Personnel Management in Agencies: Strategic Human Capital Management

Issuing agencies

Abstract

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is issuing a final rule to modernize the framework governing personnel management and strategic human capital management in Federal agencies. This rule amends the regulatory framework for personnel management in Federal agencies to streamline human capital planning and reporting requirements, strengthen the authority of agency Chief Human Capital Officers (CHCOs), update employee survey requirements, and align the regulatory framework with Executive branch priorities for a high- performing Federal workforce. OPM carefully considered all public comments received on the proposed rule and has made targeted revisions in response.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 208 (Thursday, October 29, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 208 (Thursday, October 29, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 68013-68025]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-22093]



========================================================================
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. 208 / Thursday, October 29, 2026 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 68013]]



OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

5 CFR Part 250

[Docket ID: OPM-2026-0368]
RIN 3206-AO77


Personnel Management in Agencies: Strategic Human Capital 
Management

AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is issuing a final 
rule to modernize the framework governing personnel management and 
strategic human capital management in Federal agencies. This rule 
amends the regulatory framework for personnel management in Federal 
agencies to streamline human capital planning and reporting 
requirements, strengthen the authority of agency Chief Human Capital 
Officers (CHCOs), update employee survey requirements, and align the 
regulatory framework with Executive branch priorities for a high-
performing Federal workforce. OPM carefully considered all public 
comments received on the proposed rule and has made targeted revisions 
in response.

DATES: Effective November 30, 2026.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeanne Jacobson, Acting Deputy 
Associate Director, Center for Workforce Strategy, Design, and 
Insights, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW, Washington, 
DC 20415; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8bfce4f9e0ede4f9e8eecbe4fbe6a5ece4fd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5e29312c3538312c3d3b1e312e3370393128">[email&#160;protected]</span></a>; phone (202) 606-1800.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) of 1978 established the 
foundational framework for merit-based personnel management in the 
Federal Government. Pursuant to the CSRA and subsequent statutory 
authority, OPM is responsible for promulgating Governmentwide 
regulations governing Federal human capital management, including the 
systems and standards by which agencies plan, implement, and evaluate 
their human capital strategies.
    Part 250 of title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations establishes 
the regulatory framework for personnel management in Federal agencies. 
Subpart A sets standards for agency personnel actions and delegation 
agreements. Subpart B--Strategic Human Capital Management-defines the 
systems, standards, and metrics agencies must use to manage human 
capital, currently organized around the Human Capital Framework (HCF) 
and the Human Capital Operating Plan (HCOP), Human Capital Reviews 
(HCR), and HRStat quarterly reviews. Subpart C--Employee Surveys--
governs the administration and public disclosure of annual Federal 
employee surveys and establishes a core set of 16 required survey 
questions.
    On July 2, 2026, OPM published a proposed rule (91 FR 40435) to 
amend 5 CFR part 250 to modernize strategic human capital management 
across the Federal Government. The proposed rule proposed to: (1) 
consolidate and streamline human capital planning requirements by 
replacing the HCOP, HCR, and HRStat framework with Annual Staffing 
Plans (ASPs) and associated review processes; (2) strengthen CHCO 
authority and visibility; (3) require each agency to establish a 
Strategic Hiring Committee to oversee hiring within the agency; (4) 
revise the employee survey framework under subpart C, including changes 
to the Governmentwide core question set and survey administration; and 
(5) remove references to workforce diversity from the regulatory text.
    In response to public comments, OPM has made targeted revisions to 
the proposed rule. Key changes from the proposed rule include: (1) 
clarifying the terminology distinguishing strategic human capital 
planning from operational staffing planning and tying Annual Staffing 
Plan development to the budget formulation cycle under the annual 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-11, Preparation, 
Submission, and Execution of the Budget, Part 6 (OMB, Circular No. A-
11, Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget (Aug. 29, 
2025), <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/a11.pdf">https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/a11.pdf</a>); 
(2) adding an annual agency-head-certification requirement to ensure 
CHCO visibility, oversight, and control; and (3) permitting agencies to 
integrate Quarterly Staffing Plan Performance Reviews into existing 
performance review processes. Each of these changes is discussed in 
detail in the comment-response section below.
    In response to comments, OPM also clarifies several matters that do 
not change the regulatory text, including the effect of the removal of 
nonstatutory references to a ``diverse'' workforce and the scope of the 
Strategic Hiring Committee's role; those clarifications are addressed 
in the same section.

Digest of Public Comments

    In response to the proposed rule, OPM received nine comments during 
the 30-day public comment period ending August 3, 2026. These responses 
came from a range of sources: individual citizens; nonprofit and 
professional organizations; and a former Federal employee writing in a 
private capacity. All nine comments are substantive and have been 
considered in full. All comments were posted and made available to the 
public in the docket. A reference to a comment provides the location of 
the item in the public record (i.e., the four-digit number associated 
with the location in the docket) at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/comment/OPM-2026-0368-nnnn">https://www.regulations.gov/comment/OPM-2026-0368-nnnn</a>. The comments are summarized below, together 
with OPM's responses, including where OPM has adopted, partially 
adopted, or declined commenter suggestions, along with OPM's reasoning. 
The comments are organized by issue category.

General Comments

    Comment 0010 expressed general support for the proposed rule, 
noting it ``will strengthen accountability, improve hiring practices, 
and enhance morale and recruitment across the federal workforce.'' 
Comment 0010 offered additional recommendations to strengthen 
protections against political-to-career conversions (``burrowing in''), 
discussed further below.
    Comments 0002 and 0005 expressed broad opposition to the rule. 
Comment 0002 argued the rule lacks the required cost-benefit analysis 
and would negatively affect employee retention and hiring quality. 
Comment 0005 urged

[[Page 68014]]

OPM to abandon the rule, citing concerns about administrative burden, 
potential for politicization of the civil service, and anticipated harm 
to scientific, diversity, equity, and inclusion-related roles, to 
include harmful impacts to sexual and gender orientation focused roles.
    Comment 0002 argued that the proposed rule ``does not seem to be in 
compliance with various regulatory requirements'' because it lacks a 
cost-benefit analysis. OPM disagrees. The Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs designated this rulemaking a significant regulatory 
action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning 
and Review, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), and OPM has assessed its costs 
and benefits accordingly. A full regulatory impact analysis is required 
only for an action with an annual effect on the economy of $100 million 
or more, or one that otherwise materially and adversely affects the 
economy or a sector of it. This rule governs the internal planning, 
review, and survey processes agencies use to manage their own 
workforces; it does not regulate the public or the private sector, and 
its estimated Governmentwide implementation cost, set out in the Costs 
section of this preamble, falls well below that threshold.
    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess costs 
and benefits in proportion to the significance of the action, and OPM 
has done so: the Expected Impact section of this preamble states the 
need for the rule, quantifies first-year and ongoing implementation 
costs, describes the rule's anticipated benefits, and discusses 
regulatory alternatives, including retaining the existing framework. 
The comment's premise that no cost-benefit analysis exists is therefore 
mistaken. As to the comment's prediction that the rule will increase 
costs by harming employee retention and candidate quality, OPM 
addresses workforce recruitment, retention, and morale in a dedicated 
section of this preamble and concludes, for the reasons stated there, 
that the rule is more likely to strengthen than to weaken the 
Government's competitive position for talent.
    Comment 0005 further asserted that the rule would harm scientific 
positions and positions focused on sexual and gender orientation. OPM 
disagrees. This rule does not create, abolish, classify, or reclassify 
any position, and it directs no agency to eliminate any occupation or 
occupational category. Subparts A and B govern how agencies plan, 
document, and review their human capital management, and subpart C 
governs the annual employee survey. Decisions about which positions an 
agency establishes and fills remain the agency's, made under the 
authorities governing position management and staffing and subject to 
applicable law. The requirement that an Annual Staffing Plan direct 
hiring to an agency's highest-needed positions is a planning 
requirement; it does not prescribe which occupations an agency must 
treat as high-need.
    Nor does the removal of nonstatutory references to a ``diverse'' 
workforce, discussed below, alter any agency's obligations under the 
merit system principles at 5 U.S.C. 2301, the prohibited personnel 
practices at 5 U.S.C. 2302, or the equal employment opportunity 
requirements applicable to Federal employment under 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16. 
To the extent the comment addresses agency staffing decisions taken 
outside this rulemaking, those decisions are beyond the scope of this 
rule.
    OPM appreciates all comments received. As discussed throughout this 
preamble, OPM has carefully considered concerns about administrative 
burden and the integrity of the merit system and has made targeted 
revisions in response. OPM is committed to a nonpartisan, merit-based 
civil service and believes the final rule, as modified, reflects that 
commitment.

Workforce Planning Framework

    Comments 0006 and 0003 raised concerns about the proposed 
replacement of the Human Capital Operating Plan (HCOP) framework with 
Annual Staffing Plans. Comment 0006 expressed support for the rule's 
emphasis on forward-looking workforce planning but cautioned that 
designating the primary planning document as a ``staffing plan'' may 
create unintended confusion between two distinct activities: (1) 
strategic human capital planning, which accounts for alignment with 
administration priorities, budget, organizational performance, and 
long-term talent needs; and (2) operational staffing planning, which 
addresses specific FTE needs, skills needs, and near-term staffing 
challenges within bureaus and program offices.
    Comment 0006 recommended that the final rule delineate between 
these two types of planning and revise terminology to avoid conflation. 
Comment 0006 further recommended that agency staffing plans be led by 
the CHCO in coordination with the Chief Financial Officer (CFO), Chief 
Operating Officer (COO), and senior leadership to ensure that all 
offices have the people and skills needed to execute their missions.
    OPM agrees that clear terminology is important and that strategic 
human capital planning should be distinguished from operational 
staffing planning. In response to these comments, OPM has revised the 
final rule to clarify the relationship between the consolidated Annual 
Staffing Plan and the agency's broader strategic human capital 
management obligations, as reflected in the definition of Annual 
Staffing Plan at Sec.  250.202. The final rule makes clear that Annual 
Staffing Plans are the operational implementation mechanism for the 
agency's strategic human capital strategy and are not a substitute for 
aligning human capital to the agency's strategic plan, Annual 
Performance Plan, and administration priorities. OPM agrees that the 
CHCO should coordinate the Annual Staffing Plan with the CFO, COO, and 
senior leadership, and has added language to Sec.  250.205 to reflect 
this expectation.

Succession Planning

    Comment 0003 objected more broadly, arguing that replacing the HCOP 
with Annual Staffing Plans forces a short-term mentality onto Federal 
agencies designed for long-term national stability. Comment 0003 stated 
that managing human capital on a strict year-to-year basis makes it 
impossible to build and retain specialized talent pipelines and will 
trigger severe retention crises and skill gaps. Likewise, comment 0009 
expressed concern that consolidating the planning and review framework 
could dilute attention to leadership succession planning. The commenter 
stated that multi-year investment in developing a bench of qualified 
career executives is ``different in kind from annual hiring and 
staffing metrics, and it can be crowded out'' if not explicitly 
addressed in the rule. The commenter recommended that the final rule 
includes explicit multi-year succession planning language to ensure 
succession planning is not subordinated to short-term staffing metrics.
    OPM does not agree that the consolidated planning framework imposes 
an inappropriately short-term mentality on Federal agencies. Under the 
final rule, Sec.  250.205(b)(2) specifically includes language that 
says the Annual Staffing Plan ``must . . . enable succession planning'' 
and the Annual Staffing Plan must support the four Human Capital 
Framework systems, of which Talent Management is one of the four 
systems and encompasses succession management. The final rule's systems 
and standards under Sec.  250.203(b) (Talent Management)

[[Page 68015]]

obliges agencies to engage in designing and implementing strategies 
that will ``attract, acquire, develop, promote, and retain quality 
talent.'' Developing, promoting, and retaining talent are all 
implicitly long-term goals for any human capital management system.
    In addition, succession planning for leadership and management is 
also covered by 5 CFR part 412, subpart B. Further, Sec.  250.204(a)(4) 
and (5) specifically mention these are responsibilities for the 
agencies in addition to Sec.  250.204(a)(6) requiring a ``knowledge 
management process to ensure continuity in knowledge sharing.'' As 
noted in Executive Order 14356, Ensuring Continued Accountability in 
Federal Hiring, 90 FR 48387 (Oct. 20, 2025), the Annual Staffing Plan 
is intended as a dynamic implementation document that is reviewed and 
updated on an ongoing basis, not a rigid annual snapshot. The final 
rule also clarifies that the Annual Staffing Plan must be developed on 
a timeline consistent with the agency's strategic planning and budget 
formulation cycle under the OMB Circular A-11, Part 6, so that 
workforce planning, resource allocation, and performance planning 
decisions are coordinated rather than sequenced.

Administrative Burden of Quarterly Reviews

    Comments 0003, 0005, and 0002 raised concerns about the 
administrative burden created by the proposed Quarterly Staffing Plan 
Performance Reviews. Comment 0003 argued that forcing human resources 
staff into quarterly review cycles diverts resources from substantive 
recruiting and onboarding. Comment 0005 stated that, given recent 
reductions in Federal agency capacity, agencies do not have the 
capacity to absorb additional compliance requirements. Comment 0002 
argued the rule lacks a cost-benefit analysis demonstrating that the 
benefits of additional oversight requirements outweigh the costs.
    OPM acknowledges these concerns but does not agree that the final 
rule adds a review requirement. Agencies are already required to 
conduct quarterly human capital reviews. Current Sec.  250.207 requires 
HRStat quarterly data-driven reviews of human capital performance, led 
by the Chief Human Capital Officer in coordination with the agency 
Performance Improvement Officer. This rule does not create a new review 
cycle; it modifies the existing one, reorienting the quarterly review 
from HRStat reporting to implementation of the agency's Annual Staffing 
Plan.
    The Expected Impact section of this preamble addresses the cost-
benefit analysis. The quarterly cadence is a necessary component of 
effective human capital oversight and is consistent with the Government 
Performance and Results Act Modernization Act of 2010 performance 
review framework, which agencies already administer on a quarterly 
basis through their Performance Improvement Officers. By consolidating 
the Human Capital Operating Plan, Human Capital Review, and HRStat 
quarterly review into a single framework, the final rule reduces 
required reporting rather than adding to it.
    The existing HRStat process has been used to monitor, evaluate, and 
align agency strategic planning and evaluation systems as part of the 
Human Capital Framework. OPM intends for the Quarterly Staffing Plan 
Performance Reviews to build upon existing agency review processes 
rather than create duplicative burdens, and OPM will issue guidance to 
minimize compliance overhead. The agency Performance Improvement 
Officer supports the quarterly priority progress reviews that 31 U.S.C. 
1121(c) requires of the agency head and Chief Operating Officer, and 
current Sec.  250.207 already requires the Chief Human Capital Officer 
to conduct the quarterly human capital review in coordination with that 
same Performance Improvement Officer. The two processes therefore 
already share a participant and a quarterly cadence. The final rule 
accordingly makes clear that agencies may integrate the Staffing Plan 
Performance Review into their existing quarterly reviews where 
practicable, rather than convening a separate meeting.
    Comment 0009 supported that integration but recommended that OPM 
specify a minimum standing agenda allocation for workforce metrics so 
that workforce issues are not crowded out by competing agenda items. 
OPM acknowledges the concern and may address these matters in 
implementation guidance.

Workforce Recruitment, Retention, and Morale

    Comments 0002, 0003, and 0005 asserted that the rule will harm 
workforce recruitment, retention, and employee morale. Comment 0002 
argued that the changes would negatively affect employee retention and 
hiring efforts, resulting in higher costs and lower-quality candidates. 
Comment 0003 predicted that year-to-year staffing planning would 
trigger ``severe retention crises and skill gaps'' and warned that a 
workforce that feels silenced and ignored will suffer from low morale, 
driving talented civil servants out of public service. Comment 0006 
likewise emphasized that workload and morale measures should inform 
staffing plans, observing that persistent, widespread unreasonable 
workloads can lead to errors and mishaps, including in high-stakes 
environments such as emergency response.
    OPM has considered these comments carefully and does not agree that 
the rule will impair the Government's ability to recruit and retain a 
high-quality workforce; OPM expects the opposite effect. The final rule 
requires each agency to direct its hiring to its highest-need 
positions, to address skills gaps, and to enable succession planning 
(Sec.  250.205(b)(2)), and it synchronizes workforce planning with the 
budget formulation cycle so that agencies can commit to hiring 
decisions when resources are known rather than after opportunities have 
passed.
    Slow, diffuse, and poorly prioritized hiring--not disciplined 
planning--is what costs agencies top candidates: applicants who wait 
months for a certificate or a final offer frequently accept employment 
elsewhere. A staffing plan that concentrates hiring capacity on the 
positions agencies need most and is reviewed quarterly for progress 
should shorten that cycle and improve both the speed and the quality of 
Federal hiring. OPM's recently issued Guidance on Annual Staffing Plans 
implements this approach for the FY 2027 cycle, directing agencies to 
conduct bottom-up workforce planning that reserves billets and budget 
for mission-critical, technology, and early-career hires; to recruit 
through pooled hiring actions and shared certificates; and to assess 
every external hire using a validated technical or alternative 
assessment rather than a self-assessment questionnaire alone--measures 
aimed squarely at improving the speed and quality of Federal 
recruitment. OPM, Guidance on Annual Staffing Plans (July 30, 2026), 
<a href="https://www.opm.gov/chcoc/latest-memos/guidance-on-annual-staffing-plans.pdf">https://www.opm.gov/chcoc/latest-memos/guidance-on-annual-staffing-plans.pdf</a>.
    The commenters' contrary predictions that the rule will hurt 
recruitment rest largely on the premise that the rule adds 
administrative burden. But, as explained above, the rule consolidates 
three overlapping requirements into a single framework and permits 
integration with existing quarterly reviews.
    Nor does the rule diminish the Government's attention to morale. 
The final rule retains a Governmentwide requirement that every agency 
survey its

[[Page 68016]]

employees annually, and the prescribed items measure conditions closely 
tied to morale and engagement--whether employees feel empowered, 
whether coworkers cooperate, whether meaningful distinctions in 
performance are recognized, whether supervisors provide career-
development feedback, and whether employees can disclose suspected 
wrongdoing without fear of reprisal, a core measure of employee voice. 
Agencies remain free, and are encouraged, to field additional 
engagement, satisfaction, workload, and morale items tailored to their 
workforces (and to conduct additional ``pulse'' surveys throughout the 
year), and OPM's Employee Survey Playbook \1\ provides model content 
and methodological support. The rule does not silence employee 
feedback; it places responsibility for gathering and acting on that 
feedback with the agency leaders best positioned to respond to it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Employee Survey Playbook, U.S. Office of Personnel 
Management, <a href="https://www.opm.gov/chcoc/latest-memos/employee-survey-playbook.pdf">https://www.opm.gov/chcoc/latest-memos/employee-survey-playbook.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, OPM notes that Annual Staffing Plans must include metrics 
for evaluating current and future workforce and staffing needs (Sec.  
250.205(b)(1)), and that OPM and OMB will review implementation 
annually through the Annual Staffing Review. In response to comment 
0009's recommendation that OPM maintain a stable set of core human 
capital metrics that persists across administrations, OPM notes that 
its Guidance on Annual Staffing Plans specifies the core hiring and 
workforce measures agencies must address in preparing their FY 2027 
Annual Staffing Plans. OPM, Guidance on Annual Staffing Plans (July 30, 
2026), <a href="https://www.opm.gov/chcoc/latest-memos/guidance-on-annual-staffing-plans.pdf">https://www.opm.gov/chcoc/latest-memos/guidance-on-annual-staffing-plans.pdf</a>. That guidance directs agencies to identify mission-
critical occupations and skills gaps, together with plans for closing 
them, and to include in each plan a detailed hiring forecast 
projecting--by quarter and by mission area or component--total hires, 
external hires versus internal placements, mission-critical occupation 
hires, technology hires, and early-career hires, measured against 
standing Governmentwide targets. Agencies must report performance 
against each target in their quarterly updates and must justify, and 
set a corrective trajectory for, any projected variance; OPM and OMB 
will track progress through the Quarterly Staffing Plan Performance 
Review and Annual Staffing Review processes. This guidance illustrates 
how the planning cadence reflected in this rule can support multi-year 
workforce planning efforts based on core human capital metrics.

CHCO Visibility, Oversight, and Control

    Comment 0009 expressed strong support for the proposed requirement 
at Sec.  250.204(e) that agencies ensure their internal delegations, 
organizational structure, policies, and technological systems give the 
CHCO sufficient visibility, oversight, and control to carry out 
statutory functions under 5 U.S.C. 1401 and 1402. The commenter noted 
this has been a persistent, longstanding problem, as confirmed by 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) reporting. The commenter 
expressed concern, however, that the provision as drafted ``states an 
obligation without a mechanism for verifying compliance'' and 
recommended that the final rule direct OPM to require an annual, 
agency-head-certified attestation confirming that the CHCO has the 
required visibility, oversight, and control, with any gaps identified 
and a remediation timeline attached.
    Comment 0006 similarly recommended that the final rule require CHCO 
coordination with the CFO, COO, and senior leadership to ensure the 
CHCO has the organizational standing to perform the functions 
contemplated by the rule.
    Comment 0003 raised a concern in the opposite direction, arguing 
that giving the CHCO top-down singular control over all human capital 
functions risks creating an environment detached from individual 
component needs and stripping sub-agencies of the operational 
flexibility needed to address local staffing challenges.
    OPM agrees with Comment 0009 that the CHCO visibility requirement 
requires a compliance verification mechanism to be effective. OPM has 
added a requirement to Sec.  250.206 that, as part of each Annual 
Staffing Review, agencies submit an agency head certification 
confirming that the CHCO has the visibility, oversight, and control 
required under Sec.  250.204(e), and that any identified gaps are 
documented with a remediation timeline. This addition provides the 
accountability mechanism the commenter identified while preserving 
agency flexibility in how CHCO authority is structured internally.
    OPM does not agree that strengthening CHCO authority necessarily 
undermines sub-agency operational flexibility. The final rule preserves 
the agency's ability to delegate authorities consistent with the CHCO's 
oversight responsibilities and does not prohibit sub-agencies from 
maintaining operational human capital functions appropriate to their 
missions.

Political-to-Career Conversion Safeguards (``Burrowing In'')

    Comment 0010 expressed general support for the proposed rule and 
offered targeted recommendations to address political-to-career 
conversions. The commenter recommended that: (1) Sec.  250.203 be 
amended to require agency human capital management systems to include 
screening for political-to-career conversions, with OPM pre-approval 
required before such actions are finalized; (2) Sec.  250.204 be 
amended to require agencies to certify that no political influence 
occurred and that OPM requirements for political-to-career conversions 
were followed, including for reassignments and details; (3) Sec.  
250.205 be amended to require agencies to review hiring actions 
involving political appointees and assess whether details, transfers, 
and reassignments were consented to and properly justified; (4) Sec.  
250.206 be amended to require documentation of any attempts to support 
political-to-career conversions; and (5) a new Sec.  250.210 be added 
to require written employee consent for details over 60 days, 
justification for involuntary details, and CHCO approval for directed 
reassignments.
    OPM appreciates the comment's detailed recommendations and shares 
the concern that improper political-to-career conversions undermine 
merit system principles. The safeguards the commenter describes, 
however, are already in place and are administered by OPM outside this 
part.
    Agencies must obtain OPM's approval before appointing a current or 
recent political appointee to a permanent competitive service, non-
political excepted service, or career Senior Executive Service 
position, including time-limited appointments that would permit later 
noncompetitive conversion. For this purpose, a recent political 
appointee is an individual who held a covered political appointment 
within the preceding five years. OPM administers this pre-appointment 
review; agencies submit a pre-appointment checklist, and OPM examines 
the action for compliance with merit system principles and applicable 
civil service law before the appointment may be made. This review 
operates against the background requirements of 5 U.S.C. 2301 (merit 
system principles), 5 U.S.C. 2302 (prohibited personnel practices), 5 
U.S.C. 3317 and 3318 (certification and selection in the competitive 
service), Civil Service Rules 4.2 and 7.1 (5 CFR

[[Page 68017]]

4.2, 7.1), 5 CFR part 317 (career SES appointment procedures), and 
OPM's memorandum to Chief Human Capital Officers, Political Appointees 
and Career Civil Service Positions (Dec. 30, 2022), <a href="https://www.opm.gov/chcoc/transmittals/2022/Political%20Appointees%20and%20Career%20Civil%20Service%20Positions_508.pdf">https://www.opm.gov/chcoc/transmittals/2022/Political%20Appointees%20and%20Career%20Civil%20Service%20Positions_508.pdf</a>. OPM also conducts ongoing oversight of completed conversions under 
5 U.S.C. 1104 and 5 CFR 5.2.
    Recommendations (1) through (4) would restate these existing 
obligations within part 250's human capital planning and evaluation 
provisions. OPM declines to do so. The pre-appointment review is 
already mandatory and Governmentwide: no agency may appoint a current 
or recent political appointee to a covered career position without 
OPM's advance approval, and OPM examines each proposed action for 
evidence of political influence before it may proceed. Layering a 
duplicative planning-stage approval or certification on top of that 
review would add process without adding protection. OPM also notes that 
the Annual Staffing Review and Quarterly Staffing Plan Performance 
Review framework adopted in this final rule will give OPM and OMB 
regular, structured visibility into agency hiring patterns, 
complementing the conversion-specific review described above. Agencies 
remain fully bound by the pre-appointment review described above, and 
OPM will continue to enforce it.
    Recommendation (5) is outside the scope of this rulemaking. It 
would establish new requirements governing employee consent to details, 
justification for involuntary details, and approval of directed 
reassignments. The proposed rule did not propose to regulate details or 
reassignments; those matters are governed by 5 U.S.C. 3341 and 5 CFR 
parts 300 and 335, and the public was not on notice that this 
rulemaking might address them. OPM therefore does not adopt 
recommendation (5) in this final rule.

Strategic Hiring Committee and Merit System Principles

    Comments 0005 and 0007 raised legal and policy objections to the 
proposed Strategic Hiring Committee. The comments argued that 
centralizing career hiring decisions in political appointees under the 
proposed Strategic Hiring Committee violates 5 U.S.C. 2301(b)(2), 
2301(b)(8)(A), 2302(b)(1)(E), and 2302(b)(3), which prohibit 
consideration of political affiliation in competitive and excepted 
service hiring. The commenters further objected that undefined hiring 
criteria such as ``patriotism'' provide insufficient guardrails against 
partisan favoritism. Comment 0005 further characterized the Strategic 
Hiring Committee as political interference in career agency operations.
    Comment 0006 did not specifically address the Strategic Hiring 
Committee but emphasized broadly that modernization of strategic human 
capital management must reinforce, not erode, the merit system 
principles that have long guided the Federal civil service. Comment 
0009 supported the requirement that the CHCO serve on the Committee 
alongside the Deputy Secretary or equivalent and recommended that the 
final rule also require the Committee to solicit written input from the 
relevant career senior executive with programmatic responsibility 
before acting on a position within that executive's chain of command.
    OPM takes seriously its obligation to administer the merit system 
in compliance with applicable statutes and disagrees that the Strategic 
Hiring Committee is inconsistent with those obligations. The Committee 
is not a creation of this rule. Executive Order 14356 directs each 
agency to maintain a Strategic Hiring Committee through which agency 
leadership reviews and approves the creation of positions and hiring 
actions; this rule incorporates that requirement into part 250 so that 
it operates alongside, rather than apart from, the agency's other human 
capital planning obligations. The Committee's function is accordingly 
to oversee the agency's hiring program--to ensure that the agency's 
hiring is directed to its highest-need positions and is consistent with 
its mission needs and its Annual Staffing Plan.
    This rule confers no examining authority on the Committee. Rating, 
ranking, and certification of eligibles are governed by 5 U.S.C. 3317 
and 3318 and 5 CFR part 332 and are carried out under the agency's 
examining authority, and this rule makes no change to those authorities 
or to the requirement that an appointing official select from among the 
eligibles properly certified under them. That an individual official 
may separately take part in an assessment process under those existing 
authorities--for example, as a subject-matter expert--is a function of 
that official's role in the examining process, not of Committee 
membership, and this rule neither creates nor enlarges any such role. 
The commenters' central premise--that the rule centralizes career 
hiring decisions in a manner that displaces competitive examination--is 
therefore incorrect.
    That senior agency officials participate in and are accountable for 
the agency's hiring decisions is neither novel nor unlawful. Nothing in 
the merit system requires that appointment decisions be insulated from 
agency leadership. To the contrary, sustained involvement by senior 
leadership is a hallmark of effective human capital management. GAO has 
long reported that the personal commitment and accountability of an 
agency's top leaders is among the most consistent predictors of 
progress in strategic human capital management--and that its absence is 
a central reason the area has remained on the High-Risk List since 
2001. See GAO, A Model of Strategic Human Capital Management, GAO-02-
373SP (Mar. 15, 2002) (identifying the ``sustained commitment by agency 
leaders'' as the first cornerstone of strategic human capital 
management), <a href="https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-02-373sp">https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-02-373sp</a>; GAO, High-Risk 
Series: Substantial Efforts Needed to Achieve Greater Progress on High-
Risk Areas, GAO-19-157SP (Mar. 6, 2019) (leadership commitment is the 
first of the five criteria GAO uses to assess progress toward removal 
from the High-Risk List), <a href="https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-19-157sp">https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-19-157sp</a>; 
GAO-25-107743, <a href="https://files.gao.gov/reports/GAO-25-107743/index.html">https://files.gao.gov/reports/GAO-25-107743/index.html</a>.
    The Chief Human Capital Officers Act likewise places workforce 
strategy with a senior official answerable to agency leadership 
precisely because staffing decisions are inseparable from decisions 
about mission, budget, and organizational design. See 5 U.S.C. 1401 
(the head of each agency shall appoint or designate a Chief Human 
Capital Officer to ``advise and assist the head of the agency and other 
agency officials'' in workforce management). Executive Order 14356 and 
OPM's Guidance on Annual Staffing Plans carry that principle forward: 
workforce planning is built from the bottom up by the managers closest 
to the work and then validated by the Strategic Hiring Committee and 
the CHCO, so that the officials accountable for the agency's mission 
and resources are also accountable for the staffing decisions that 
determine whether the mission can be met. Hiring executed without 
leadership engagement produces the very pathologies commenters 
elsewhere decry--diffuse priorities, unfilled mission-critical 
positions, and hiring disconnected from budget reality.
    An applicant or employee who believes a Committee member has 
discriminated on the basis of political

[[Page 68018]]

affiliation, or who has granted a preference or advantage not 
authorized by law, may seek corrective action through the Office of 
Special Counsel under 5 U.S.C. 1214, and the Merit Systems Protection 
Board may discipline officials who commit prohibited personnel 
practices under 5 U.S.C. 1215. Civil Service Rule IV (5 CFR 4.2) 
independently prohibits inquiry into the political affiliation of 
applicants and eligibles and any discrimination on that basis.
    As to the concern regarding undefined criteria such as 
``patriotism,'' this rule prescribes no qualification, suitability, or 
selection criteria for individual hiring actions. Qualification 
requirements continue to be governed by 5 CFR part 300, subpart A, and 
the qualification standards OPM issues thereunder, and suitability and 
fitness determinations continue to be governed by 5 CFR part 731. This 
rule confers on the Strategic Hiring Committee no authority to 
establish or alter either.
    Comment 0007 also pointed to materials outside this rulemaking--
including OPM's Merit Hiring Plan, related guidance on application 
essay questions, and pending litigation concerning one such question--
as evidence that the Committee structure will facilitate politicized 
hiring. OPM affirms that no hiring criterion, however labeled, may be 
applied to prefer or exclude a candidate on the basis of political 
affiliation, and an official who does so commits a prohibited personnel 
practice under 5 U.S.C. 2302 regardless of the organizational setting--
a hiring committee or otherwise--in which the violation occurs. The 
Committee exists to ensure that hiring is directed to mission needs and 
that agency leadership is involved in and accountable for the agency's 
workforce planning. OPM disagrees that this structure will facilitate 
politicized hiring. If anything, a standing committee whose decisions 
are documented against a published Annual Staffing Plan and reviewed by 
OPM and OMB through the Annual Staffing Review makes improper influence 
easier to detect, not harder: structured, recorded decisions tied to 
pre-established mission criteria leave a trail, while diffuse and 
undocumented hiring processes offer far more cover for favoritism. This 
rule alters none of the prohibitions, or the remedies for their 
violation, discussed above.
    Finally, OPM does not agree that agencywide oversight of hiring is 
in tension with the merit system. Directing scarce hiring capacity to 
an agency's highest-need positions is a core management responsibility, 
and 5 U.S.C. 1401 and 1402 contemplate that the Chief Human Capital 
Officer will exercise that kind of oversight. The Committee's required 
composition--the Deputy Secretary or equivalent and the chief of staff 
to the agency head, together with the Chief Human Capital Officer--
follows from Executive Order 14356, which requires that the deputy 
agency head participate, and from the human capital leadership 
responsibilities the Chief Human Capital Officers Act assigns to the 
CHCO. OPM notes that it proposed to add the regulatory provisions 
related to the Strategic Hiring Committee to implement E.O. 14356, 
which states: ``The Strategic Hiring Committee shall include the deputy 
agency head and the chief of staff to the agency head, along with such 
other senior officials as the agency head may designate.'' The final 
regulatory text corrects the composition of the Strategic Hiring 
Committee to include the chief of staff to the agency head in 
accordance with E.O. 14356. OPM acknowledges that the proposed 
regulatory text did not list the chief of staff to the agency head as a 
required Committee member. This revision does not create a new 
substantive obligation; it conforms the regulation to the Committee 
composition that E.O. 14356 already requires and under which agencies 
are already operating. Because the change makes no operative legal 
change and simply allows the regulation to reflect existing 
requirements, OPM finds, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), that good 
cause exists to finalize this conforming revision without additional 
notice and opportunity for comment, which would be unnecessary. It 
pairs mission and resource accountability with the agency's senior 
human capital official. In any event, all applicable requirements under 
5 U.S.C. chapters 23 and 33 and other statutes and regulations still 
apply to all hiring practices and decisions.
    OPM has also considered comment 0009's recommendation that the 
Committee be required to solicit written input from the relevant career 
senior executive before acting on a position within that executive's 
program area. OPM agrees that program-level expertise is important to 
sound hiring decisions but declines to prescribe mandatory Committee 
procedures in regulatory text. The rule establishes the Committee's 
minimum composition and function; it does not limit the officials a 
Committee may consult, and nothing in the rule precludes a Committee 
from soliciting written input from career senior executives, program 
managers, or subject-matter experts. OPM expects Committees to draw on 
that expertise as a matter of course and will address recommended 
practices for Committee operations in implementation guidance.

Workforce Diversity and Merit System Principles

    Comments 0007 and 0005 opposed the proposed rule's removal of 
diversity references from the regulations. Comment 0007 argued that 
diversity policies are codified in statute--specifically, 5 U.S.C. 
2301(b)(1), which establishes as a merit system principle that the 
Federal workforce be drawn ``from all segments of society.'' The 
commenter further argued that affirmative action requirements in 5 
U.S.C. 3102 and 3112 and 29 U.S.C. 791(b) cannot be overridden by OPM 
rulemaking, and that OPM's rulemaking authority under 5 U.S.C. 
1103(a)(5)(A) and 1401(1), (2) expressly constrains OPM to act 
consistent with those statutory provisions.
    OPM does not accept the premise that the statutes the commenters 
cite establish ``diversity'' requirements of the kind reflected in the 
regulatory language being removed. The merit system principle at 5 
U.S.C. 2301(b)(1) provides that recruitment should be from qualified 
individuals from all segments of society, and that selection and 
advancement should be determined solely on the basis of relative 
ability, knowledge, and skills, after fair and open competition. That 
is a command to recruit broadly and to select on merit alone; it 
neither requires nor permits agencies to pursue demographic 
representation targets or to consider race, sex, or other protected 
characteristics in personnel decisions, and it therefore provides no 
statutory foundation for the regulatory references being removed. The 
provisions the commenters cite concerning individuals with disabilities 
and disabled veterans are specific statutory obligations that operate 
independently of part 250 and bind agencies by their own force; part 
250 need not restate them for them to apply. This rule makes no change 
to Sec.  250.204(a)(4), which continues to require that agencies 
recruit, hire, develop, and retain an effective workforce, especially 
in the agency's mission-critical occupations. Nothing in this rule 
alters agency obligations under 5 U.S.C. 3102 (readers, interpreters, 
and personal assistants for employees with disabilities), 5 U.S.C. 3112 
(noncompetitive appointment of disabled veterans), or 29 U.S.C. 791(b) 
(affirmative action for individuals with disabilities).
    As proposed, the final rule removes the references to a ``diverse'' 
workforce

[[Page 68019]]

in Sec.  250.203(b) and (c). As OPM explained in proposing that 
removal, the existing references to a ``diverse'' workforce may be read 
to suggest that agencies are required or permitted to take race or 
other protected characteristics into account in hiring, evaluation, and 
promotion decisions, and OPM proposed to remove that unnecessary and 
potentially misleading language. 91 FR 40435, 40438 (July 2, 2026).
    The removal is also consistent with Executive Order 14151, Ending 
Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing, 90 FR 
8339 (Jan. 29, 2025). Requirements that agencies comply with applicable 
equal employment opportunity and merit system principles, including 
nondiscrimination, remain in force under 5 U.S.C. 2301 and 42 U.S.C. 
2000e-16. The commenters' objections identify statutory requirements 
that this rule leaves fully intact; they do not identify a statute that 
compels the particular regulatory language being removed. OPM has 
considered those objections and is not persuaded to depart from the 
proposal. Other references to executive-driven diversity, equity, and 
inclusion (DEI) programs that are not compelled by statute are removed 
on the same basis.
    OPM is not eliminating any statutory obligation in this final rule. 
The final rule is consistent with a merit-based, nonpartisan civil 
service that draws from all segments of society as Congress has 
required.

Annual Employee Surveys

    The single most frequently raised theme across the comments 
concerns OPM's proposed changes to the annual employee survey, 
addressed in subpart C (Sec. Sec.  250.302 and 250.303), and the 
discontinuation of the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey. Six of the 
nine comments address this subject in some form (comments 0003, 0004, 
0006, 0007, 0008, 0009), reflecting its evident importance to 
stakeholders.
    The Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) is often conflated 
with the annual employee survey (AES) requirement set in section 1128 
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, Public 
Law 108-136, div. A, tit. XI (5 U.S.C. 7101 note), which requires each 
agency to conduct an annual survey covering two content areas. That 
statute directs OPM to prescribe survey questions by regulation, and 
this final rule modifies those prescribed questions. The FEVS was part 
of a larger effort by OPM to assess a variety of human capital topics, 
and OPM incentivized agencies to participate in the FEVS by including 
the required AES items. By participating in the FEVS, agencies would 
meet their required survey obligation.
    In 2026, after serious consideration, OPM decided to discontinue 
the Governmentwide administration of FEVS, as it was felt the survey 
had become a check-the-box activity and did not yield actionable 
insights sufficient to justify the cost and burden it imposed. (OPM 
paused the survey for 2025 to allow agencies to focus on other 
workforce priorities; see OPM, 2025 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey 
and Compliance with Recent Executive Orders (Feb. 28, 2025), <a href="https://www.opm.gov/chcoc/transmittals/2025/Memo%20on%20FEVS%20ReportsFINAL.pdf">https://www.opm.gov/chcoc/transmittals/2025/Memo%20on%20FEVS%20ReportsFINAL.pdf</a> 
(delaying the 2025 survey); OPM, Cancellation of 2025 OPM Federal 
Employee Viewpoint Survey (Aug. 15, 2025), <a href="https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USOPM/bulletins/3ede04d">https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USOPM/bulletins/3ede04d</a>).
    FEVS did not provide enough meaningful assessment as a general 
purpose, one-size-fits-all instrument, nor did it have enough 
actionable feedback or make a real impact for employees to be 
worthwhile. OPM's reasoning is set out more fully in its survey 
guidance and public statements. OPM, Annual Employee Survey 
Administration Requirements--2026 and Beyond (July 9, 2026), <a href="https://www.opm.gov/chcoc/latest-memos/annual-employee-survey-administration-requirements-2026-and-beyond.pdf">https://www.opm.gov/chcoc/latest-memos/annual-employee-survey-administration-requirements-2026-and-beyond.pdf</a>; OPM, Measure What Matters, Secrets of 
OPM (July 1, 2026), <a href="https://usopm.substack.com/p/measure-what-matters">https://usopm.substack.com/p/measure-what-matters</a>.
    As OPM has explained, it believes strongly in well-designed 
employee engagement surveys--surveys that help managers understand 
whether the organization is aligned around the right objectives, 
whether employees understand how their work contributes to those 
objectives, whether managers hold team members accountable, reward 
excellence, and develop top performers, and whether employees can 
report wrongdoing without fear of reprisal. But a single, centrally 
administered annual instrument is poorly suited to those ends: 
objectives and priorities shift during the year, a ``one and done'' 
survey becomes a checkbox exercise, and organizations as large and 
managerially distributed as Federal agencies are not served equally 
well by one Governmentwide ritual. Survey data are actionable only when 
collected at the right level of detail, reviewed by the managers 
closest to the work, and used to diagnose and correct real problems--
which requires agencies to own their surveys. The prescribed common 
questions preserve OPM's visibility into Governmentwide trends so that 
systemic challenges can still be identified centrally.

Core Survey Question Set

    Several organizational comments (0006, 0007, 0008, 0009), along 
with comment 0003, objected to reducing the number of items from 
sixteen questions to ten, and several--most pointedly comment 0007 and 
comment 0008--argued this violates the statutory mandate that the 
survey address specific topics, including work environment, rewards and 
recognition, and professional development.
    It is OPM's position that the statute underlying the annual 
employee survey requires OPM to prescribe common questions ``to allow 
comparison across agencies'' and requires that results be made public. 
It does not require that OPM itself administer every agency's survey 
instrument, dictate a single Governmentwide field period, or otherwise 
control agency-level survey logistics. The final rule preserves the 
statutorily required mechanism for comparability--a common core of 
required questions appearing on every agency's survey--while returning 
survey administration to the agencies that are closest to their own 
workforce populations and best positioned to tailor supplemental 
content to their missions. This is consistent with, not contrary to, 
the statutory design.
    For additional context, the items required in regulation have 
changed before; in December 2016 the regulation was modified to change 
the number from 45 to 16 items. This reduction in the number of 
required items allowed the larger FEVS to adapt and meet new needs. The 
survey, either the FEVS or the AES items, was never meant to be 
permanent, but allowed to change as the workforce and workplace needed. 
While OPM acknowledges there are benefits to being able to trend 
results over time, there are also benefits to refreshing the content to 
meet the current needs.
    Commenters contended that the proposed survey items do not meet the 
requirements of the statute regarding content areas that must be 
addressed (comments 0006, 0007) and that some of the items have some 
technical faults in their design like unclear wording or response 
choices (comments 0004, 0007, 0008). OPM respectfully disagrees.
    Section 1128(a) requires each agency to conduct an annual survey of 
its employees--expressly ``including survey questions unique to the 
agency and questions prescribed under subsection (b)''--to assess (1) 
leadership

[[Page 68020]]

and management practices that contribute to agency performance and (2) 
employee satisfaction with leadership policies and practices; the work 
environment; rewards and recognition for professional accomplishment 
and personal contributions to achieving organizational mission; 
opportunity for professional development and growth; and opportunity to 
contribute to achieving organizational mission.
    The content areas Congress enumerated therefore attach to the 
agency's survey as a whole, which the statute defines to include the 
agency's own questions, and not solely to the subset of items OPM 
prescribes by regulation. Subsection (b) directs OPM to prescribe 
questions that should appear on all agency surveys ``in order to allow 
a comparison across agencies.'' It does not direct OPM to prescribe a 
separate item for each content area, to prescribe any particular number 
of items, or to require that an item use the word ``satisfaction'' or a 
satisfaction response scale. Section 250.302(a)(1) preserves each 
agency's ability to include questions unique to the agency, and the 
prescribed items accordingly operate as a floor rather than a ceiling.
    The prescribed items nonetheless reach each of the statutory 
content areas. Leadership and management practices that contribute to 
agency performance are addressed by items (i), (v), (ix), and (x); 
leadership policies and practices by items (i), (iv), and (v); the work 
environment by items (ii) and (viii); rewards and recognition for 
professional accomplishment and personal contributions to achieving 
organizational mission by item (iii); opportunity for professional 
development and growth by item (iv); and opportunity to contribute to 
achieving organizational mission by items (vi) and (vii). Assessing 
these conditions through agreement-scaled items is an accepted 
measurement practice and is consistent with the approach used for the 
Annual Employee Survey items as administered through the FEVS. An 
employee's reported agreement that differences in performance are 
recognized in a meaningful way, or that a supervisor provides ongoing 
feedback to help the employee succeed and progress in a career, is a 
direct measure of that employee's assessment of the agency in the 
corresponding content area. OPM does not read the statute to require 
that a content area be assessed only by an item that recites the 
statutory phrasing.
    As to the technical concerns about item wording and response 
options, OPM has considered each of them and concludes that they 
reflect differences in professional judgment about survey design and 
item construction rather than defects that would prevent the items from 
assessing the statutory content areas. Agencies retain discretion to 
supplement the prescribed items where they determine that additional or 
differently constructed items would better serve their workforce, and 
OPM will continue to support agencies through guidance such as the 
Employee Survey Playbook (OPM, Employee Survey Playbook: A Guide for 
Federal Agencies (July 2026), <a href="https://www.opm.gov/chcoc/latest-memos/employee-survey-playbook.pdf">https://www.opm.gov/chcoc/latest-memos/employee-survey-playbook.pdf</a>) and OPM's annual survey administration 
requirements. OPM, Annual Employee Survey Administration Requirements--
2026 and Beyond (July 9, 2026), <a href="https://www.opm.gov/chcoc/latest-memos/annual-employee-survey-administration-requirements-2026-and-beyond.pdf">https://www.opm.gov/chcoc/latest-memos/annual-employee-survey-administration-requirements-2026-and-beyond.pdf</a>. 
OPM is making no changes to the proposed survey items in this final 
rule.

Survey Methodology, Timing, and Public Disclosure

    Some comments claim that a smaller survey or distributed survey 
effort would be detrimental, or would lack control and standardization 
(comments 0003, 0006, 0008). As mentioned, part of the reason the FEVS 
was discontinued was because its one-size-fits-all approach makes it 
difficult for agencies to assess their own needs without also doing 
their own survey in addition to participating in the FEVS.
    In fact, it was this need for customization that led three large 
agencies to discontinue participating in the FEVS altogether in years 
prior to 2025--National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the 
Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Securities and Exchange 
Commission all decided to do their own surveys as the FEVS could not 
meet their needs. While the FEVS did allow agencies to add their own 
agency-specific survey items, the number of those items was limited and 
had to be asked to the entirety of the agency, which may not be 
appropriate if only a portion of the agency needed to be addressed.
    By returning the responsibility of surveying their employees to the 
agency and decreasing the total number of survey items required, plus 
giving options for the methodologies that best suits them, agencies 
will be able to craft survey items and whole surveys that better serve 
their specific needs. Using these flexibilities, agencies can continue 
or even expand on content that the FEVS promoted, such as assessing 
employee engagement. OPM will continue to assist agencies by providing 
guidance and expert advice to meet their obligations, such as the 
Employee Survey Playbook which provides information and considerations 
for administering a proper survey.
    Comment 0008 objected that revised Sec.  250.303(a) removes the 
current regulation's enumerated categories of required public 
disclosure and permits each agency to determine the specific content of 
its public release, which the commenter argued could allow selective or 
incomplete reporting. OPM does not intend, and the final rule does not 
permit, disclosure that misrepresents survey results. The governing 
statute requires that the results of the annual survey be made 
available to the public, and Sec.  250.303(a) carries that command 
forward: each agency must make the results of its annual survey 
available to the public and post them on its website, subject only to 
the narrow national security exception stated in the rule.
    OPM will address the content of public releases--including 
publication of the survey instrument, response rates, and item-level 
results for the prescribed questions--in implementation guidance, and 
agencies must submit complete results to OPM and OMB under Sec.  
250.303(c), which preserves centralized oversight and enables OPM to 
publish Governmentwide comparisons. OPM has concluded that this 
combination of a statutory disclosure floor, annual administration 
requirements, and centralized reporting better accommodates variation 
in agency size and structure than a single enumerated list, and OPM 
therefore declines to retain the prior list in regulatory text.
    Comment 0008 also expressed concern that agency-by-agency 
administration could weaken respondent confidentiality and, with it, 
employee trust and candor, particularly at small components. OPM agrees 
that confidentiality is essential to reliable measurement. The Employee 
Survey Playbook addresses anonymity, confidentiality, minimum reporting 
thresholds, and data-handling practices, and OPM's annual 
administration requirements will continue to set confidentiality 
expectations for agency surveys. Agencies also remain bound by the 
Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, in collecting and maintaining 
survey records. OPM will monitor response rates across agencies and 
will revisit these safeguards in future administration requirements if 
participation data indicate an erosion of employee trust.

[[Page 68021]]

    Comments 0006 and 0009 recommended that OPM publish a bridge or 
crosswalk analysis relating the prior sixteen prescribed items to the 
ten items adopted in this final rule, so that agencies can maintain 
trend analysis across the transition, and comment 0009 further 
recommended adding a prescribed item measuring perceived pathways into 
senior executive positions. OPM agrees that measurement continuity has 
value and will publish a crosswalk discussing the relationship between 
retiring and incoming items as part of its implementation guidance. OPM 
declines to add an eleventh prescribed item in this final rule; an 
agency whose leadership pipeline warrants it may add such an item as an 
agency-specific question, and OPM will consider leadership-pipeline 
content in future updates to the prescribed set.
    Comment 0008 further objected that OPM guidance issued during this 
rulemaking directed agencies to implement elements of the proposed 
framework for the 2026 survey cycle before a final rule took effect. 
The annual survey obligation rests on each agency by force of section 
1128 regardless of who administers the instrument, and OPM's decision 
to discontinue centralized administration of the FEVS was a 
programmatic decision committed to OPM's discretion; it did not require 
rulemaking. OPM confirms that agencies remain bound by the survey 
regulations in effect at the time a survey is administered, and this 
final rule operates prospectively from its effective date.

Conforming Amendments

    As proposed, OPM is making conforming amendments to 5 CFR part 250 
as reflected in the regulatory text below. References to the Human 
Capital Operating Plan (HCOP), Human Capital Reviews (HCR), and HRStat 
quarterly reviews are replaced or consolidated consistent with this 
final rule. Cross-references within part 250 are updated accordingly. 
Additionally, OPM proposed the revised strategic human capital planning 
and reporting processes to implement Executive Order 14356, which 
applies to ``all executive departments and agencies.'' Although the 
proposed rule explained the purpose and scope of the proposed revisions 
in the preamble, OPM did not adjust 5 CFR 250.201, Coverage and 
purpose, and is now making a conforming edit to align Subpart B with 
the agencies to which E.O. 14356 applies. The final rule revises Sec.  
250.201 to apply to agencies covered by 5 U.S.C. 306(f), which is the 
same population of agencies already submitting Annual Staffing Plans to 
OPM and OMB under E.O. 14356. OPM acknowledges that this revision to 
Sec.  250.201 was not included in the proposed regulatory text. The 
revision does not make any operative legal change or impose a new 
substantive obligation. It simply allows the regulation to reflect the 
existing requirements of E.O. 143566 and the scope the proposed rule 
described. OPM therefore finds, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), that 
good cause exists to finalize this conforming revision without 
additional notice and opportunity for comment, which would be 
unnecessary.

Expected Impact of This Rulemaking

A. Statement of Need

    OPM issues this rule pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 1103(a)(5), 1103(c), 
1401, and 1402, and, as to subpart C, section 1128 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, Public Law 108-136, 
div. A, tit. XI (5 U.S.C. 7101 note). Three deficiencies warrant 
action. The Human Capital Operating Plan, Human Capital Reviews, and 
HRStat quarterly reviews overlap in content and are produced on 
schedules unsynchronized with the budget and performance cycles under 
OMB Circular A-11; GAO has designated strategic human capital 
management a high-risk area since 2001, and the area remains on GAO's 
High-Risk List as of 2025. GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-01-263 
(Jan. 2, 2001), <a href="https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-01-263">https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-01-263</a>; GAO, High-Risk 
Series: Heightened Attention Could Save Billions More and Improve 
Government Efficiency and Effectiveness, GAO-25-107743 (Feb. 2025). 
Chief Human Capital Officers frequently lack the authority that 5 
U.S.C. 1401 and 1402 presuppose, and the current regulations supply no 
means of verification. GAO, Human Capital: Strategies to Help Agencies 
Meet Their Missions in an Era of Highly Constrained Resources, GAO-14-
168, at 10-11 (May 7, 2014), <a href="https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-14-168">https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-14-168</a>. 
And the annual survey framework no longer serves its statutory purpose: 
the statute requires common questions permitting comparison across 
agencies, not a single Governmentwide instrument, and the Federal 
Employee Viewpoint Survey grew too long and too general to be useful 
before OPM discontinued it in 2026.
    OPM received nine comments, none identifying a basis for 
withdrawal, but several identifying respects in which the proposed rule 
addressed these deficiencies imprecisely. In response, the final rule 
defines the Annual Staffing Plan as the operational workforce plan for 
an agency's strategic human capital strategy rather than a substitute 
for it (Sec.  250.202), ties its development to the OMB Circular A-11, 
Part 6 cycle (Sec.  250.205(a)(1)), and permits integration of 
quarterly review into existing reviews under the Government Performance 
and Results Act Modernization Act of 2010 (Sec.  250.207). Because 
comment 0009 correctly observed that the proposed CHCO provision stated 
an obligation without a means of verifying compliance, OPM adopts in 
this final rule, in response to that comment, an agency-head 
certification identifying any gaps in CHCO authority with a remediation 
timeline (Sec.  250.206), as a means of verifying compliance with 
proposed Sec.  250.204(e), which was itself subject to notice and 
comment, and requires coordination with the Chief Financial Officer, 
Chief Operating Officer, and senior leadership (Sec.  250.205), while 
leaving agencies discretion over internal structure.
    Comments further warned that the proposed Strategic Hiring 
Committee and the proposed removal of diversity references could 
themselves conflict with merit system principles. The final rule 
confirms that the Committee's oversight of agency hiring is a 
governance and workforce-planning function, that the final rule confers 
no examining, rating, or certification authority on the Committee, and 
that its members remain subject to 5 U.S.C. 2301 and 2302 in connection 
with any personnel action they recommend or approve (Sec.  250.204(f)). 
The final rule also adopts, as proposed, the removal of nonstatutory 
references to a ``diverse'' workforce in Sec.  250.203 and confirms 
that the removal does not disturb the statutory obligations that 
remain, including the merit system principle at 5 U.S.C. 2301(b)(1). As 
to political-to-career conversions, OPM declines to restate in part 250 
obligations already imposed through OPM's existing pre-appointment 
review, and declines, as outside the scope of this rulemaking, the 
recommendation to prescribe Governmentwide consent and justification 
procedures for details and reassignments. OPM concludes that the 
deficiencies identified above warrant regulatory action and that the 
final rule addresses them while preserving merit system protections and 
agency flexibility.

B. Impact

    The final rule consolidates duplicative human capital planning and

[[Page 68022]]

review requirements, reducing compliance burden on agency HR staff. The 
consolidation of the HCOP, HCR, and HRStat quarterly review into the 
Annual Staffing Plan, Annual Staffing Review, and Quarterly Staffing 
Plan Performance Review framework is intended to free CHCO offices to 
focus on substantive workforce management rather than compliance 
paperwork, as the Senior Executives Association recommended.
    The strengthening of CHCO authority, including the new 
certification requirement, is expected to improve the visibility and 
effectiveness of agency human capital leadership--addressing a 
persistent gap documented by GAO.

C. Costs

    This final rule affects Federal agencies subject to 5 CFR part 250. 
The consolidation of planning and review requirements is expected to 
reduce, not increase, ongoing administrative costs relative to the 
current framework by eliminating duplicative HCOP, HCR, and HRStat 
reporting. Implementation costs are expected to be modest and largely 
one-time, consisting of the work required to review and update agency 
delegations, policies, and procedures to align with the new framework. 
This rule affects over 80 Federal agencies, ranging from cabinet-level 
departments to small independent agencies. For purposes of this 
analysis, OPM assumes that the work will be performed by employees at 
the GS-14, step 5 level under the 2026 Washington, DC, locality pay 
table ($163,104 annual locality rate; $78.15 hourly locality rate), and 
that the total dollar value of labor, including wages, benefits, and 
overhead, equals 200 percent of the wage rate, for an assumed labor 
cost of $156.30 per hour. OPM estimates that, in the first year 
following publication of this final rule, implementation will require 
an average of 100 hours per agency, resulting in estimated first-year 
costs of approximately $15,630 per agency and approximately $1,250,400 
Governmentwide.
    Comment 0009 stated that this estimate likely understates the 
resources agencies will need, particularly because agencies are 
implementing this rule during the same period as the Strategic Hiring 
Committee and Annual Staffing Plan requirements of Executive Order 
14356 and the Merit Hiring Plan, and recommended a phased 
implementation with a transition year and dedicated training resources. 
OPM has considered that comment and retains its estimate as a 
reasonable central estimate while acknowledging uncertainty in both 
directions. Even if first-year implementation burden were triple OPM's 
estimate--300 hours per agency--first-year costs of approximately 
$46,890 per agency and $3.8 million Governmentwide would remain modest 
and far below the threshold for a regulatory impact analysis.
    OPM has also estimated ongoing costs. Preparing the Annual Staffing 
Plan, participating in the Annual Staffing Review, and conducting 
Quarterly Staffing Plan Performance Reviews are estimated to require 
approximately 120 hours per agency per year, or approximately $18,756 
per agency and $1,500,480 Governmentwide under the same labor-cost 
assumptions. Those activities replace, rather than supplement, the 
Human Capital Operating Plan, Human Capital Review, and HRStat 
processes they consolidate, which OPM estimates required at least as 
many staff hours annually; the net ongoing effect is accordingly 
expected to be a modest reduction in administrative cost. Agencies will 
also assume responsibility for administering their own annual employee 
surveys. Those costs will vary with the administration approach each 
agency selects, are mitigated by OPM-provided guidance, templates, and 
the Employee Survey Playbook, and are offset by the discontinuation of 
agency-side coordination of the Governmentwide FEVS and of the 
centralized administration costs OPM previously incurred.
    OPM does not anticipate that the final rule will impose significant 
new costs on agencies. The primary regulatory burden--Quarterly 
Staffing Plan Performance Reviews--builds on existing quarterly 
performance review obligations under the GPRA Modernization Act and is 
expected to reduce duplicative reporting.

D. Benefits

    The final rule is expected to improve the efficiency and 
effectiveness of Federal human capital management by: (1) consolidating 
and streamlining planning and review requirements and synchronizing 
them with OMB Circular A-11 budget and performance planning timelines, 
freeing CHCO offices for substantive workforce management and 
eliminating duplication across planning, budgeting, and performance 
management activities; (2) strengthening CHCO institutional authority 
and accountability with a verifiable compliance mechanism; (3) better 
positioning agencies through a decentralized survey process to design 
and administer surveys because they understand their own missions, 
structures, workforces, and management challenges, while a common set 
of required questions preserves the ability to track Governmentwide 
trends; and (4) aligning Federal human capital planning with Executive 
branch priorities while preserving the statutory obligations and merit 
system protections that govern Federal hiring.
    These benefits are difficult to quantify with precision, but their 
potential scale is large relative to the rule's costs: Federal civilian 
personnel costs exceed $300 billion annually, so even fractional 
improvements in time-to-hire, hiring quality, or retention of high 
performers in mission-critical occupations would yield benefits many 
times the implementation costs estimated above. The rule's expected 
recruitment and morale effects, and OPM's response to comments 
predicting harm in those areas, are discussed in the Workforce 
Recruitment, Retention, and Morale section of this preamble.

E. Regulatory Alternatives

    An alternative to this rulemaking is to retain the current HCOP, 
HCR, and HRStat framework without consolidation. OPM considered this 
alternative but determined that the existing framework creates 
duplicative reporting that diverts CHCO office resources from 
substantive work. Retaining the current framework would also leave 
workforce planning unsynchronized with the strategic planning and 
budget formulation cycle under OMB Circular A-11 and with the Annual 
Staffing Plan process established by Executive Order 14356, forcing 
agencies to maintain two parallel planning vocabularies and 
documentation streams for the same activity. Nor has the status quo 
produced results: strategic human capital management has remained on 
GAO's High-Risk List for a quarter century under the existing 
regulatory architecture. OPM also considered a narrower variation--
retaining the Human Capital Operating Plan while adjusting its timing 
and content requirements--and rejected it for the same reasons: 
incremental adjustment would preserve the duplication that is the 
central defect of the current framework.
    Another alternative is to continue a centralized survey 
administration. OPM considered this alternative but determined that a 
decentralized administration positions agencies better by giving them 
the flexibility and customizability of administering their own surveys 
while incorporating the items OPM issues in regulation to ensure 
comparability across agencies. In

[[Page 68023]]

evaluating this alternative, OPM also considered the variant urged by 
several commenters: retaining centralized administration while 
shortening the instrument and expanding agency-specific supplements. 
That approach would preserve the cost of central administration and a 
single Governmentwide field period while still denying agencies control 
over timing, methodology, and level of reporting detail--the 
limitations that led the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 
the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Securities and Exchange 
Commission to leave the FEVS even before 2025. The final rule instead 
secures comparability through the common prescribed items and the 
centralized submission of complete results to OPM and OMB under Sec.  
250.303(c), while leaving administration with the agencies where the 
results must be acted upon.
    Finally, OPM considered delaying the effective date or phasing the 
new framework in over multiple years, as comment 0009 recommended. 
However, OPM determined that a delayed effective date would postpone 
the benefits of consolidation without materially reducing transition 
costs, because agencies are already required to prepare Annual Staffing 
Plans under Executive Order 14356 regardless of when this rule takes 
effect.

F. Severability

    If any provision of this rule is held to be invalid or 
unenforceable by its terms, or as applied to any person or 
circumstance, it shall be severable from its respective section or 
sections and shall not affect the remainder thereof or the application 
of the provision to other persons not similarly situated or to other 
dissimilar circumstances.

Regulatory Compliance

A. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Director of OPM certifies that this rulemaking will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
because it applies only to Federal agencies and employees.

B. Regulatory Review

    OPM has examined the impact of this rule as required by Executive 
Orders 12866 and 13563, which direct agencies to assess all costs and 
benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is 
necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits 
(including potential economic, environmental, public, health, and 
safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). A regulatory impact 
analysis must be prepared for rules with effects of $100 million or 
more in any one year. This rulemaking does not reach that threshold but 
has otherwise been designated as a ``significant regulatory action'' 
under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. This rule is not 
considered an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action because it 
imposes no more than de minimis costs.

C. Federalism

    This regulation 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, in accordance with Executive 
Order 13132, OPM has determined that this rulemaking does not have 
sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a 
federalism summary impact statement.

D. Civil Justice Reform

    This regulation meets the applicable standards set forth in section 
3(a) and (b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 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, of $100 million 
in 1995 dollars in any one year, updated annually for inflation. That 
threshold is currently approximately $206 million. This rule applies 
only to Federal agencies and employees and therefore does not impose 
spending costs on State, local, or Tribal governments or the private 
sector.

F. Congressional Review Act

    The Office of Management and Budget's Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs has determined this rule does not meet the criteria 
listed 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.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule contains a collection of information subject to the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35. Section 
250.302(a)(2) prescribes 10 Governmentwide questions for annual 
employee surveys, and Sec.  250.303(c) requires agencies to submit 
survey results to OPM and OMB. Under 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(3), a collection 
of information includes questions posed to employees of the United 
States where the results are to be used for general statistical 
purposes. OPM published a 60-day Paperwork Reduction Act notice (91 FR 
40599, July 2, 2026) requesting comment on a new common form agencies 
may use for this collection titled Annual Employee Survey. OPM 
subsequently published a 30-day notice (91 FR 58921, September 17, 
2026) concurrent with OMB review. OMB reviewed and approved the 
information collection and has assigned OMB control number 3206-0284. 
Additional information regarding this collection of information--
including all background materials--can be found at: <a href="https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain">https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain</a> by using the search function to enter 
the title of the collection or the OMB control number. The 
certification requirement added to Sec.  250.206 is an internal agency 
management function and does not constitute information collection 
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.

List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 250

    Authority delegations (Government agencies), 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.

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

    Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preamble, OPM amends 5 
CFR part 250 as follows:

PART 250--PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT IN AGENCIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 250 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  5 U.S.C. 105, 1101 note, 1103(a)(5), 1103(c), 1104, 
1302, 3301, 3302; 7101 note (sec. 1128, Pub. L. 108-136). E.O. 
10577, 12 FR 1259, 3 CFR, 1954-1958 Comp., p. 218; E.O. 13197, 66 FR 
7853, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 748; E.O. 14356, 90 FR 48387. Subpart B 
also issued under 5 U.S.C. 1103(a)(7); 5 U.S.C. 1401 and 1401 note 
(Pub. L. 107-296); 5 U.S.C. 1402; 5 U.S.C. 5105 note (Pub. L. 111-
352); 31 U.S.C. 901(b)(1); 31 U.S.C. 1115(a)(3), (f), and note (Pub. 
L. 103-62); 31 U.S.C. 1116(c)(5); 5 CFR 10.2.

[[Page 68024]]

Subpart A--Authority for Personnel Actions in Agencies

0
2. Revise Sec.  250.102 to read as follows:


Sec.  250.102  Delegated authorities.

    (a) OPM may delegate its authority, including authority for 
competitive examinations, to agencies, under 5 U.S.C. 1104(a)(2), 
through a delegation agreement. The delegation agreement developed with 
the agency must specify the conditions for applying the delegated 
authorities. The agreement must also set minimum standards of 
performance and describe the system of oversight by which the agency 
and OPM will monitor the use of each delegated authority.
    (b) At the request of an agency to whom a function has been 
delegated under paragraph (a) of this section, OPM may provide 
assistance to the agency performing such function.
    (c) To the extent determined appropriate by OPM, an agency must 
reimburse OPM through payments to the revolving fund established under 
5 U.S.C. 1304(e) for work performed by OPM pursuant to paragraph (b) of 
this section.

Subpart B--[Amended]

0
3. Amend subpart B by removing the authority citation.


0
4. Revise Sec.  250.201 to read as follows:


Sec.  250.201   Coverage and purpose.

    Pursuant to 5 U.S.C 1103(c), this subpart defines a set of systems, 
including standards and metrics, for assessing the management of human 
capital by Federal agencies. These regulations apply to agencies 
covered by 5 U.S.C. 306(f) and support the performance planning and 
reporting that is required by 31 U.S.C. 1115(a)(3) and (f) and 
1116(d)(5).


0
5. Amend Sec.  250.202 by:
0
a. Adding in alphabetical order definitions for ``Annual Staffing 
Plan'' and ``Annual Staffing Review'';
0
b. Removing the definitions of ``HRStat'', ``Human Capital Evaluation 
Framework'', ``Human Capital Operating Plan (HCOP)'', and ``Human 
Capital Review (HCR)''; and
0
c. Adding in alphabetical order definitions for ``President's 
Management Agenda'' and ``Quarterly Staffing Plan Performance Review''.
    The additions read as follows:


Sec.  250.202   Definitions.

    Annual Staffing Plan (ASP) means an agency's operational workforce 
planning document which includes metrics for evaluating current and 
future workforce staffing needs, the effectiveness of staffing actions, 
and specific plans and goals for improvements across each of the four 
Human Capital Framework systems and standards, in alignment with the 
Agency Strategic Plan, Annual Performance Plan, budget formulation 
process, and the President's Management Agenda.
    Annual Staffing Review (ASR) means the annual evaluation of an 
agency's implementation and effectiveness of its Annual Staffing Plan 
conducted by OPM and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
* * * * *
    President's Management Agenda means the Governmentwide management 
priorities and initiatives issued by OMB that establish strategic 
direction for improving Federal management functions, including human 
capital management, across executive branch agencies.
    Quarterly Staffing Plan Performance Review means a review conducted 
pursuant to Sec.  250.207.
* * * * *


Sec.  250.203   [Amended]

0
6. Amend Sec.  250.203 by:
0
a. In paragraph (b), removing the words ``and diverse''; and
0
b. In paragraph (c), removing ``diverse,'' in both places it appears.

0
7. Amend Sec.  250.204 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (a)(1), remove the words ``Federal Workforce Priorities 
Report'' and add in their place ``President's Management Agenda'';
0
b. In paragraph (c)(2), remove the words ``Federal Workforce Strategic 
Priorities Report'' and add in their place ``President's Management 
Agenda'';
0
c. In paragraph (c)(3), remove the words ``HRStat reviews'' and add in 
their place ``Quarterly Staffing Plan Performance Reviews'';
0
d. In paragraph (d)(7):
0
i. Remove the words ``Federal Workforce Priorities Report, which is 
published by OPM every four years'' and add in their place 
``President's Management Agenda and Agency Strategic Plan''; and
0
ii. Remove the words ``HRStat quarterly data-driven reviews of human 
capital performance'' and add in their place ``Quarterly Staffing Plan 
Performance Reviews''.
0
e. Adding paragraphs (e) and (f).
    The additions read as follows:


Sec.  250.204  Agency roles and responsibilities.

* * * * *
    (e) Each agency must ensure that its internal delegations, 
organizational structure, internal policies, and technological systems 
enable the agency's Chief Human Capital Officer to have sufficient 
visibility, oversight and control so as to allow the Chief Human 
Capital Officer to:
    (1) Fulfill his or her responsibilities under 5 U.S.C. 1401 and 
1402(a); and
    (2) Efficiently access the information described in 5 U.S.C. 
1402(b).
    (f) Each agency must establish and maintain a Strategic Hiring 
Committee to oversee hiring within the agency. The Strategic Hiring 
Committee must ensure that agency hiring is consistent with the 
agency's mission needs and the agency's Annual Staffing Plan. The 
Strategic Hiring Committee must include the agency's Deputy Secretary, 
or equivalent, the chief of staff to the agency head, and the agency's 
Chief Human Capital Officer.

0
8. Revise Sec.  250.205 to read as follows:


Sec.  250.205  Annual Staffing Plans and quarterly updates.

    (a) Each agency must develop an Annual Staffing Plan that aligns 
with the Agency Strategic Plan, Annual Performance Plan, Agency Budget, 
President's Management Agenda, and the HCF. The plan must identify 
workforce priorities, hiring goals, and staffing strategies necessary 
to support mission accomplishment.
    (1) The Annual Staffing Plan must be developed on a timeline 
consistent with the agency's strategic planning and budget formulation 
cycle under the Office of Management and Budget Circular A-11, Part 6.
    (2) The Chief Human Capital Officer must coordinate the Annual 
Staffing Plan with their agency's Chief Financial Officer, Chief 
Operating Officer, and senior leadership.
    (b) Each agency's Annual Staffing Plan must:
    (1) Include metrics, frameworks, and criteria for evaluating the 
agency's current and future workforce and staffing needs;
    (2) Target the agency's hiring to address skills gaps, enhance 
service delivery, enable succession planning, and ensure that new 
appointments in the upcoming year are in the highest-need areas; and
    (3) Include specific plans and goals for improvements regarding the 
four HCF systems and standards, including measurable performance 
targets.
    (c) Each agency's Annual Staffing Plan also must consider potential 
efficiencies that may be derived from organizational restructuring; 
elimination of unnecessary management layers; elimination of 
duplicative or nonessential functions and positions;

[[Page 68025]]

consolidation of administrative functions; reduction of unnecessary or 
low-value contractor positions; performance management of employees; 
internal reassignments; redistribution of workload across positions 
with similar duties and skill sets; process improvement; and adoption 
of technology.
    (d) Each agency must prepare an Annual Staffing Plan at the start 
of the fiscal year in coordination with OPM and OMB. Each agency may, 
in coordination with OPM and OMB, update its Annual Staffing Plan 
during the course of the fiscal year based on enactment of relevant 
appropriations or authorizing legislation or otherwise amend their 
plans.
    (e) Each agency must submit updates to OPM and OMB at the beginning 
of each quarter, showing progress in implementing their Annual Staffing 
Plan, and explaining any significant variances from the Annual Staffing 
Plan.

0
9. Revise Sec.  250.206 to read as follows:


Sec.  250.206  Annual Staffing Reviews.

    (a) Each agency must participate in an Annual Staffing Review 
conducted by OPM and OMB to evaluate implementation of the agency's 
Annual Staffing Plan and assess progress toward workforce goals.
    (b) As part of each Annual Staffing Review, each agency must submit 
a written statement to OPM signed by the agency head certifying that 
the agency's Chief Human Capital Officer has the visibility, oversight, 
and control required under Sec.  250.204(e). If the certification 
identifies any gap in the Chief Human Capital Officer's visibility, 
oversight, or control, the agency must document the gap and include a 
timeline for remediation.

0
10. Revise Sec.  250.207 to read as follows:


Sec.  250.207  Quarterly Staffing Plan Performance Reviews.

    The Chief Human Capital Officer must coordinate Quarterly Staffing 
Plan Performance Reviews with the agency Performance Improvement 
Officer and the Strategic Hiring Committee to evaluate implementation 
of the agency's Annual Staffing Plan and assess progress toward 
workforce goals. Findings from quarterly reviews must be incorporated 
into the quarterly updates to the agency's Annual Staffing Plan 
described in Sec.  250.205(e). Agencies may integrate the Quarterly 
Staffing Plan Performance Reviews into their existing quarterly 
performance review processes where practicable.

Subpart C--[Amended]

0
11. Amend subpart C by removing the authority citation.

0
12. Amend Sec.  250.302 by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  250.302   Survey requirements.

    (a) * * *
    (2) The 10 prescribed survey questions are listed below:
    (i) Managers clearly communicate the goals of the organization.
    (ii) The people I work with cooperate to get the job done.
    (iii) In my work unit, differences in performance are recognized in 
a meaningful way.
    (iv) My supervisor provides ongoing feedback to help me succeed and 
progress in my career.
    (v) My supervisor holds my team accountable for achieving results.
    (vi) I know how my work relates to the agency's goals.
    (vii) I feel empowered to get things done at my organization.
    (viii) I can disclose a suspected violation of any law, rule or 
regulation without fear of reprisal.
    (ix) In my work unit, steps are taken to deal with a poor performer 
who cannot or will not improve.
    (x) In my work unit, poor performers usually (select all that 
apply):
    Remain in the work unit and improve their performance over time;
    Remain in the work unit and continue to underperform;
    Leave the work unit--removed or transferred;
    Leave the work unit--quit;
    There are no poor performers in my work unit.

0
13. Amend Sec.  250.303 by revising paragraph (a) and adding paragraph 
(c) to read as follows:


Sec.  250.303   Availability of results.

    (a) Each agency will make the results of its annual survey 
available to the public and post the results on its website unless the 
agency head determines that doing so would jeopardize or negatively 
impact national security. Each agency may determine the specific 
content of its public disclosure of its annual survey results.
* * * * *
    (c) Each agency must submit survey results to OPM and OMB no later 
than 90 days after completion of survey administration.

[FR Doc. 2026-22093 Filed 10-28-26; 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>