is finalizing its proposal (91 FR 31669; May 28, 2026) to
eliminate the Time-in-Grade (TIG) restriction in 5 CFR part 300,
subpart F, and to make conforming amendments to 5 CFR parts 315, 316,
352, and 410. This rule removes the requirement that a candidate for
advancement to a covered General Schedule position in the competitive
service at GS-6 or above have completed 52 weeks in a position no more
than one grade lower--or, for positions at GS-6 through GS-11 in lines
of work properly classified at two-grade intervals, no more than two
grades lower--than the position to be filled.
Employees must continue to meet all applicable OPM qualification
standards, agency-established job-related requirements, classification
requirements, and merit promotion procedures. This rule does not create
an entitlement to promotion, does not waive specialized-experience or
education requirements, and does not alter statutory qualification,
classification, or competition requirements under 5 U.S.C. chapter 33,
5 CFR part 335, or OPM's qualification standards. By its own terms, the
restriction OPM removes in this rule operated ``in addition to the
eligibility requirements for promotion in part 335 of this chapter.'' 5
CFR 300.601. Those part 335 requirements--which govern how agencies
evaluate, rank, and select candidates for promotion--are unaffected by
this rule and remain fully in force.
During the 60-day comment period, OPM received 75 comments. Of
those, 41 comments supported eliminating TIG, 22 comments proposed
conditions, safeguards, or targeted alternatives rather than opposing
elimination outright, and 11 comments opposed elimination. OPM is
finalizing the rule substantially as proposed. In response to public
comments, OPM confirms the following clarifications, discussed further
in the section-by-section analysis.
First, eliminating TIG creates eligibility for consideration; it
does not create an entitlement to promotion, does not require agencies
to accept or act on promotion requests on demand, and does not alter
agency discretion regarding classification, funding, or the existence
of higher-level work.
Second, agencies may continue to establish and apply job-related
promotion prerequisites--including a specified period of service in
grade, demonstrated competencies, required training or certifications,
and documentation requirements--provided those prerequisites are job-
related, consistently applied, and administered through the agency's
written merit promotion plan under 5 CFR 335.103.
Third, this rule does not alter within-grade increase requirements
under 5 U.S.C. 5335 and 5 CFR part 531, subpart D; Quality Step
Increase authority under 5 CFR part 531, subpart E; veterans'
preference under 5 U.S.C. 2108 and the Veterans Employment
Opportunities Act (VEOA) under 5 U.S.C. 3304(f); collective bargaining
obligations under 5 U.S.C. chapter 71; or the merit system principles
and prohibited personnel practices in 5 U.S.C. 2301 and 2302.
Fourth, a number of comments recommended that OPM adopt
governmentwide standards, documentation requirements, review boards, or
reporting mandates governing accelerated promotions. OPM is not
adopting those recommendations in this rule. The requirements that
govern how agencies evaluate, rank, and select candidates for promotion
are established in 5 CFR part 335, not in the TIG restriction OPM is
removing, which by its terms operated ``in addition to the eligibility
requirements for promotion in part 335 of this chapter.'' 5 CFR
300.601. A governmentwide change to the promotion process of the kind
these comments describe would properly be made through a rulemaking
amending part 335, on notice directed to that part, rather than through
this rule removing a separate, calendar-based eligibility restriction
in part 300.
Fifth, OPM is correcting several technical cross-reference and
drafting inconsistencies identified between the proposed rule's
preamble narrative and its amendatory instructions, discussed in the
section-by-section analysis.

II. Digest of Public Comments

During the 60-day comment period between May 28, 2026, and July 27,
2026, OPM received 75 comments in response to the proposed rule.
Comments are individually identified by their docket comment number
(e.g., ``Comment 0002'' refers to OPM-2026-0067-0002). OPM has grouped
the comments into six general categories based on their predominant
content. Considered in the aggregate rather than by category, 41 of the
75 comments supported eliminating TIG on one or more grounds (Parts
II.A through II.C); 12 comments opposed elimination (Parts II.D and
II.E); and 23 comments neither supported nor opposed elimination
outright, instead proposing conditions, safeguards, or targeted
alternatives directed principally at how

[[Page 65888]]

elimination should be implemented (Part II.F).
Comments touching on more than one theme are grouped according to
their primary focus and are cross-referenced in the section-by-section
analysis in Part III where relevant. Such comments are discussed in
each category to which they pertain, with a bracketed cross-reference,
but are counted only once--in the category reflecting the comment's
primary focus. The category counts accordingly sum to the 75 comments
received.

A. Comments Supporting Elimination Based on Merit and Performance
1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ This group comprised 17 comments: 0005, 0010, 0011, 0015,
0017, 0018, 0019, 0027, 0035, 0037 (also within Workforce Agility),
0044, 0047, 0049 (also within Workforce Agility), 0053, 0060, 0065,
and 0066.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments in this group supported eliminating TIG because they
believe promotion should reflect demonstrated performance, capability,
and readiness rather than elapsed time. Comment 0011 described being
selected as the best-qualified candidate for a position through a
structured panel interview, only to have the promotion blocked because
52 weeks had not elapsed in the current grade.
Comment 0027 and Comment 0060 similarly described performing at a
higher grade level for extended periods, including receiving a Quality
Step Increase and special contribution awards, while remaining
ineligible for promotion solely because of the calendar requirement.
Comment 0015, submitted by an employee at a Federal correctional
complex, and Comment 0053 likewise described high performers being held
back by TIG independent of their actual readiness. Additional comments
(0005, 0010, 0017, 0018, 0019, 0035, 0037, 0044, 0047, 0049, 0065, and
0066) similarly urged that promotion rest on demonstrated
qualifications, skills, and performance rather than on time served.
Taken together, these comments describe a consistent pattern in which
TIG deferred the advancement of employees whose readiness their
agencies had already evaluated--through structured selection,
performance appraisal, or the assignment of higher-graded duties. OPM
agrees with these comments, and this final rule is intended to permit
precisely the kind of merit-based consideration they described.

B. Comments Supporting Elimination Based on Prior Experience and Career
Mobility 2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ This group comprised 15 comments: 0003, 0006, 0016, 0021,
0022, 0026, 0029, 0038, 0039, 0041, 0043, 0052, 0055, 0056, and
0058.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments in this group supported elimination because their prior
military service, private-sector employment, education, or experience
in a different occupational series exceeded what their current Federal
grade would suggest.
Comment 0003 described being capped at a GS-9 despite performing
GS-13-equivalent work. Comment 0016 described performing GS-12-level
work while remaining a GS-6 because advancement required moving grade-
by-grade. Comment 0056 identified specific structural barriers,
including employees who have served in a higher-graded position through
details or temporary promotions being unable to compete for the next
grade because that time was not in a permanent appointment, and
employees being unable to move between one-grade-interval and two-
grade-interval occupational series despite meeting specialized-
experience requirements.
Comment 0058 and Comment 0041 described relevant military and
certification-based experience that TIG does not credit. Ten comments
(0006, 0021, 0022, 0026, 0029, 0038, 0039, 0043, 0052, and 0055)
similarly described prior experience, education, or performance that
exceeded the requirements associated with their current grade. OPM
agrees. As these comments illustrate, TIG operates to prevent qualified
employees from being considered for advancement based solely on the
passage of time rather than the nature and level of their experience,
and it does so without regard to whether experience acquired in
military service, the private sector, another occupational series, or a
higher-graded detail has already prepared the employee for the higher-
level work.

C. Comments Supporting Elimination Based on Workforce Agility and
Retention 3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ This group comprised 9 comments: 0009, 0020, 0028, 0032,
0037 (also within Merit/Performance), 0040, 0045, 0049 (also within
Merit/Performance), 0051, 0057, 0076 (also addressed at length in
Part III).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments in this group, including one from a hiring manager (0009)
and others from Federal agency employees, emphasized that TIG creates
promotion bottlenecks, particularly where higher-grade vacancies are
limited (Comment 0028), and can cause agencies to lose qualified
candidates or delay filling mission-critical positions. Comment 0040
explained that the nominal 52-week period, once SF-50 processing and
hiring-pipeline timelines are included, regularly extends to 15-18
months or more in practice. Comment 0051 described lower-graded
employees who began performing higher-grade duties after more senior
colleagues departed under deferred resignation programs and who would
otherwise be excluded from future vacancies despite the experience
gained.
Comment 0057, a Pathways career-ladder employee, expressed concern
about retention absent faster advancement. Comment 0076 expressed
definitive support for elimination while raising extensive
implementation considerations addressed in Parts III.E through III.G,
III.I, and III.K. Three additional comments (0020, 0032, and 0045)
expressed general support on workforce-agility and retention grounds.
OPM agrees. Removing TIG will allow agencies to fill higher-graded
positions more quickly where a qualified employee is available, the
higher-level work exists, and funding permits--and, as Comment 0040
explained, will eliminate a delay that in practice runs well beyond the
nominal 52 weeks.

D. Comments Opposing Elimination Based on Fairness, Favoritism, and
Merit Safeguards 4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ This group comprised 7 comments: 0004, 0007, 0008 (primarily
conditional, cross-referenced in Part III.B), 0012, 0031, 0059,
0070, and 0075.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment 0059 suggested that TIG is the strongest guardrail against
managers fast-tracking favored employees and that the qualification
standards OPM cites would provide no comparable check because the same
managers control both selection and grooming of candidates for
accelerated advancement. Comment 0012 argued that TIG is a preventive
structural safeguard, whereas prohibited personnel practice (PPP)
enforcement is reactive, slow, and places the burden on the employee
after harm occurs, citing a 2009 comment on a prior TIG rulemaking.
Comment 0007 argued that TIG provides predictable career expectations
and that removing it would place excessive discretionary authority in
supervisors' hands.
Comment 0031 and Comment 0070 argued more generally that removing
the 52-week requirement would accelerate unqualified or favored
employees. Comment 0024 argued that TIG promotes fairness, consistency,
clear expectations, and merit-based progression, and that, because
promotion decisions can be subjective, removing TIG could increase the
potential for favoritism and arbitrary

[[Page 65889]]

promotions. Comment 0024 recommended, as an alternative to elimination,
adding flexibility for high-performing employees to accelerate
advancement while maintaining objective standards, addressed in Part
III.B. Comment 0075 opposed the rule in its entirety on the ground that
it would replace merit-based competitive examining with a spoils system
in violation of the Pendleton Act and multiple constitutional
provisions, addressed separately in Part III.J. Comment 0004 objected
on the separate ground that the rule overlooks Quality Step Increases
as an existing tool for rewarding performance, addressed in Part III.H.
OPM addresses the favoritism- and safeguard-related arguments in detail
in Part III.A.

E. Comments Opposing Elimination Based on Experience, Readiness, and
Institutional Knowledge 5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ This group comprised 4 comments: 0025, 0033, 0034, and 0048.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment 0025 identified potential disadvantages of elimination,
including increased perceived favoritism, reduced development time,
budget pressure, loss of intermediate-grade experience, and increased
competition for advancement. Comments 0033 and 0034 (near-identical
submissions) argued that removing TIG before overhauling agency
promotion and competency-evaluation processes risks systemic
underperformance and loss of accountability. Comment 0048 opposed any
change to TIG on the grounds that experience and knowledge would be
degraded and favoritism would increase. OPM addresses these comments in
Part III.A.

F. Comments Supporting or Not Opposing Elimination Subject to
Conditions, Safeguards, or Targeted Alternatives 6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ This group comprised 23 comments: 0002, 0008, 0013, 0014,
0023, 0024 [counted in Part II.F, reflecting its primary focus],
0030, 0036, 0042, 0046, 0050, 0054, 0061, 0062, 0063, 0064, 0067,
0068, 0069, 0071, 0072, 0073, 0074, and 0076 (cross-referenced from
Part II.C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This category is the largest of the six categories described in
this Part, although the 41 comments supporting elimination, considered
together across Parts II.A through II.C, substantially exceed it.
Comments in this category did not uniformly oppose elimination; several
expressly supported repeal or stated that they did not oppose it and
directed their recommendations to how elimination should be implemented
rather than whether it should occur. Comment 0002 recommended targeted
flexibility limited to technical, medical, and scientific occupations
rather than governmentwide elimination. Comment 0008 proposed a grade-
banded TIG framework scaling from 6 months (GS-1 to GS-5) to 24 months
(GS-13 and above), aligned with performance evaluation cycles, together
with a narrow waiver process and mandatory pilot testing. Comment 0050
proposed allowing employees to compete for positions up to two grades
above their current grade after two or three years in grade.
Comment 0072 proposed a ``Competency-Based Accelerated Promotion
Waiver'' retaining the 52-week baseline with a 26-week waiver available
only with the highest performance rating, an OPM-certified assessment,
and independent review board approval, together with a 24-month phased
implementation. Comment 0042 did not oppose revisiting TIG but
requested baseline data on the scope of the problem, replacement
safeguards, and comparison of graduated alternatives before
governmentwide repeal. Comment 0030 did not oppose modernization but
expressed concern about the loss of an objective, easily understood
standard and recommended written promotion criteria, advance
communication, and documentation. Comment 0068 generally supported
elimination but recommended governmentwide best practices, promotion
review boards, independent audits, and manager training.
Comment 0069 urged withdrawal or substantial revision, framing TIG
as an objective, front-end constraint on rapid promotion that the
proposed rule would remove without replacement, and recommended written
accelerated-promotion standards, contemporaneous justification,
objective evidence, HR or panel review, audits, and public reporting.
Comment 0074 supported repeal while recommending that agency-specific
criteria be objective, published, and consistently applied, with
concise documentation and periodic aggregate review rather than a
burdensome waiver process. Twelve additional comments (0013, 0014,
0023, 0046, 0054, 0061, 0062, 0063, 0064, 0067, 0071, and 0073) offered
varying combinations of these recommendations, including written
criteria, HR or classification review, budget review, pilot programs,
phased effective dates, and monitoring for disparate impact. Comment
0036 opposed the change absent significant revisions to oversight and
qualification-measurement mechanisms, citing HR capacity and structural
conflicts of interest. Comment 0076 is discussed primarily in Part II.C
and in Parts III.E through III.G, III.I, and III.K. OPM addresses these
recommendations in detail in Part III.B through III.D; addresses the
effective-date and adjudicatory-capacity recommendations in Part III.A;
and addresses the cost recommendations in Part III.I and Part V.D.

III. Section-by-Section Analysis and Response to Comments

A. General Comments on the Decision To Eliminate TIG

Comments supporting elimination as consistent with merit
principles. As described in Parts II.A through II.C, 41 comments
supported eliminating TIG. OPM does not treat these comments as
expressions of preference only. Read together, they describe a
consistent set of operational effects bearing directly on whether a
uniform 52-week eligibility restriction remains necessary or
appropriate: employees identified through competitive or structured
selection processes as best qualified for higher-graded work whose
promotions were nonetheless deferred solely because 52 weeks had not
elapsed (Comment 0011); employees performed the duties of substantially
higher-graded positions for extended periods, in some cases while
receiving Quality Step Increases and special contribution awards,
without becoming eligible for promotion to the grade of the work
performed (Comments 0003, 0016, 0027, and 0060); a nominal 52-week
period that, once position-processing and hiring-pipeline timelines are
accounted for, regularly operates as 15 to 18 months or longer in
practice (Comment 0040); and experience acquired through details,
temporary promotions, military service, and professional certification
that TIG does not credit was not considered because it was not accrued
in a permanent appointment at the preceding grade (Comments 0041, 0056,
and 0058). See, e.g., 5 CFR 300.605(a) (service while on detail is
credited at the grade of the employee's position of record, not the
grade of the position to which detailed).
OPM finds these accounts probative. They are consistent with one
another, they come from a range of agencies and occupational series,
and they describe a mechanism inherent in TIG rather than incidental to
how any particular agency administers it: because TIG measures elapsed
time in grade and nothing else, it defers consideration of employees
whom an agency has already determined, through job-related evaluation,
to be prepared for higher-level work. OPM concludes that the

[[Page 65890]]

record in this rulemaking supports its determination that TIG imposes
costs on agencies and employees that are not offset by a corresponding
merit-protective benefit, for the reasons discussed in the responses
that follow.
Comments arguing TIG remains necessary to prevent favoritism and
protect merit-system integrity. Comment 0059 argued that the
governmentwide qualification standards cited by OPM would provide no
impediment to disparately fast-tracking favored employees, particularly
where the same managers who make selection decisions also control how
employees are groomed for advancement. Comment 0012 defends time-in-
grade as a preventive structural safeguard--one that blocks improper
promotions before they occur, rather than remedying them afterward. The
comment contrasts that with prohibited personnel practice enforcement,
which it characterizes as hard to prove, slow to adjudicate, and
burdening the employee only after harm is done. It supports the point
with a 2009 comment cautioning that promotion schemes built without
objective criteria and adequate oversight have in fact produced
favoritism, nepotism, and illegal discrimination. Comment 0007
similarly argued that TIG provides predictable, transparent career
expectations and that removing it would place excessive discretionary
authority in the hands of individual supervisors. Four additional
comments (0024, 0031, 0048, and 0070) argued in briefer terms that
eliminating the 52-week requirement would allow acceleration of
unqualified, favored, or politically connected employees, or that the
subjectivity of promotion decisions makes a uniform waiting period
necessary.
OPM disagrees that TIG is the primary or most effective safeguard
against favoritism in the promotion process. TIG determines only when
an employee becomes eligible to be considered for promotion; it does
not evaluate whether a candidate is qualified for a higher-graded
position, does not identify the best-qualified candidate, does not rank
candidates, and does not prevent a supervisor from favoring a
particular employee once that employee has completed 52 weeks in grade.
An agency's promotion decision remains governed by 5 CFR part 335.
Section 335.103(b)(1) (Requirement 1) requires each agency to establish
procedures for promoting employees that are based on merit and are
available in writing to candidates, requires that those procedures be
administered without regard to political affiliation or any other non-
merit-based factor, and requires that promotion actions be ``based
solely on job-related criteria.'' Section 335.103(b)(3) (Requirement 3)
requires that candidates meet the minimum qualification standards
prescribed by OPM, that methods of evaluation for promotion be
consistent with 5 CFR part 300, subpart A--which in turn requires that
employment practices bear a rational relationship to performance in the
position and be supported by a job analysis, see 5 CFR 300.103--and
that due weight be given to performance appraisals and incentive
awards. Section 335.103(b)(5) (Requirement 5) requires each agency to
maintain a record of each promotion sufficient to allow reconstruction
of the promotion action, including documentation of how candidates were
rated and ranked. These requirements, together with OPM qualification
standards, position classification requirements, and the merit system
principles and prohibited personnel practices in 5 U.S.C. 2301 and
2302, provide substantive protection against improper promotion
decisions in a way that a calendar requirement does not.
OPM also notes, as Comment 0037 and others acknowledged, that TIG
does not apply uniformly across the Federal workforce: it does not
apply to Federal Wage System employees, to pay-banded positions, to
excepted service employees generally, to competitive service employees
seeking positions through open, competitive examination, or--even
within its own coverage--to advancement to positions up to GS-5 where
the position to be filled is no more than two grades above the lowest
grade the employee held within the preceding 52 weeks under the
employee's latest nontemporary competitive appointment, see 5 CFR
300.604(c). OPM has considered promotion practices in those portions of
the workforce that already operate without any time-in-grade
restriction and is not aware of evidence, in the comments received or
otherwise available to OPM, that promotion decisions in those settings
are subject to materially greater rates of favoritism than promotion
decisions covered by TIG. No comment identified such evidence.
OPM addresses separately the more specific contention that
qualification standards cannot constrain favoritism because the same
managers who select candidates also control the details, developmental
assignments, and training through which candidates become qualified.
OPM does not dispute that a supervisor may influence both. That
influence, however, exists today and is unaffected by TIG: a supervisor
who directs developmental opportunities to a favored employee can do so
during the 52-week period as readily as after it, and at the end of
that period the favored employee is better qualified and the disfavored
employee is not. TIG delays the promotion; it does not redistribute the
opportunities that produced the disparity. The requirements that do
reach that conduct are the requirement that promotion criteria be job-
related and supported by job analysis, the requirement that agencies
apply their merit promotion plans consistently, the prohibition on
granting an unauthorized preference or advantage under 5 U.S.C.
2302(b)(6), and the classification requirements that permit promotion
only where higher-graded work actually exists. For the same reason, OPM
does not accept the characterization of TIG as preventive and of
enforcement as merely reactive. TIG prevents nothing that a supervisor
intent on favoritism cannot accomplish by waiting 52 weeks; what it
reliably prevents is the timely promotion of employees who are ready.
OPM acknowledges that these requirements operate on the promotion
decision rather than on the antecedent assignment of developmental
work, and that a uniform 52-week waiting period imposes a delay that
those requirements do not. OPM has weighed that consideration. OPM
concludes that a delay applied to every employee in the competitive
service, including the substantial majority as to whom no favoritism
concern arises, is a poorly targeted means of addressing conduct that
is already prohibited, that TIG does not prevent, and that the record
does not show to be more prevalent in the portions of the workforce
already operating without TIG.
The qualification requirements applicable to promotion likewise
operate independently of TIG and are unaffected by this rule. Section
335.103(b)(3) (Requirement 3) provides that, to be eligible for
promotion or placement, candidates must meet the minimum qualification
standards prescribed by OPM, that methods of evaluation for promotion
and placement must be consistent with 5 CFR part 300, subpart A, and
that due weight must be given to performance appraisals and incentive
awards. TIG, by contrast, measured only elapsed time: it provided that
a candidate could not be advanced to a covered position unless the
candidate had completed 52 weeks in a position no more than one grade
lower--or, in two-grade-interval lines of work at GS-6 through GS-11,
no more than two grades lower--than the position to be filled. See 5
CFR 300.604.

[[Page 65891]]

The governmentwide qualification standards have historically included a
comparable one-year service period before an employee could be
considered for promotion, so TIG largely duplicated a requirement
imposed elsewhere. OPM is separately reviewing that requirement, and
OPM's determination in this rule does not depend on its continuation.
What the qualification standards require, and will continue to require,
is that an employee actually be qualified for the position to which the
employee is promoted and demonstrate that qualification through job-
related evidence. Eliminating a tenure-based measure of qualification
does not eliminate the requirement of qualification; it requires that
qualification be shown directly rather than inferred from the passage
of time.
Comment 0059 further argued that Federal positions were subject to
qualification standards before enactment of the Whitten Amendment, that
abuses nonetheless occurred, that those abuses are what prompted the
Whitten Amendment, and that human nature has not changed in the
interim. OPM does not agree that the comparison holds. The framework on
which OPM relies in this rule did not exist in 1950. The governmentwide
qualification standards now published in the OPM Operating Manual,
Qualification Standards for General Schedule Positions--including the
specialized-experience requirements that govern advancement between
grades--postdate the Whitten Amendment, as do the merit promotion
requirements in 5 CFR part 335, the merit system principles and
prohibited personnel practices codified at 5 U.S.C. 2301 and 2302, the
Office of Special Counsel, the Merit Systems Protection Board, and the
Federal-sector equal employment opportunity complaint process. OPM made
the same observation when it eliminated TIG in 2008. See 73 FR 66157,
66158 (Nov. 7, 2008) (``When the time-in-grade restriction was first
implemented, procedures for redressing prohibited personnel practices
had not yet been enacted, and OPM's qualification standards did not
exist.''). The relevant question is not whether favoritism existed
before 1950, but whether a uniform waiting period adds protection to
the framework that exists now. For all of these reasons, OPM concludes
that it does not.
Comment 0059 also argued that the value of TIG lies not in any
single promotion decision but in the aggregate: a bright-line rule is
perceived as fair by the Federal workforce, and eliminating it would
signal that seeking personal favor from managers can be rewarded, with
corrosive effects on morale and stability. Two additional comments
(0007 and 0025) raised related concerns about predictability and
perceived fairness. OPM takes the perception concern seriously. A
promotion system that employees do not believe is fair will not retain
them, whatever its formal properties. OPM does not agree, however, that
a waiting period is what sustains that perception, and the record in
this proceeding cuts the other way: 41 comments supported eliminating
TIG, and a substantial number of them described TIG itself as a source
of perceived unfairness, because it deferred the advancement of
employees whose agencies had already evaluated them as ready and, in
several instances, had already assigned them the higher-graded work.
OPM concludes that perceived fairness is better served by requiring
agencies to establish, publish, and consistently apply job-related
promotion criteria under 5 CFR 335.103(b)(1) than by a rule that treats
every employee identically without regard to qualifications.
Comments arguing that eliminating TIG will increase litigation and
complaint activity. Comment 0059 argued that the principal practical
advantage of TIG is its simplicity: because a bright-line rule is easy
for selecting officials, human resources (HR) staff, and non-selected
candidates alike to apply, a non-selected candidate who can verify that
the selectee met TIG is less likely to challenge the selection.
Removing that reference point, the comment argued, will generate
additional equal employment opportunity and prohibited personnel
practice litigation, particularly to the extent accelerated promotions
correlate with protected characteristics. Comment 0076 raised a related
concern that elimination could produce an increase in matters before
the Office of Special Counsel and the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission that would be difficult to defend because each case would be
highly fact-dependent, and that supervisors may face an increased
documentation burden. Comment 0069 made a related argument concerning
human capital workload, addressed in Part III.I.
OPM has considered these concerns and does not find them a
sufficient basis to retain TIG. As an initial matter, TIG's simplicity
is a function of the fact that it measures nothing about the candidate.
Verifying that a selectee completed 52 weeks in grade tells a non-
selected candidate nothing about whether the selection was job-related,
whether the selectee was better qualified, or whether the agency
applied its merit promotion plan consistently. OPM is not persuaded
that the availability of that verification materially affects the
volume of either meritorious or non-meritorious challenges.
More fundamentally, the standards against which promotion decisions
are actually adjudicated are unchanged by this rule. A non-selected
candidate's claim under the equal employment opportunity statutes or 5
U.S.C. 2302 turns on whether the agency's stated, job-related reasons
for the selection are legitimate and consistently applied, not on
whether the selectee had been in grade for 52 weeks. Because TIG
operated only as an eligibility threshold, satisfying it was never
itself a defense to a discrimination or prohibited personnel practice
claim, and its removal therefore does not deprive agencies of a defense
they previously had. Agencies that comply with 5 CFR 335.103--by
establishing written, job-related promotion criteria, making them
available to candidates in advance, applying them consistently to
similarly situated employees, and maintaining records sufficient to
reconstruct the action under Sec. 335.103(b)(5)--will be better
positioned to explain and defend a promotion decision than they would
be by pointing to the passage of 52 weeks. OPM encourages agencies to
use the existing part 335 framework for that purpose, as discussed in
Part III.C, and notes that doing so also responds to the documentation
concerns raised by three comments (0030, 0074, and 0076).
OPM also notes that this rule creates no entitlement to accelerated
promotion and does not require any agency to promote any employee
earlier than it otherwise would. Where an agency concludes that a job-
related minimum period in grade is appropriate for particular positions
or career ladders, it may adopt one under its merit promotion plan, as
discussed in Part III.G.
Comments arguing that enforcement mechanisms for merit violations
are presently inadequate. Comment 0013 argued that recent disruptions
to the leadership and quorum of the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) and
the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) undermine OPM's reliance on
the merit system principles and prohibited personnel practices. The
comment characterized TIG as the last uniform checkpoint remaining on
promotion decisions. It recommended that OPM defer the effective date
of this rule until it can certify that those bodies have sufficient
capacity to adjudicate cases within statutory timeframes.
OPM does not agree that TIG is the only, or even the primary,
safeguard

[[Page 65892]]

against improper personnel actions or that adjudicatory capacity at OSC
or MSPB is a precondition to eliminating a non-merit, calendar-based
eligibility restriction. As explained earlier in this Part III.A., the
principal protections against improper promotions operate at the point
of decision--through qualification standards, classification
requirements, and merit promotion procedures--rather than through
after-the-fact adjudication. OPM also notes that this comment's
premise, which characterizes TIG as a uniform checkpoint, does not
account for the fact that TIG does not apply to a substantial portion
of the Federal workforce, as discussed previously in this section. OPM
is not adopting a delayed or conditional effective date tied to the
staffing or caseload of other Federal agencies or components, which OPM
does not control and cannot reliably certify.
Comments requesting that OPM withdraw the rule and complete a
broader review of pay, performance, and staffing before proceeding.
Comment 0012 noted that OPM's 2008 final rule eliminating TIG,
published at 73 FR 66157 (Nov. 7, 2008), was withdrawn at 74 FR 40057
(Aug. 11, 2009) pending a more comprehensive review of pay,
performance, and staffing issues that was never completed. The comment
argued that OPM should not proceed without either completing that
review or explaining why it is no longer necessary.
Comment 0072 separately argued that OPM's reliance on the China
Lake demonstration project is an invalid premise because demonstration
projects operate under customized, locally supervised performance-
appraisal matrices that cannot be extrapolated to the full 1.5-million-
employee workforce, and that OPM has provided no new empirical data
collected since the 2009 withdrawal to justify reversing its prior
position, citing FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502,
515 (2009).
OPM has explained in the proposed rule and in this final rule the
basis for its current determination: governmentwide qualification
standards and agency merit promotion procedures under 5 CFR part 335
provide the substantive framework for evaluating promotion decisions
independent of TIG. OPM acknowledges Comment 0072's point that pay-
banded demonstration projects operate under locally designed
performance-appraisal and pay systems, and that outcomes observed in
those projects cannot simply be extrapolated to the General Schedule
workforce as a whole. OPM does not rely on demonstration-project
results as a predictive model of what will occur governmentwide. OPM
relies on them, together with the Federal Wage System, pay-banded
systems, the excepted service, and competitive examining, for the
narrower proposition that substantial portions of the Federal workforce
have long operated without any time-in-grade restriction and that
neither the comment record nor OPM's oversight experience discloses
documented, widespread promotion abuse in those settings. The absence
of such evidence does not establish that abuse cannot occur; it does
bear on whether a uniform, governmentwide waiting period is necessary
to prevent it. No comment identified evidence to the contrary.
OPM notes that it is separately reviewing the service-period
requirements contained in the governmentwide qualification standards.
That review does not disturb the framework on which OPM relies here.
The qualification standards will remain in effect and require that an
employee be qualified for the position to which the employee is
promoted. Part of this review will assess whether qualification is
soundly measured by elapsed time or tenure rather than by demonstrated,
job-related capability. The question whether tenure or qualifications
should determine an employee's eligibility for promotion is the same
question presented by this rule, and OPM's answer is the same:
qualifications should be the determining factor.
Finally, OPM does not accept the premise that no evidence
postdating the 2009 withdrawal informs this rulemaking. The comments
received in this docket are themselves evidence developed since 2009,
and they are substantial: 41 comments supported eliminating TIG, and a
substantial number of them, submitted from a range of agencies and
occupational series, described specific instances in which TIG deferred
the promotion of employees whom their agencies had evaluated as
qualified and prepared for higher-graded work, as summarized in Parts
II.A through II.C. OPM's determination accordingly does not depend on
extrapolating demonstration-project results to the Federal workforce as
a whole; it rests on the continued operation of qualification
standards, classification requirements, and merit promotion procedures,
informed by the record developed in this proceeding and by the absence
of documented, widespread promotion abuse in the substantial portions
of the workforce that already operate without TIG. OPM does not agree
that completion of a separate, broader review of pay and staffing
policy is a legal or practical precondition to finalizing this narrower
rule addressing the TIG eligibility restriction.
OPM further acknowledges expressly that this rule adopts a position
contrary to the one OPM took in 2009 and sets out its reasons for doing
so. See FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 515 (2009)
(an agency changing course must display awareness that it is changing
position and provide a reasoned explanation for the new policy but need
not demonstrate that the new policy is better than the old one). Three
features of the 2009 action bear on what that explanation requires
here.
First, the 2009 withdrawal did not rest on a substantive
determination that TIG is necessary to protect the merit system. OPM
stated that it ``would be more productive to consider the merits of the
time-in-grade issue as part of a more comprehensive review of pay,
performance, and staffing issues than to regulate this particular issue
in piecemeal fashion.'' 74 FR 40057 (Aug. 11, 2009). That was a
judgment about sequencing, not a factual finding contrary to the
findings OPM makes here, and it followed the governmentwide regulatory
review directed by the memorandum of January 20, 2009, which caused OPM
to delay the 2008 rule's effective date and reopen the record. See 74
FR 9951 (Mar. 9, 2009); 74 FR 21771 (May 11, 2009); 74 FR 23109 (May
18, 2009). Where an agency's prior position rested on a sequencing
judgment rather than on contrary factual findings, the explanation
required to depart from it is correspondingly less demanding.
Second, OPM's substantive position in 2008 was the position OPM
adopts today. In the 2008 final rule, OPM concluded after notice and
comment that qualification standards, merit promotion procedures, and
the prohibited personnel practices provide the appropriate framework
for evaluating promotion decisions, and that TIG is an eligibility
factor measuring the passage of time rather than the ability to perform
higher-graded work. 73 FR 66157, 66158 (Nov. 7, 2008). OPM had proposed
the same result on three prior occasions. See 59 FR 30717 (June 15,
1994); 60 FR 2546 (Jan. 10, 1995); 73 FR 6857 (Feb. 6, 2008). This rule
is therefore not a novel departure but a return, on a fuller record, to
a conclusion OPM has reached repeatedly.
Third, OPM is not aware of, and no comment has identified, reliance
interests that this rule would disrupt. TIG confers no entitlement and
no

[[Page 65893]]

vested expectation; it confers eligibility. An employee who has
completed 52 weeks in grade retains everything that period produced--
the experience gained, the performance record established, and
eligibility for consideration--and this rule takes nothing away from
that employee. Cf. Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 579 U.S. 211, 221-
22 (2016) (an agency must provide a more detailed justification where
its new policy rests upon factual findings contradicting those
underlying its prior policy or where serious reliance interests are at
stake).
OPM notes as well that several implementation questions OPM treated
as outside the scope of the 2009 proceeding--including whether agencies
retain the option to establish their own service requirements, and how
elimination applies to career-ladder positions--are answered in Part
III.C, Part III.G, and Part IV of this rule.
Comments arguing that eliminating TIG removes an objective, front-
end constraint that after-the-fact enforcement cannot replace. Comment
0069 stated that it does not categorically oppose eliminating TIG and
acknowledged that a 52-week period may prevent an agency from promoting
an employee who has already demonstrated the knowledge, skills,
judgment, and readiness required for higher-graded work. The comment
argued, however, that OPM proposes to remove a longstanding objective
eligibility constraint without replacing it with prospective, job-
related standards governing when accelerated advancement is
appropriate, and without explaining how agencies and OPM will monitor
promotions across occupations, grades, and organizational units to
verify that qualification and merit standards are being applied. The
comment further argued that the merit system principles and prohibited
personnel practices establish broad standards of conduct and after-the-
fact remedies rather than ex ante criteria; that a prohibited personnel
practice claim requires evidence that is typically in the agency's
possession; and that subjective promotion criteria can reproduce hidden
bias, citing Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidance
recommending that employers establish neutral and objective criteria.
The comment recommended that OPM either withdraw the rule or pair
elimination with written accelerated-promotion standards,
contemporaneous written justification, objective competency evidence
beyond a supervisor's conclusory judgment, consistency requirements for
similarly situated employees, panel or human resources review, records
identifying accelerated promotions, audits and public reporting, an
express clarification regarding within-grade increases, and
implementation guidance issued before the effective date. Comment 0069
also argued that OPM's account of the historical record is inaccurate
because merit principles in Federal employment did not originate with
the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 but with the Pendleton Act of 1883
and subsequent civil service legislation.
OPM agrees with two of the premises underlying this comment. First,
criteria applied at the point of decision are more effective than
remedies available only after harm has occurred. Second, promotion
criteria should be objective, job-related, established in advance,
published, and consistently applied to similarly situated employees.
OPM's disagreement is with where those criteria belong and with the
characterization of what removing TIG actually changes.
The criteria this comment describes already exist, and they exist
in 5 CFR part 335 rather than in the restriction OPM is removing.
Section 335.103(b)(1) requires each agency to establish written
promotion procedures based on merit, available in writing to
candidates, administered without regard to political affiliation or any
other non-merit-based factor, and based solely on job-related criteria.
Section 335.103(b)(3) requires that candidates meet OPM's minimum
qualification standards and that evaluation methods conform to 5 CFR
part 300, subpart A, which requires that employment practices bear a
rational relationship to performance in the position and be supported
by a job analysis. See 5 CFR 300.103. Section 335.103(b)(5) requires
records sufficient to allow reconstruction of each promotion action,
including documentation of how candidates were rated and ranked.
Section 335.103(d) preserves the right to file a complaint relating to
a promotion action and confirms OPM's authority to investigate
substantial violations of OPM requirements. Each of these requirements
is prospective, job-related, and enforceable, and none is affected by
this rule. By its own terms, the restriction OPM removes operated ``in
addition to the eligibility requirements for promotion in part 335 of
this chapter.'' 5 CFR 300.601. This rule therefore does not leave the
promotion process without objective standards; it removes a calendar-
based eligibility condition that sat on top of those standards without
measuring anything about the candidate.
That allocation also answers the comment's principal
recommendation. The safeguards Comment 0069 proposes--written
accelerated-promotion standards, contemporaneous written justification,
objective competency evidence, consistency requirements, review panels
or human resources review, records identifying accelerated actions, and
audit and reporting obligations--are all requirements about how
agencies evaluate, document, and select candidates for promotion. If
OPM were to impose them governmentwide, the appropriate vehicle would
be an amendment to 5 CFR part 335, proposed and noticed as such, so
that agencies and the public could comment on the specific
requirements, their scope, and their cost. It would not be appropriate
to adopt them in this final rule, which proposed only the removal of a
separate calendar-based eligibility restriction in part 300 and did not
give notice that governmentwide promotion procedures were at issue.
OPM accepts the comment's historical correction in part. OPM did
not intend to suggest that merit principles in Federal employment
originated in 1978. Congress rejected the spoils system in the
Pendleton Act of 1883, and the Civil Service Commission administered
merit-based examination, promotion, and classification requirements
long before 1950. OPM's point is narrower, and OPM has revised the
discussion in Part V.A to state it precisely: the specific framework on
which this rule relies--the governmentwide qualification standards
published in the OPM Operating Manual, the merit promotion requirements
in 5 CFR part 335, the codified merit system principles and prohibited
personnel practices at 5 U.S.C. 2301 and 2302, and the institutions
that enforce them--postdate enactment of the Whitten Amendment.
OPM agrees with the comment's recommendation that a rating of
record should not by itself be treated as sufficient evidence of
readiness for advancement, and Part III.C describes evaluation methods
that go beyond the rating of record. OPM also confirms, as the comment
requested, that this rule does not alter the statutory and regulatory
requirements governing within-grade increases, including waiting
periods and acceptable-level-of-competence determinations under 5
U.S.C. 5335 and 5 CFR part 531, subpart D. See Part III.H. OPM
addresses the comment's monitoring and reporting recommendations in
Part III.D, its administrative-burden argument in Part III.I, and its
request for implementation guidance in Part IV.

[[Page 65894]]

Finally, OPM does not agree that this rule should be evaluated on
the basis of separate personnel-policy actions that are the subject of
their own rulemakings and their own administrative records. This rule
addresses whether a 52-week, calendar-based eligibility restriction
remains necessary or appropriate. The 5 U.S.C. 2301 and 2302
prohibitions on making promotion decisions based on political
affiliation or other non-merit factors continue to apply. This rule
does not alter 5 CFR 335.103, which requires that promotion actions be
based solely on job-related criteria and administered without regard to
political affiliation; and it does not alter the classification
requirements that permit promotion only where higher-graded work
actually exists. OPM is not aware of a basis in this record to conclude
that a 52-week waiting period, as opposed to those requirements, is
what stands between the promotion process and the concerns the comment
identifies. Comments directed to separate regulatory actions are
addressed in Part III.L. OPM is not adopting the recommendation to
withdraw this rule.
Comments identifying additional disadvantages of elimination.
Comment 0025 identified several potential disadvantages of elimination,
including increased perceived favoritism, reduced career-development
time, budget pressure from faster promotions, loss of institutional
knowledge at intermediate grades, and increased competition for
advancement opportunities.
Two additional comments (0033 and 0034) submitted in substantially
identical language, argued that removing TIG before agencies overhaul
their promotion and competency-evaluation processes risks systemic
underperformance.
OPM acknowledges these concerns but does not agree that they
require retention of TIG. This rule does not compel rapid promotions;
agencies may require additional development time, sustained
performance, training, or a service period, and may promote only when
higher-level duties and funding are available, as discussed further in
Part III.B and III.G. Institutional knowledge and relevant experience
may be considered through qualification standards and other job-related
criteria. Existing merit promotion procedures, merit system principles,
and prohibited personnel practices continue to protect fair and
consistent treatment. OPM is not changing the proposed rule in response
to these comments.

B. Comments Requesting Retention of TIG in a Modified Form (Grade-
Banded, Graduated, or Waiver-Based Alternatives)

Comment 0008 proposed a phased, grade-banded TIG framework with
minimums scaling from 6 months (GS-1 to GS-5) to 24 months (GS-13 and
above), alignment of TIG with agency performance-evaluation cycles, a
narrow waiver process for mission-critical exceptions, and mandatory
pilot testing with outcome-data collection before any nationwide
change. Comment 0050 proposed allowing employees to become eligible,
after two or three years in grade, to compete for positions up to two
grades above their current grade, arguing this would reduce promotion
bottlenecks while still requiring a period of demonstrated experience
before a significant grade jump. Comment 0072 proposed a competency-
based accelerated promotion waiver retaining the 52-week baseline
governmentwide but authorizing a waiver to 26 weeks only for employees
who achieve the highest performance rating, pass an OPM-certified
objective assessment, and obtain approval from an independent agency
career ladder review board, together with a mandatory 24-month phased
implementation. Comment 0002 recommended that OPM limit any elimination
to specific technical, medical, and scientific occupations--citing
cybersecurity, IT, software development, data science, VA clinical
staff, and scientific research roles as examples where outside
experience is most likely to exceed grade-level expectations--while
retaining TIG for most other Federal positions, particularly those in
HR, supervisory, budget, and policy functions. Comment 0042 also
referenced a graduated TIG relief approach as a possible middle path,
under which an employee could bypass one TIG interval with agency
documentation of full qualification, while the following interval would
remain fully applicable or only partially reduced.
OPM appreciates these detailed alternatives but is not adopting a
grade-banded, graduated, occupation-limited, or waiver-based TIG
framework in place of elimination. Each of these alternatives would
retain time served as a governmentwide eligibility condition for at
least some employees, some occupations, or some portion of the
promotion process, which preserves the central defect OPM has
identified: an administrative, calendar-based proxy that is not skills-
based, does not itself measure competence, and that can exclude an
otherwise qualified employee for a reason unrelated to the employee's
ability to perform higher-graded work.
The waiver-based framework proposed by Comment 0072, in particular,
would recreate an approval process--with a fixed baseline, a review
board, and a certified assessment tool--that would likely impose
administrative burdens similar to, or greater than, the TIG-related
exception and training-agreement approval processes OPM is eliminating
in this rule. See 5 CFR 300.603(b)(6) through (b)(8). With respect to
Comment 0002's occupation-limited approach, OPM does not agree that the
problem identified in this rulemaking is confined to technical,
medical, and scientific occupations; the comment record, including
comments 0016, 0026, 0040, 0051, and 0056, documents comparable
barriers in administrative, correctional, contract-negotiation, and
other occupational contexts. OPM also does not agree that a fixed 24-
month implementation delay, as proposed by two comments (0008 and
0072), is necessary; as explained in Part V.D, OPM's cost estimate
accounts for the time agencies will need to update merit promotion
plans and does not indicate that a multi-year transition is required.
OPM notes as well that one of these proposals would provide less
flexibility than the restriction it would replace. Comment 0050
proposed permitting employees to compete, after two or three years in
grade, for positions up to two grades above their current grade. Two-
grade advancement is already available under the existing restriction
after 52 weeks rather than two or three years: Sec. 300.604(b)(1)
already permits advancement to a position at GS-6 through GS-11 for a
candidate who has completed 52 weeks in a position no more than two
grades lower, where the position to be filled is in a line of work
properly classified at two-grade intervals; Sec. 300.604(b)(3) permits
agencies to apply a one- or two-grade measure for mixed-interval
promotion patterns; and Sec. 300.604(c) imposes no time restriction on
advancement to positions up to GS-5 where the position to be filled is
no more than two grades above the lowest grade the employee held within
the preceding 52 weeks under the employee's latest nontemporary
competitive appointment. The existing restriction is therefore already
graduated by grade and by classification pattern, as Comment 0076
observed in noting that the 52-week requirement limits advancement to a
single grade except where the occupational series is structured to

[[Page 65895]]

support a two-grade progression. That structure has not prevented the
barriers described in Parts II.A through II.C, which is a further
reason OPM is not persuaded that a differently calibrated schedule of
waiting periods would address them.
Comment 0024 recommended, as an alternative to elimination, that
OPM add flexibility for high-performing employees to accelerate
advancement while maintaining objective standards. OPM agrees with that
objective and believes this rule serves it more directly than a high-
performer carve-out would. The objective standards the comment seeks to
preserve are the governmentwide qualification standards and the job-
related promotion criteria required by 5 CFR 335.103(b)(1) and (b)(3),
and this rule leaves both fully in force; what it removes is the
calendar bar that prevented a demonstrably ready employee from being
considered at all. A carve-out limited to high performers would, by
contrast, require OPM to define a governmentwide performance threshold
for promotion eligibility and would make the rating of record the
gateway to advancement--an approach Comment 0069 specifically cautioned
against. It would also leave in place, for every employee not meeting
that threshold, the same non-merit waiting period OPM has determined is
not justified. Agencies that wish to adopt an accelerated-advancement
track for high performers may do so under their merit promotion plans,
as discussed in Part III.G.
Agencies retain the discretion to adopt internal, job-related
service periods, occupation-specific criteria, or progression criteria
for their own career ladders (discussed further in Part III.G), which
allow agencies that wish to retain a more gradual, banded, or phased
internal approach to do so without a governmentwide mandate.

C. Comments Requesting Written, Objective, Job-Related Agency Promotion
Criteria and Documentation

Comment 0030 did not oppose modernization or agency flexibility but
expressed concern that removing ``one of the few objective standards
employees can easily understand'' would shift the balance toward
management discretion and recommended that agencies be required to
establish clear written promotion criteria, communicate those standards
to employees in advance, and document the reasons for promotion
decisions. Comment 0063 recommended that any promotion made under this
authority be supported by a written certification from the selecting
official confirming that the employee meets all qualifications, that
the promotion is based solely on merit, and that the action complies
with merit system principles, together with review and approval by a
higher-level management official and a career human resources official.
Comment 0067 recommended that OPM provide implementation guidance
and a template to help agencies establish minimum, job-related
promotion criteria and document promotion decisions. Comment 0068
recommended that OPM identify best practices, consider career-level
promotion review boards (citing a program-level model used in another
part of the Federal Government), and require independent audit or
higher-level review to ensure promotions are merit-based. Comment 0074
recommended that agency-specific prerequisites be objective, job-
related, established in advance, published in merit promotion plans,
and consistently applied to similarly situated employees, supported by
concise, standardized documentation for any promotion completed before
52 weeks. Comment 0076 similarly recommended that OPM provide, in the
final rule or in implementation guidance, a model merit promotion
provision, minimum documentation expectations, and best-practice
documentation guidance.
OPM agrees that promotion criteria should be job-related,
consistently applied, and based on established agency procedures, and
OPM does not disagree with the substance of these recommendations as a
matter of sound personnel administration. OPM notes at the outset that
much of what these comments recommend is already required. Section
335.103(b)(1) requires each agency to establish procedures for
promoting employees that are based on merit, that are available in
writing to candidates, and that are based solely on job-related
criteria; the requirement that promotion criteria be written, job-
related, and communicated to candidates in advance is therefore already
governmentwide law. Section 335.103(b)(5) separately requires each
agency to maintain a record of each promotion sufficient to allow
reconstruction of the promotion action, including documentation of how
candidates were rated and ranked. What these comments principally seek
is not a new obligation but more specific governmentwide direction
about how agencies satisfy obligations they already have. Agencies may,
and OPM encourages agencies to, use this existing framework to specify
objective, job-related criteria for promotions that would previously
have been governed by TIG, including required competencies, performance
levels, training, or certifications, and to document how those criteria
were applied.
OPM does not believe a new governmentwide template, mandatory
certification, or review-board requirement is necessary or appropriate
given the wide variation in occupations, missions, and workforce
structures across the Federal Government, and is concerned that a one-
size-fits-all documentation or review mandate could itself recreate
significant elements of the administrative burden this rule is intended
to reduce.
There is a further reason OPM does not adopt these recommendations
in this rule. Requirements of the kind these comments propose--
certifications, higher-level or panel review, standardized
documentation, and prescribed evaluation criteria--would govern how
agencies conduct promotion actions, and the regulations that govern how
agencies conduct promotion actions are in 5 CFR part 335. Thus, if OPM
determines that broader governmentwide changes to the promotion process
are warranted, the appropriate vehicle is a rulemaking amending part
335. OPM will address implementation questions, including model
criteria and documentation practices, through the implementation
guidance described in Part IV, consistent with the recommendations in
three comments (0067, 0074, and 0076).
Comment 0068 and Comment 0036 emphasized that the added discretion
this rule confers will fall on human resources offices that may lack
the capacity to absorb it and recommended that OPM pair the rule with
investment in training, guidance, and oversight. Comment 0068 also
observed that regulatory change without operational change produces
uneven implementation. OPM agrees that implementation support matters
and addresses it in Part IV. OPM does not agree, however, that agency
human capital capacity is a reason to retain a restriction that applies
to every covered employee, including the substantial majority as to
whom no capacity concern arises. This rule removes an eligibility
determination that agencies must currently make and document for every
covered internal promotion action, together with the exception-approval
processes associated with it; it does not add a determination. To the
extent agencies choose to adopt more structured promotion criteria
under their part 335 authority, OPM encourages them to scale those
criteria

[[Page 65896]]

to the capacity of the offices that will administer them.
Consistent with 5 CFR 335.103(b)(3) and 5 CFR part 300, subpart A,
an agency may consider the following methods for evaluating an
employee's qualifications for promotion under part 335. These include
an evaluation of the employee's demonstrated results, and training
(with a specific focus on the outcomes of the performance and training
and the extent to which they prepare the employee for the higher-level
work); technical assessments; a structured interview; and appraisal of
the employee's performance and/or assessment of the employee's
potential. This last method goes beyond the employee's rating of record
and includes judgments and observations of other supervisors, managers,
and employees of the candidate's behavior. An assessment of the
employee's potential relies on a determination or demonstration (based
on observations or evaluation of work products) that the employee has
demonstrated higher-level performance required for the higher-level
work.

D. Comments Requesting Monitoring, Data Collection, and Public
Reporting

Comment 0063 requested that agencies publish annual aggregate
reports identifying the number and grade increases of promotions
granted under this authority, occupational series, organizational
component, and aggregate demographic, veteran, disability, and
bargaining-unit data. Comment 0064 recommended that OPM establish a
process to monitor promotion rates, demographic trends, retention,
workforce mobility, grievances, and appeals during the initial years of
implementation, and publish aggregate findings.
Comment 0069 recommended annual agency data collection and OPM
review of promotions by agency, grade, series, career ladder, and
organizational unit to identify patterns suggesting favoritism,
politicization, discrimination, or grade inflation. Comment 0073
requested clear appeal and grievance mechanisms specific to employees
passed over in favor of an early-promoted peer, together with agency
audits. Comment 0074 recommended that OPM establish baseline promotion-
timing data before implementation and conduct a formal three-year
retrospective review examining promotion timing, retention, agency-
specific waiting periods, administrative costs, and complaints or
grievances.
OPM appreciates these recommendations and agrees that monitoring
promotion outcomes can be a useful management practice. OPM does not
agree, however, that a mandatory governmentwide data collection,
aggregate public reporting, or fixed retrospective-review requirement
should be included in the regulatory text implementing this rule. As
explained in Part III.C, requirements governing how agencies conduct
and document promotion actions are beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
Agencies already maintain personnel records, including SF-50 actions
and the promotion records required by 5 CFR 335.103(b)(5), sufficient
to allow OPM and other oversight bodies to analyze promotion patterns
as needed, and OPM retains its ongoing authority to review agency
personnel practices for consistency with the merit system principles
and to investigate substantial violations of OPM requirements under 5
CFR 335.103(d). A new, standing governmentwide reporting requirement
tied specifically to promotions completed before 52 weeks would itself
function as an administrative burden similar in kind to the TIG-related
tracking and approval processes this rule removes.
With respect to Comment 0073's request for new appeal or grievance
mechanisms, OPM notes that existing complaint, grievance, and appeal
rights under applicable law, including equal employment opportunity and
prohibited-personnel-practice procedures and the complaint right
preserved by 5 CFR 335.103(d), are unaffected by this rule and remain
available where an employee believes a promotion decision was unlawful.
OPM will address monitoring practices in the implementation guidance
described in Part IV and may review implementation data in the course
of its ordinary oversight of agency personnel management programs but
declines to codify a specific data collection, reporting, or three-year
review mandate in this rule.

E. Comments Regarding Veterans' Preference and the VEOA

Comment 0076 raised a concern that because current Federal
``status'' employees applying under VEOA are subject to TIG while non-
status preference-eligible veterans separated from the armed forces
after three or more years of continuous active service may compete for
merit promotion positions without a TIG restriction, eliminating TIG
could allow agencies to rapidly promote favored internal ``status''
employees in a way that disadvantages qualified external veterans
competing for the same positions.
OPM has considered this comment carefully. This rule does not alter
the statutory framework governing VEOA eligibility under 5 U.S.C.
3304(f), veterans' preference under 5 U.S.C. 2108, or the requirement
that agencies conduct fair and open competition consistent with 5 CFR
part 335 when filling positions subject to competitive procedures.
Eliminating TIG affects only whether an internal candidate must wait 52
weeks in grade before being eligible for consideration for promotion;
it does not change the substantive qualification standards, competitive
procedures, or veterans' preference requirements applicable to any
candidate, internal or external. OPM does not agree that removing an
internal eligibility restriction on status employees creates unfairness
to preference-eligible veterans competing under VEOA, because both
status employees and VEOA-eligible veterans remain subject to the same
qualification standards and the same merit promotion or competitive
examining procedures for the vacancy in question. OPM will address the
interaction between this rule and VEOA-based competition in the
implementation guidance described in Part IV but is not making a
substantive change to the final rule in response to this comment.

F. Comments Regarding Collective Bargaining Obligations

Comment 0030 and Comment 0076 noted that promotion procedures and
eligibility criteria are frequently addressed in collective bargaining
agreements and are subject to bargaining obligations under 5 U.S.C.
chapter 71. They also requested that OPM address the interaction
between this rule and agencies' bargaining obligations, including
through a defined transition period of 90 to 180 days.
OPM acknowledges that agencies changing their internal promotion
procedures in response to this rule may have bargaining obligations
under 5 U.S.C. chapter 71 with respect to procedures and appropriate
arrangements for bargaining unit employees affected by the change, to
the extent those obligations apply under otherwise applicable law. This
rule does not itself alter, expand, or diminish any agency's bargaining
obligations, and OPM expects agencies to comply with applicable labor-
relations requirements as they revise merit promotion plans and
procedures following this rule's effective date. OPM does not agree
that a fixed, governmentwide transition period must be prescribed in
the regulatory text itself.

[[Page 65897]]

OPM has, however, adopted an effective date 90 days after
publication, which falls within the 90- to 180-day range these comments
recommended and which OPM expects will afford agencies sufficient time
to revise merit promotion plans, satisfy any applicable bargaining
obligations, and train supervisors and human resources staff. Agencies
retain the ability to sequence implementation of internal policy
changes, including through bargaining where required, and nothing in
this rule requires an agency to make any accelerated promotion on or
after the effective date. The 250-hour first-year estimate in Part V.D
is an accounting convention for allocating one-time implementation cost
to the first year following publication; it does not imply that an
agency must complete its revisions before the effective date. Until an
agency revises its merit promotion plan, the existing plan continues to
govern, less the TIG eligibility restriction removed by this rule.

G. Comments Concerning Career Ladder Positions, Career Ladder
Progression, Agency-Retained Time Requirements, and Training Agreements

Comment 0076 sought clarification that eliminating TIG permits, but
does not require, accelerated promotion within career ladder (target-
grade) positions, and that agencies retain authority to establish their
own internal time-based or performance-based progression criteria for
career ladders, noting that an agency relies heavily on GS-7/9/11/12
career ladders and that ambiguity on this point could be misread as
prohibiting agency-set progression intervals.
OPM confirms that eliminating TIG removes the governmentwide 52-
week restriction but does not require agencies to promote career-ladder
employees on any particular schedule. Career-ladder promotions remain
contingent on the employee meeting the qualification requirements for
the target grade, sustained acceptable performance, the existence of
higher-level work, supervisory determination of readiness, and the
availability of funding, consistent with the position's classification
and the agency's career-ladder structure as documented in the
position's promotion potential.
Agencies may continue to establish and apply internal career-ladder
progression intervals, including a specified minimum period in the
lower grade, provided that any such requirement is job-related and
consistently applied. This rule addresses the governmentwide TIG
eligibility restriction in 5 CFR part 300, subpart F; it does not
compel agencies to alter properly established career-ladder promotion
potential documented at the time of a position's announcement.
OPM addresses one consequence of the amendatory action that bears
directly on this question. The express statement that ``[a]n agency may
expand on these restrictions consistent with the intent of this subpart
or may adopt similar policies to control promotion rates of employees
not covered by this subpart'' appears at 5 CFR 300.606 and is removed
along with the remainder of subpart F. Its removal does not withdraw
the authority it described. An agency's authority to establish job-
related conditions on promotion--including a minimum period of service
in grade or in a career-ladder step--derives from 5 CFR 335.103(b)(1),
which requires each agency to establish written, merit-based promotion
procedures and leaves to the agency the definition of the job-related
criteria those procedures apply.
What changes is the character of such a requirement: it now would
be an agency requirement adopted through the agency's merit promotion
plan and subject to the same conditions as any other promotion
criterion--it must be job-related, established in advance, available in
writing to candidates, and applied consistently to similarly situated
employees--rather than an authorized expansion of a governmentwide
floor. Agencies that presently rely on Sec. 300.606 to support agency-
specific service requirements should confirm that those requirements
are documented in their merit promotion plans under Sec. 335.103(b)(1)
before the effective date of this rule.
Comments requesting transition guidance for existing training
agreements. Comment 0076 supported removing the requirement for OPM
approval of training agreements that provide for consecutive
accelerated promotions but observed that the proposed rule does not
address the disposition of agreements OPM has already approved. The
comment recommended grandfathering or providing conversion guidance to
avoid an administrative gap.
OPM agrees that this point warrants clarification. The provisions
this rule removes are 5 CFR 300.603(b)(6)--which excepted advancement
under a training agreement from the TIG restrictions, limited an
employee to no more than two promotions in any 52-week period on the
basis of one or more training agreements, and required OPM approval of
any agreement providing for consecutive promotions at rates exceeding
those permitted by Sec. 300.604--and the cross-reference to that
provision at 5 CFR 410.307(a)(3). Both provisions exist only to
interact with the TIG restrictions and have no independent operation
once subpart F is removed.
Accordingly, on and after the effective date of this rule: no OPM
approval of a training agreement is required; no OPM approval
previously granted needs to be renewed, converted, or rescinded, and
none will lapse by operation of this rule; and the limitation of two
promotions in a 52-week period on the basis of one or more training
agreements no longer applies. Existing agency training agreements
remain valid agency documents, which agencies may continue, modify, or
discontinue under their own authority.
The substantive authorities governing training that leads to
promotion are unaffected: 5 CFR 410.307(a)(2) continues to authorize
agencies to establish training programs that substitute intensive,
directly job-related training for all or part of the experience
required by OPM qualification standards, but not for education,
licensing, certification, or other specific credentials; and 5 CFR
410.307(b) continues to require that an agency follow its competitive
procedures under 5 CFR part 335 when selecting a non-temporary employee
for training that permits noncompetitive promotion upon successful
completion. Agencies should review existing training agreements against
those requirements and against their merit promotion plans and should
update any agreement provisions that recite the TIG restrictions, the
two-promotion limitation, or the OPM-approval requirement. OPM will
address this transition in the implementation guidance described in
Part IV.

H. Comments Regarding Interaction With Within-Grade Increases, Quality
Step Increases, and Other Pay-Setting Authorities

Comment 0004 argued that the proposed rule ignores Quality Step
Increases (QSIs) as an existing, widely used mechanism for accelerating
the career progression of top performers, and characterized the
proposed rule as adding bureaucracy while suppressing earned salary
progression. Comment 0054 discussed within-grade step increases and QSI
authority under 5 U.S.C. 5336 and 5 CFR part 531, subpart E. The
comment also expressed concern about an agency-specific authority for
advancement and performance and about how changes to performance-rating
distribution might interact with

[[Page 65898]]

the automatic pay progression in that authority if TIG is eliminated.
Comment 0068 raised a related question, asking how OPM's separate
proposal (now finalized) concerning the distribution of performance
ratings would allow supervisors to use performance to determine when an
employee is ready for promotion.
OPM clarifies that this rule addresses eligibility for promotion to
a higher grade; it does not amend within-grade increase requirements
under 5 U.S.C. 5335 and 5 CFR part 531, subpart D; Quality Step
Increase authority under 5 U.S.C. 5336 and 5 CFR part 531, subpart E;
or other agency-specific pay-recognition authorities. Those authorities
operate independently of TIG and are unaffected by this rulemaking. OPM
confirms, as Comment 0069 requested, that this rule does not alter the
waiting periods or acceptable-level-of-competence determinations that
govern within-grade increases. OPM appreciates the two comments (0004
and 0054) highlighting these provisions, but recommendations concerning
QSI policy, within-grade increase administration, or performance-rating
distribution are outside the scope of this rulemaking, which is limited
to the TIG eligibility restriction in 5 CFR part 300, subpart F, and
conforming amendments.
OPM addresses one point raised by two comments (0054 and 0068) that
bears on how this rule will operate in practice. Those comments ask how
supervisors are to use performance to determine readiness for promotion
if OPM implements a standard distribution of ratings. Three points
relevant to this rule should be noted. First, nothing in this rule
makes a rating of record either necessary or sufficient for promotion.
Section 335.103(b)(3) requires that due weight be given to performance
appraisals and incentive awards, but qualification for a higher-graded
position is established by the candidate's demonstrated experience,
education, and job-related competencies measured against the applicable
qualification standard--not by the rating alone.
Second, agencies may use evidence beyond the rating of record when
assessing readiness, including the evaluation methods described in Part
III.C. Nothing in this rule or in any separate OPM action requires an
agency to treat a rating of record as the sole or controlling measure
of an employee's readiness for higher-graded work.
Third, OPM expects that imposing a standardized distribution of the
highest performance ratings will ensure that agency performance
appraisal systems will more reliably distinguish and identify high
performers and help eliminate widespread ratings inflation across the
Federal Government. That expectation rests on the reasoning OPM set out
in the recently finalized appraisal rule. See Performance Appraisal for
General Schedule, Prevailing Rate, and Certain Other Employees, 91 FR
41521 (July 7, 2026) (RIN 3206-AP06) (effective August 6, 2026). That
rule removed the categorical prohibition, formerly codified at 5 CFR
430.208(c), on any method that would ``limit or require the use of
particular summary levels (i.e., establish a forced distribution of
summary levels),'' and replaces it with authority for OPM to
``establish, and refine as needed, a standardized distribution of some
or all rating levels which agencies must apply when rating employees.''
5 CFR 430.208(c). The companion provision confirms that the method for
deriving and assigning a summary level ``may involve comparing,
categorizing, and ranking employees or groups on the basis of their
performance,'' and that ``[s]uch procedures may also be used, where
otherwise authorized by law and regulation, to inform award
determinations and promotion decisions.'' 5 CFR 430.208(d).
OPM explained in that rulemaking why a standardized distribution is
expected to yield more rigorous and more accurate ratings. Ratings
under the prior framework were not meaningfully differentiated: the
Government Accountability Office found that 99 percent of permanent,
non-SES (Senior Executive Service) employees received ratings at or
above ``Fully Successful,'' and agency-submitted data for fiscal years
2022 through 2024 show that only approximately 0.3 percent of non-SES
employees under five-level programs received a Level 2 rating and
approximately 0.1 percent received an ``Unacceptable'' rating. 91 FR at
41521-22, 41528, 41530. Only 42 to 51 percent of Federal employees
report that their supervisors distinguish and recognize performance in
a meaningful way. Id. at 41522. OPM concluded that this pattern
reflects ``leniency bias whereby supervisors arbitrarily issue inflated
performance ratings to avoid confrontation,'' id. at 41524, and that
``the current degree of rating inflation has so egregiously undermined
the credibility and accountability of performance appraisal systems
that implementing a standardized distribution is the best
alternative,'' id. at 41525-26. OPM further explained that because
``any human judgment is by nature comparative,'' an appraisal method
that makes the comparison explicit ``will more accurately and
objectively measure individual performance than one that prohibits any
comparative judgments between employees and requires that any
measurement of employee performance be framed in absolute terms.'' Id.
at 41523. The distribution operates only after each employee has been
appraised against established, job-related performance standards; it
does not displace those standards; it is to be applied at the agency or
department level rather than at the work unit level; and OPM has stated
that it intends any standardized distribution to limit only the highest
rating levels rather than to prescribe limits at or below Level 3. Id.
at 41523-24, 41528, 41533; see 5 CFR 430.208(a)(1) (a rating of record
``must be based only on the evaluation of actual job performance for
the designated appraisal period'').
The consequence for promotion readiness, which is what the two
comments (0054 and 0068) ask about, is direct. By ``establishing a
limit on the number of non-SES employees who can receive a rating above
the fully successful level,'' the appraisal rule is expected to produce
``a clear distinction of the highest performers across an agency and
the Federal Government.'' 91 FR at 41536. That rule also confines the
term ``Outstanding'' to a Level 5 rating. 5 CFR 430.208(e)(2)(iv),
(e)(3). A rating of record will accordingly carry information about
relative performance that it did not carry when nearly all employees
were rated at or above ``Fully Successful,'' and a supervisor
recommending an employee for higher-graded work will be able to point
to a rating that reflects a considered judgment about how that
employee's performance compares to the performance of others.
The requirement in 5 CFR 335.103(b)(3) that due weight be given to
performance appraisals and incentive awards can do meaningful work only
where ratings in fact distinguish among levels of performance. The two
rules are therefore complementary rather than in tension: this rule
removes a calendar-based barrier that delayed consideration of
employees who are ready for higher-graded work, while the appraisal
rule improves the quality of the performance information that agencies
use, together with the qualification requirements and the evaluation
methods described in Part III.C, to identify which employees those are.
Neither rule, however, makes any particular rating of record a
prerequisite to promotion or entitles an employee who receives a high
rating to be promoted; promotion remains contingent on the existence of
higher-

[[Page 65899]]

graded work, proper classification, and selection under the agency's
merit promotion plan.

I. Comments Regarding Cost Estimates and Regulatory Analysis

Comment 0076 argued that OPM's proposed cost estimate--
approximately 250 hours and $39,075 per agency in the first year, or
approximately $3,126,000 governmentwide, to update merit promotion
plans--understates the cost to large, decentralized departments with
multiple components and bargaining units, citing its own decentralized
merit promotion programs administered across multiple subordinate
components with separate bargaining units as an example. Comment 0014
separately argued that OPM's cost analysis does not adequately address
possible long-term compensation costs from faster promotions, grade
compression, accelerated career-ladder movement, classification
disputes, or grievances, and recommended fuller fiscal analysis before
finalization.
OPM acknowledges that implementation costs will vary across
agencies, and that large, multi-component departments with numerous
subordinate organizations and bargaining units may experience higher
first-year implementation costs than OPM's governmentwide average
estimate reflects. OPM's cost estimate, consistent with the approach
used in the proposed rule, is intended to represent an average per-
agency cost across the Federal Government for the purpose of
governmentwide regulatory analysis; it is not intended to represent the
specific cost that any individual department will incur. OPM does not
believe this variation warrants revising the governmentwide estimate
methodology in this final rule. With respect to Comment 0014's concern
regarding long-term compensation costs, OPM notes that promotion under
this rule remains discretionary and contingent on the existence of
higher-level work, proper classification, and available agency funding;
this rule does not require agencies to promote any employee or to
accelerate compensation growth, and OPM does not expect the rule, by
itself, to produce a predictable or quantifiable increase in aggregate
Federal payroll costs. Agencies remain responsible for managing
promotion actions within their existing budgetary authority.
Comment 0069 raised a distinct objection to OPM's regulatory
analysis: that OPM's assumption that removing a bright-line eligibility
requirement will reduce administrative constraints is likely to prove
wrong in practice. Because TIG establishes an objective threshold below
which a promotion request need not be entertained, the comment argued,
its removal leaves no comparable limiting principle; human capital
offices would face substantially more promotion requests to evaluate,
more supporting documentation to review, and more requests for
reconsideration, grievances, equal employment opportunity complaints,
and prohibited personnel practice complaints when requests are denied.
The comment further argued that agencies faced with that volume may
adopt internal waiting periods that replicate TIG's function while
producing inconsistent practice across Government and recommended that
OPM evaluate the anticipated increase in promotion requests, human
resources workload, review requirements, training needs, and litigation
risk before finalizing. Comment 0076 raised a related concern about
increased supervisor documentation burden, and Comment 0036 raised a
related concern about human resources capacity.
OPM has considered these arguments but does not agree that they
warrant withdrawing or delaying the rule for three reasons.
First, the premise that TIG limits the volume of promotion requests
is only partly correct. TIG does not restrict what an employee may
request or what a supervisor may recommend; it restricts what an agency
may lawfully do. An agency that receives a request from an employee who
has not completed 52 weeks may decline it quickly today, and after this
rule takes effect an agency may decline it just as quickly on any other
applicable ground--that no higher-graded position exists, that the
position is not funded, that the employee does not meet the
qualification standard, or that the agency's merit promotion plan
requires competition for the vacancy. What changes is that the reason
given will be a job-related reason rather than a calendar computation.
Second, this rule removes recurring administrative work as well as
creating one-time implementation work. Under the prior regulations,
agencies were required to determine and document TIG eligibility for
covered internal promotion actions; to compute creditable service under
Sec. 300.605, including converting non-General Schedule service to an
equivalent General Schedule grade by comparing the candidate's rate of
basic pay to representative rates; and, where an exception was needed,
to obtain agency-head approval under Sec. 300.603(b)(7), OPM
authorization under Sec. 300.603(b)(8), or OPM approval of a training
agreement under Sec. 300.603(b)(6). Those determinations, and the
recordkeeping and internal appeals associated with them, are
eliminated. OPM's cost estimate in Part V.D captures the first-year
cost of revising merit promotion plans; it does not attempt to monetize
this offsetting reduction in recurring administrative work, which OPM
expects to be positive but cannot reliably quantify. The estimate is
therefore conservative in that respect.
Third, OPM does not regard the possibility that some agencies will
adopt their own job-related service requirements as an unintended
consequence to be avoided. As explained in Part III.G, that outcome is
permitted, and in some occupations it may be sound personnel
administration. The difference between an agency-established
requirement and the governmentwide restriction OPM is removing is
consequential: the agency requirement must be justified as job-related
for the positions to which it applies, must be published in the
agency's merit promotion plan and available in writing to candidates
under 5 CFR 335.103(b)(1), and may be revised by the agency when it no
longer serves the agency's needs. Variation across agencies that
reflects genuine differences in occupations and missions is a feature
of a merit promotion system administered by agencies subject to
governmentwide standards, not a defect in it.
OPM further observes that the substantial portions of the Federal
workforce that already operate without a time-in-grade restriction have
not produced the pattern of workload or litigation the comment
anticipates, and no comment identified data showing otherwise. OPM will
consider promotion-related workload and complaint activity in the
course of its ordinary oversight of agency personnel management
programs.

J. Comments Concerning Constitutional and Statutory Objections

Comment 0075 argued broadly that this rule violates the Pendleton
Act of 1883 and multiple provisions of the U.S. Constitution, including
the First, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth
Amendments, by replacing the merit-based competitive examining system
with a spoils system.
OPM disagrees. This rule is limited to removing 5 CFR part 300,
subpart F, and making conforming amendments to cross-references to TIG
in 5 CFR parts 315, 316, 352, and 410. It does not repeal or amend
competitive examining (which is governed by 5 U.S.C. chapter

[[Page 65900]]

33), does not eliminate OPM qualification standards, does not remove
agency merit promotion procedures under 5 CFR part 335, and does not
affect classification requirements, probationary period requirements,
personnel recordkeeping requirements, due process protections
applicable to adverse actions, equal employment opportunity
protections, the merit system principles in 5 U.S.C. 2301, or the
prohibited personnel practices in 5 U.S.C. 2302. Comment 0075 has not
identified a specific provision of this rule that would remove any of
the statutory or constitutional protections referenced, and OPM is not
aware of a basis for such a conclusion. OPM is not withdrawing the rule
on this basis.
OPM addresses the Pendleton Act argument more fully in Part III.A,
in response to Comment 0069, and accepts there that merit principles in
Federal employment long predate the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978.
OPM notes here the point specific to this rule: neither the Pendleton
Act nor 5 U.S.C. chapter 33 prescribes a minimum period of service in
grade as a condition of promotion. The TIG restriction is a regulatory
requirement that the Civil Service Commission elected to retain after
the underlying statutory restriction ceased to operate; removing it
does not repeal a statutory merit protection because no statute imposes
it.

K. Technical and Drafting Corrections

Comment 0076 identified technical inconsistencies between the
proposed rule's preamble narrative and its amendatory regulatory text.
OPM has reviewed these items, has separately reviewed the proposed rule
for related drafting issues, and is making the corrections in this
final rule, which include:
1. The proposed rule's preamble stated that the rulemaking would
amend Sec. 315.714(b)(4); however, the amendatory text proposed to
revise paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) of Sec. 315.714 and remove
paragraph (b)(4). This final rule removes paragraph (b)(4) and revises
paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3). The preamble narrative in this final rule
correctly reflects these changes.
2. The proposed rule's preamble referenced amending Sec.
316.909(a) and (c)(iii); the amendatory text proposed to revise
paragraphs (a) and (c) of Sec. 316.909 in their entirety, and the
proposed paragraph (c) did not contain a subparagraph (iii). The
preamble in this final rule reflects that paragraphs (a) and (c) are
revised in full.
3. The proposed rule's preamble referenced amending Sec.
316.910(d)(iv), while the proposed amendatory text revised paragraphs
(b) and (c) of Sec. 316.910 and removed paragraph (d) in its entirety.
The preamble in this final rule correctly describes the revisions.
4. The proposed rule's preamble described the TIG restriction as
requiring employees ``in grades 5 and above'' to serve 52 weeks in
grade before becoming eligible for promotion ``to the next grade
level.'' That description, which OPM has used in prior rulemakings, is
imprecise in two respects: the restriction operates by reference to the
grade of the position to be filled rather than the employee's current
grade, and it does not uniformly limit advancement to a single grade.
See 5 CFR 300.604(b)(1) (permitting advancement to GS-6 through GS-11
after 52 weeks in a position no more than two grades lower, where the
position to be filled is in a line of work properly classified at two-
grade intervals); Sec. 300.604(c) (no time restriction on advancement
to positions up to GS-5 where the position to be filled is no more than
two grades above the lowest grade held in the preceding 52 weeks under
the latest nontemporary competitive appointment). The narrative in this
final rule more accurately describes these provisions. This correction
is descriptive only; the effect of the rule is unchanged.
5. The authority citations in this final rule reflect updates from
other rules and other corrections, as well as amendments to conform to
the requirements of 1 CFR part 21, subpart B.
OPM appreciates the specificity of Comment 0076's feedback and
confirms that these are non-substantive corrections that do not change
the scope or effect of the rule as proposed.

L. Comments Outside the Scope of This Rulemaking

Comment 0004 raised concerns regarding Quality Step Increases,
addressed in Part III.H. Comment 0054 raised concerns regarding a
separate OPM rulemaking on performance-rating distribution and agency-
specific pay authorities, also addressed in Part III.H. Comment 0069
referenced Schedule Policy/Career, the Merit Hiring Plan, a separate
proposed rule on performance appraisal, a proposed rule on Reduction in
Force (RIF), and proposed rules on probationary and trial period
appeals and RIF appeals.
OPM appreciates these comments but notes that they concern separate
regulatory actions or authorities not addressed by this rulemaking,
which is limited to the TIG eligibility restriction in 5 CFR part 300,
subpart F, and conforming amendments. OPM is not making changes in this
final rule in response to those comments, but may consider those
comments, as applicable, in connection with the separate rulemakings or
policies to which they pertain.

IV. Implementation Considerations

This rule is effective 90 days after the date of publication in the
Federal Register. OPM recognizes that agencies will need to revise
merit promotion plans under 5 CFR 335.103, update internal policy
guidance, satisfy any applicable collective bargaining obligations
under 5 U.S.C. chapter 71 (see Part III.F), and train human resources
staff and supervisors. Consistent with the comments addressed in Part
III.B through III.D, OPM confirms that agencies may continue to apply
TIG-like or other job-related time-based progression criteria within
their own merit promotion plans and career-ladder structures during and
after this transition, provided such criteria are job-related,
established in advance, available in writing to candidates under 5 CFR
335.103(b)(1), and consistently applied.
OPM will issue implementation guidance to support agency
implementation of this rule. OPM anticipates that the guidance will
address, at a minimum: (1) the disposition of existing training
agreements and the removal of the OPM-approval requirement, as
described in Part III.G; (2) the documentation of agency-established,
job-related service or progression requirements in merit promotion
plans following the removal of Sec. 300.606, as described in Part
III.G; (3) model job-related promotion criteria and documentation
practices, consistent with the recommendations in four comments (0030,
0067, 0074, and 0076) and as described in Part III.C; and (4) the
application of this rule to career-ladder positions, as described in
Part III.G. This responds to the recommendations in four comments
(0067, 0069, 0074, and 0076) that OPM issue implementation guidance in
connection with this rule.

V. Regulatory Analysis

A. Statement of Need

The current TIG requirement originated in the Whitten Amendment,
section 1302 of the Supplemental Appropriation Act, 1951, Public Law
81-843, 64 Stat. 1044, 1066 (Sept. 27, 1950), enacted during the Korean
conflict to prevent a permanent, uncontrolled buildup of higher-graded
civil service positions. That statute expired on September 14, 1978.
The

[[Page 65901]]

Civil Service Commission, OPM's predecessor, elected to preserve the
TIG restriction in regulation notwithstanding the statute's expiration,
and the restriction has been carried forward in successive
recodifications, most recently at 56 FR 23002 (May 20, 1991). Nearly
five decades later, OPM has concluded, consistent with Executive Order
(E.O.) 14170 and OPM's Merit Hiring Plan, that governmentwide
qualification standards, agency merit promotion procedures under 5 CFR
part 335, classification requirements, and the merit system principles
and prohibited personnel practices codified in the Civil Service Reform
Act of 1978 provide a more direct and effective means of ensuring
merit-based promotion than a uniform, calendar-based waiting period.
The comment record, summarized in Part II, confirms that TIG
frequently operates to exclude employees who are otherwise qualified--
based on demonstrated performance (Comments 0011, 0015, 0027, 0053,
0060), prior military or private-sector experience (Comments 0003,
0006, 0016, 0026, 0041, 0043, 0052, 0058), or specialized experience
gained in a different occupational series (Comment 0056)--from
consideration for promotion for reasons unrelated to their readiness to
perform higher-graded work.
As Comment 0069 correctly observed, merit principles in Federal
employment did not originate with the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978.
Congress rejected the spoils system in the Pendleton Act of 1883, and
the Civil Service Commission administered merit-based examination,
promotion, and classification requirements well before 1950. OPM's
point is narrower. The specific framework on which this rule relies--
the governmentwide qualification standards published in the OPM
Operating Manual, Qualification Standards for General Schedule
Positions; the merit promotion requirements in 5 CFR part 335; the
merit system principles and prohibited personnel practices codified at
5 U.S.C. 2301 and 2302; and the institutions that administer them,
including the Office of Special Counsel, the Merit Systems Protection
Board, and the Federal-sector equal employment opportunity complaint
process--postdates enactment of the Whitten Amendment. It is the
availability of that framework, rather than the absence of any merit
principle in 1950, that supports OPM's conclusion that a uniform
calendar-based waiting period is no longer necessary or appropriate.

B. Impact

OPM expects this rule to result in a more efficient, skills-based
promotion process for General Schedule competitive service employees.
Employees whose demonstrated qualifications, performance, and
experience meet the requirements for a higher-graded position will be
eligible for consideration without an additional, non-merit waiting
period. Agencies will retain full authority to establish job-related
promotion criteria, career-ladder progression standards, and
documentation practices suited to their occupations and missions, as
discussed in Part III.C and III.G. This rule is also expected to reduce
administrative burden by eliminating the recurring determinations that
TIG required: computation of creditable service under former Sec.
300.605, including the conversion of non-General Schedule service to an
equivalent General Schedule grade by comparison of representative
rates; agency-head approval of exceptions to avoid hardship to an
agency or inequity to an employee under former Sec. 300.603(b)(7); OPM
authorization of additional exceptions under former Sec.
300.603(b)(8); and OPM approval of training agreements providing for
consecutive accelerated promotions under former Sec. 300.603(b)(6).

C. Regulatory Alternatives

OPM considered and rejected the following alternatives, each
addressed in greater detail in Part III:
No-action alternative. OPM considered retaining the current TIG
requirement without change. OPM rejected this alternative for the
reasons explained throughout Part III and Part V.A.
Grade-banded or graduated TIG schedules (Comments 0008, 0042). OPM
considered replacing the uniform 52-week requirement with a schedule of
waiting periods that varies by grade level, or with a framework
allowing a single accelerated promotion followed by a reduced but
still-applicable waiting period. OPM rejected these alternatives for
the reasons discussed in Part III.B.
Competency-based and high-performer waiver frameworks (Comments
0024, 0072). OPM considered retaining the 52-week requirement as a
governmentwide baseline while creating a formal waiver process
requiring the highest performance rating, an OPM-certified assessment
tool, and independent review board approval for early promotion, and
considered more generally adding a high-performer flexibility to an
otherwise retained TIG requirement. OPM rejected these alternatives for
the reasons discussed in Part III.B.
Two- or three-year eligibility for multi-grade advancement (Comment
0050). OPM considered a proposal to make employees eligible to compete
for positions up to two grades above their current grade after two or
three years of service in grade. OPM rejected this alternative for the
reasons discussed in Part III.B.
Occupation-limited elimination (Comment 0002). OPM considered
limiting elimination to technical, medical, and scientific occupations
while retaining TIG elsewhere. OPM rejected this alternative for the
reasons discussed in Part III.B.
Mandatory governmentwide documentation, certification, review-
board, and reporting requirements (Comments 0030, 0063, 0064, 0067,
0068, 0069, 0073, 0074, 0076). OPM considered requiring, as a condition
of eliminating TIG, that agencies adopt standardized written promotion
criteria, obtain higher-level or independent review of every promotion
occurring before 52 weeks would otherwise have elapsed, certify
compliance with merit system principles for each such promotion, and
publicly report aggregate data on the use of this flexibility. OPM
rejected mandating these requirements in the regulatory text for the
reasons discussed in Part III.C and III.D, including that requirements
governing how agencies conduct promotion actions belong in 5 CFR part
335 and were not proposed for amendment in this rulemaking.
Retaining TIG for VEOA-based competition only (Comment 0076). OPM
considered retaining the TIG restriction solely as applied to current
status employees competing for merit promotion positions for which
preference-eligible veterans are also eligible to compete under 5
U.S.C. 3304(f). OPM rejected this alternative because it would
reintroduce, for a subset of vacancies, the same calendar-based
eligibility restriction OPM has determined is not merit-based, and
because, as explained in Part III.E, status employees and VEOA-eligible
veterans competing for the same vacancy remain subject to the same
qualification standards and the same competitive procedures, so
removing an internal eligibility restriction does not disadvantage the
external candidate.
Delayed, phased, or conditional effective date (Comments 0008,
0013, 0030, 0072, 0076). OPM considered a longer or phased
implementation period, a fixed governmentwide

[[Page 65902]]

transition window of 90 to 180 days or more prescribed in the
regulatory text, a mandatory 24-month phased implementation, and an
effective date conditioned on OPM certification regarding the
adjudicatory capacity of other Federal agencies. OPM adopted an
effective date 90 days after publication and rejected the remaining
variants for the reasons discussed in Parts III.A, III.B, and III.F.

D. Costs

Consistent with the proposed rule, OPM estimates that agencies will
need an average of 250 hours in the first year following publication of
this final rule to review the rule and revise merit promotion plans,
policies, and training materials, at an assumed fully loaded labor cost
of $156.30 per hour (based on the 2026 GS-14, step 5, Washington-DC
locality rate, with total labor costs assumed at 200 percent of the
base wage rate). This results in an estimated first-year implementation
cost of approximately $39,075 per agency and approximately $3,126,000
governmentwide. OPM acknowledges, in response to Comment 0076, that
large multi-component departments with numerous bargaining units may
experience implementation costs above this governmentwide average but
does not believe this warrants revising the estimate used for
governmentwide regulatory analysis purposes. In response to Comment
0014, OPM notes that promotion actions taken under this rule remain
subject to existing agency budgetary authority and funding
availability, and this rule does not require agencies to promote any
employee or to accelerate compensation growth.
OPM's estimate reflects one-time implementation cost and does not
monetize the recurring administrative work this rule eliminates. As
described in Part III.I and Part V.B, agencies will no longer determine
and document TIG eligibility for covered internal promotion actions,
compute creditable service under former Sec. 300.605, or process
exception approvals under former Sec. 300.603(b)(6) through (b)(8).
OPM expects the net effect on recurring administrative burden to be a
reduction but does not have data permitting a reliable quantification
and therefore does not claim a monetized cost saving. The estimate is
conservative in that respect.
In response to Comment 0069, OPM acknowledges that it has not
quantified any change in promotion-request volume, human resources
workload, grievance activity, or litigation risk associated with this
rule. OPM does not possess data that would support a reliable estimate
of those quantities, and the portions of the Federal workforce already
operating without a time-in-grade restriction do not exhibit the
pattern the comment anticipates. OPM will consider promotion-related
workload and complaint activity in the course of its ordinary oversight
of agency personnel management programs.

E. Benefits

This rule benefits agencies by allowing them to consider and
promote qualified employees more quickly when higher-graded work,
funding, and a properly classified position are available, improving
agencies' ability to retain employees who might otherwise leave Federal
service for faster-advancing opportunities elsewhere, consistent with
the experience described in four comments (0009, 0040, 0045, and 0076).
It benefits employees by ensuring that demonstrated performance,
relevant experience, and qualifications--rather than the passage of a
fixed calendar period--determine eligibility for consideration. It
benefits the public by supporting a more efficient and merit-based
Federal workforce.

VI. Regulatory Compliance

1. Regulatory Review
OPM has examined the impact of this rule as required by E.O.s 12866
and 13563, which direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of
available regulatory alternatives and, if a 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 rules that have an annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a
sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal
governments or communities. This rulemaking does not reach that
threshold. It has nonetheless been designated a ``significant
regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, as supplemented
by E.O. 13563, and has been reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). This rule is considered an Executive Order 14192
deregulatory action.
2. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Director of the Office of Personnel Management certifies that
this regulation will not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities because it applies only to Federal agencies
and employees.
3. Federalism
This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government. Therefore, no Federalism Assessment is required.
4. Civil Justice Reform
This rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a)
and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988.
5. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 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.
6. Congressional Review Act
OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined
this rule does not meet the criteria for a ``major rule'' as defined in
5 U.S.C. 804(2). In addition, this is a rule relating to agency
management or personnel and does not come within the meaning of the
term ``rule'' as used in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(C). Therefore, the reporting
requirement of 5 U.S.C. 801 does not apply.
7. Paperwork Reduction Act
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required
to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure
to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), unless
that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control
Number. This final rule does not create a new collection of

[[Page 65903]]

information and does not revise an existing one. The existing OMB-
approved collection identified in the proposed rule, USAJOBS 3.0 (OMB
Control Number 3206-0219), is unaffected, and OPM does not anticipate
that implementation of this rule will increase the burden associated
with that control number. This rule removes the OPM approval process
for training agreements providing for consecutive accelerated
promotions under former 5 CFR 300.603(b)(6).

List of Subjects

5 CFR Part 300

Freedom of information, Government employees, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Selective Service System.

5 CFR Part 315

Government employees.

5 CFR Part 316

Employment, Government employees.

5 CFR Part 352

Administrative practice and procedure, Government employees.

5 CFR Part 410

Education, Government employees.

Signing Statement

The Director of OPM, Scott Kupor, reviewed and approved this
document and has authorized the undersigned to electronically sign and
submit this document to the Office of the Federal Register for
publication.

U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
Jerson Matias,
Federal Register Liaison.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Office of Personnel
Management amends 5 CFR parts 300, 315, 316, 352, and 410 as follows:

PART 300--EMPLOYMENT (GENERAL)

0
1. The authority citation for part 300 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552, 2301, 2302, 3301, and 3302; E.O.
10577, 19 FR 7521, 3 CFR 1954-1958 Comp., p. 218, unless otherwise
noted.
Subpart A also issued under 5 U.S.C. 7201, 7204, and 7701; E.O.
11478, 34 FR 12985, 3 CFR 1966-1970 Comp., p. 803; 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.
Subpart C also issued under 5 U.S.C. 3341 and E.O. 13562, 75 FR
82585, 3 CFR 2010 Comp., p. 291.
Subpart D also issued under 5 U.S.C. 1302(c).
Subpart E also issued under 5 U.S.C. 1103(a)(5).

Subpart F--[Removed and Reserved]

0
2. Remove and reserve subpart F, consisting of Sec. Sec. 300.601
through 300.606.

PART 315--CAREER AND CAREER-CONDITIONAL EMPLOYMENT

0
3. The authority citation for part 315 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 1302, 3301, and 3302; E.O. 10577, 19 FR
7521, 3 CFR, 1954-1958 Comp., p. 218; E.O. 14284, 90 FR 17729.
Secs. 315.601 and 315.609 also issued under 22 U.S.C. 3651 and
3652.
Secs. 315.602 and 315.604 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 1104.
Sec. 315.603 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 8151.
Sec. 315.605 also issued under 22 U.S.C. 2051, 42 U.S.C. 2991;
E.O. 12034, 43 FR 1917, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 111.
Sec. 315.606 also issued under E.O. 11219, 30 FR 6381, 3 CFR,
1964-1965 Comp., p. 303.
Sec. 315.607 also issued under 22 U.S.C. 2506.
Sec. 315.608 also issued under E.O. 12721, 55 FR 31349, 3 CFR,
1990 Comp., p. 293.
Sec. 315.610 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 3304(c).
Sec. 315.611 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 3304(f).
Sec. 315.612 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 3330d and E.O. 13473, 73
FR 56703, 3 CFR, 2009 Comp., p. 241.
Sec. 315.613 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 9602.
Sec. 315.614 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 3115.
Sec. 315.710 also issued under E.O. 12596, 52 FR 17537, 3 CFR,
1987 Comp., p. 264.
Subpart I also issued under 5 U.S.C. 3321; E.O. 12107, 44 FR
1055, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 264.
Sec. 315.714 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 3116.

Subpart G--Conversion to Career or Career-Conditional Employment
From Other Types of Employment

0
4. Amend Sec. 315.714 by revising paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) and
removing paragraph (b)(4). The revisions read as follows:

Sec. 315.714 Conversion based on service in a post-secondary student
appointment under part 316, subpart I, of this chapter.

* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) Have completed not less than 640 hours of current continuous
employment in an appointment under Sec. 316.902 of this chapter; and
(3) Meet the OPM qualification standards for the position to which
the student will be converted.
* * * * *

PART 316--TEMPORARY AND TERM EMPLOYMENT

0
5. The authority citation for part 316 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 3301, 3302, 3316. E.O. 10577, 19 FR 7521, 3
CFR, 1954-1958 Comp., p. 218; E.O. 14284, 90 FR 17729. 5 CFR 2.2(c).

Subpart I--Hiring Authority for Post-Secondary Students

0
6. Amend Sec. 316.909 by revising paragraphs (a) and (c) to read as
follows:

Sec. 316.909 Promotion.

(a) Students on term appointments. An agency may promote a student
who was appointed for an initial period expected to last more than 1
year but less than 4 years provided the student meets the qualification
requirements for the higher graded position, and the public
notification for the position filled by the student stated the
potential for promotion and specified a career ladder.
* * * * *
(c) Promotions at the time of conversion. Students (on temporary or
term appointments) may be eligible for non-competitive promotions upon
conversion if:
(1) The agency has established a career ladder or promotion
potential for the position; and
(2) The public notification for the position filled by the student
stated the potential for promotion and specified a career ladder.

0
7. Amend Sec. 316.910 by revising paragraphs (b) and (c) and removing
paragraph (d). The revisions read as follows:

Sec. 316.910 Conversion.

* * * * *
(b) Has completed not less than 640 hours of current continuous
employment in an appointment under Sec. 316.902; and
(c) Meets the OPM qualification standards for the position to which
the student will be converted.

PART 352--REEMPLOYMENT RIGHTS

Subpart C--Detail and Transfer of Federal Employees to
International Organizations

0
8. The authority citation for part 352, subpart C, is revised to read
as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 3584, E.O. 11552, 35 FR 13569, 3 CFR 1966-
1970 Comp., p. 954.
Section 352.313 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 7701, et seq.

0
9. Amend Sec. 352.311 by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:

[[Page 65904]]

Sec. 352.311 Reemployment.

* * * * *
(d) The period of separation caused by the employment of the
employee with the international organization and the period necessary
to effect reemployment are creditable service for all appropriate civil
service employment purposes (e.g., tenure, service computation date,
retirement). Employees, upon return, are also entitled to restoration
of any sick leave.
* * * * *

PART 410--TRAINING

0
10. The authority citation for part 410 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 1103(c), 2301, 2302, and 4101, et seq.; E.O.
11348, 32 FR 6335, 3 CFR, 1967 Comp., p. 275; E.O. 11478, 34 FR
12985, 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.

Subpart C--Establishing and Implementing Training Programs

0
11. Amend Sec. 410.307 by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) and
removing paragraph (a)(3). The revisions read as follows:

Sec. 410.307 Training for promotion or placement in other positions.

(a) * * *
(1) Agency authority to modify qualification requirements in
certain situations as provided in the OPM Operating Manual for
Qualification Standards for General Schedule Positions; and
(2) Agency authority to establish training programs that provide
intensive and directly job-related training to substitute for all or
part of the experience (but not education, licensing, certification, or
other specific credentials) required by OPM qualification standards.
Such training programs may be established to provide employees with the
opportunity to acquire the experience and knowledge, skills, and
abilities necessary to qualify for another position (including at a
higher grade) at an accelerated rate.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2026-21319 Filed 10-16-26; 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>

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on October 19, 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.