Comment from Anonymous

Removing the objective 52-week calendar threshold shifts the full weight of eligibility verification onto individual agency HR specialists and hiring managers. Most federal agencies currently lack the standardized merit-assessment frameworks necessary to evaluate accelerated promotion readiness objectively. Without clear operational guidelines from OPM, rushing this rule will overwhelm agency HR operations and lead to inconsistent promotion standards across the General Schedule. OPM cites the "China Lake" demonstration project to claim that pay-banding systems without TIG did not lead to rapid promotion inflation. This comparison is false and methodologically invalid. Demonstration projects operate under strict, localized oversight frameworks with custom performance-appraisal matrices and capped agency budgets and cannot be broadly applied to entirety of the 1.5M+ workforce Legal Question 1. OPM’s NPRM fails to address how agencies will handle union collective bargaining disputes under 5 U.S.C. Chapter 71, how non-competitive career ladders will be audited against pre-selection, or how budget-constrained agencies will prevent pay equity disparities between fast-tracked employees and equal-performing peers. 2. Under 5 U.S.C. § 1104, delegation of civil service authority to agency heads requires OPM to establish binding oversight standards. By abolishing Subpart F without issuing mandatory standards to govern accelerated agency promotions, OPM impermissibly delegates unchecked discretion to individual supervisors without retaining statutory oversight. 3. When an agency changes course, it must show that there are good reasons for the new policy and that the agency believes it to be better (FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 515 (2009)). OPM’s NPRM provides no new empirical data collected since its 2009 withdrawal that justifies reversing its prior stance on TIG protections. Alternative Proposal: OPM consider and formally evaluate reasonable alternatives, OPM cannot simply choose between complete retention or total elimination of TIG. OPM is formally presented with the following Less Burdensome, structured Alternative: The Competency-Based Accelerated Promotion Waiver (CBAPW) Framework: - Retain 5 CFR Part 300, Subpart F as the Baseline: Preserve the standard 52-week TIG baseline across the competitive service to maintain an objective administrative standard. - Establish an Objective Early-Promotion Waiver (26-Week Floor): Authorize agencies to grant TIG waivers permitting promotion after 26 weeks in grade only if the employee meets strict, standardized criteria: - Achieves the highest performance appraisal rating (e.g., "Outstanding"); - Demonstrates mastery via an OPM-certified objective assessment tool; and - Obtains independent approval from an Agency Career Ladder Review Board to eliminate supervisory favoritism. - Mandatory 24-Month Phased Implementation: Institute a 24-month transition window allowing agencies time to update Merit Promotion Plans and negotiate implementation procedures with bargaining units. Legal Consequence: Because this alternative directly resolves OPM’s stated goal (granting flexibility for top-performing talent) while mitigating the severe risks identified (favoritism, administrative chaos, merit degradation), OPM’s failure to formally analyze this alternative in the Final Rule will render the final regulation arbitrary and capricious as a matter of law. Clarification Needed: 1. What specific empirical data collected after OPM's 2009 withdrawal of its previous TIG repeal proposal (74 FR 40057) supports OPM's present determination that TIG is no longer necessary? 2. Why did OPM fail to complete and publish the government-wide evaluation of civil service pay, performance, and staffing systems promised in its 2009 withdrawal notice before issuing this NPRM? 3. What binding oversight mechanisms will OPM establish to detect, audit, and remediate increases in Prohibited Personnel Practices (5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(6)) resulting from subjective early-promotion decisions? 4. How did OPM calculate its compliance cost estimates under Executive Order 12866, and did those calculations include local agency costs for re-writing Merit Promotion Plans, union negotiations, and dispute resolution? 5. How will OPM ensure that the elimination of TIG does not exacerbate pay inequities among protected EEO classes or bargaining-unit employees operating under differing local promotion policies? 6. Will OPM issue mandatory, binding regulations requiring agencies to update their local Merit Promotion Plans before any accelerated promotion under this rule can legally take effect?