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. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

40057 

Vol. 74, No. 153 

Tuesday, August 11, 2009 

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL 

MANAGEMENT 

5 CFR Part 300 

RIN 3206–AL18 

Time-in-Grade Eliminated 

AGENCY: Office of Personnel 

Management. 

ACTION: Final rule; withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM) is withdrawing the 

final rule, titled Time-in-Grade 

Elimination, published in the Federal 

Register on November 7, 2008. After 

carefully considering all of the 

comments OPM has determined that it 

would be more productive to consider 

the merits of the time-in-grade issue as 

part of a more comprehensive review of 

pay, performance, and staffing issues 

than to regulate this particular issue in 

piecemeal fashion. 

DATES: Effective August 11, 2009, the 

final rule published November 7, 2008, 

at 73 FR 66157, extended March 9, 

2009, at 74 FR 9951, and further 

extended May 18, 2009, at 74 FR 23109, 

is withdrawn. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Janice Warren by telephone (202) 606– 

0960; by FAX (202) 606–2329; by TTY 

(202) 418–3134; or by e-mail 

janice.warren@opm.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

November 7, 2008 the U.S. Office of 

Personnel Management (OPM) 

published in the Federal Register (73 

FR 66157) a final rule eliminating the 

Time-in-Grade restriction on 

advancement to competitive service 

positions in the General schedule. This 

rule had an effective date of March 9, 

2009. 

On March 9, 2009 the U.S. Office of 

Personnel Management (OPM) 

published a final rule in the Federal 

Register (74 FR 9951) extending the 

March 9, 2009, effective date until May 

18, 2009, and opening a new public 

comment period. OPM provided this 

comment period to allow interested 

parties to submit views on issues of law 

and policy raised by the final rule 

published on November 7, 2008. 

On May 11, 2009, OPM published in 

the Federal Register (74 FR 21771) a 

notice proposing to revoke the final rule 

and proposing to further extend its 

effective date to August 16, 2009, with 

a request for public comments on the 

merits of revoking, retaining, or 

amending OPM’s November 7, 2008 

final rule and on the merits of extending 

the effective date of the final rule 

pending the completion of the 

rulemaking proceeding. On May 18, 

2008, OPM published a final rule (74 FR 

23109) extending the effective date of 

the final rule to August 16, 2009, and 

responding to public comments on the 

proposal to extend the final date of the 

regulation. 

The following is a discussion of the 

comments OPM received during the two 

public comment periods raised in 

connection with the merits of the final 

rule published on November 7, 2008. 

Comments From the March 9, 2009 

Federal Register Notice 

OPM received 43 comments on issues 

of law and policy raised by the final 

rule. These comments were provided by 

37 individuals, three employee 

organizations, and three federal 

agencies. 

OPM received 11 comments from 

individuals who generally supported 

retaining TIG rules. 

We received 8 comments from 

individuals who generally supported 

elimination of TIG rules. 

One individual supported TIG 

elimination on the basis that employees 

would still need one-year specialized 

experience in order to be promoted. 

Two individuals commented that the 

time-in-grade regulation is a bad rule 

because it discriminates against highlyqualified, highly-capable and highlyproductive candidates on the basis of an 

arbitrary time period. 

Another individual, who generally 

supports TIG elimination, expressed 

concern over the possibility of abuse by 

hiring managers if the final rule were to 

go into effect. This person also 

questioned how TIG elimination would 

protect against grade-leaping by 

employees. 

Another individual expressed similar 

concern. This person noted that 

although TIG elimination will provide 

some flexibility to agency managers, the 

commenter was concerned that 

elimination of this rule may encourage 

managers to abuse the system by 

promoting their favorite employees. 

This responder suggested the need for 

creation of a subjective factor to assist 

management with assessing 

performance and promotions. 

One individual commented that TIG 

elimination will allow the Federal 

government to retain competent, 

capable and qualified employees. This 

individual also suggested that TIG 

removal will eliminate the possibilities 

of abuse and the ‘good old boy’ 

promotions. 

Another individual commented that 

the elimination of time-in-grade will 

allow status candidates the ability to 

apply for higher graded positions based 

on past experience. 

One respondent believes that TIG 

rules should be eliminated in order for 

competent and dedicated workers to be 

promoted to positions with more 

responsibility than the positions these 

employees currently occupy. 

Another commenter supported TIG 

elimination on the basis that qualified, 

productive individuals should not have 

to wait 52 weeks to be promoted. 

One individual commented that the 

elimination of time-in-grade would be a 

win-win for the agencies. 

Two employee organizations 

submitted similar comments expressing 

the following views: Successful 

performance in a position for one year 

is an extremely useful measure for 

determining whether to promote an 

individual. With respect to promotions, 

both managers and employees suffer 

from a process that is not transparent 

and objective and TIG elimination will 

only add to this lack of transparency. 

Both organizations questioned OPM’s 

justification for abandoning a longstanding practice of the competitive 

service. TIG elimination strips managers 

of their defense against charges that 

unequal pay amounts are based on race, 

gender, age or some other non-merit 

factors. Lastly, both organizations 

expressed concern that TIG elimination 

may result in agencies appointing 

people, who qualify for higher grade 

levels (e.g., General Schedule (GS) level 

12), to positions at lower grade levels 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
40058 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 11, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

(e.g., GS–5), and then promoting them 

quickly to the higher graded position 

(e.g., GS–12) without competition. The 

net effect would be these employees 

essential obtain the higher graded 

position (GS–12) quickly based on 

competition at the lower graded 

position (GS–5). 

Another employee organization 

commented that implementing the final 

rule (i.e., TIG elimination) would create 

more problems than it could solve 

because of the cost and time 

considerations needed to establish and 

administer a replacement process which 

is transparent and trustworthy and that 

contains a standardized waiting period 

that is equitable and fair. 

One commenter believes that TIG 

ensures competence and saves the 

government money by preventing 

inexperienced employees the 

opportunity to receive undeserved 

promotions; and it is risk that needs not 

be taken. 

One individual stated that TIG 

elimination would be a slap in the face 

to all long serving Federal employees 

who had been subject to these rules. 

One individual commented that TIG 

elimination will increase the power of 

the self-interested manager to build an 

entourage rather than a competent 

workforce. 

One individual commented that 

eliminating time-in-grade would cause a 

deficit in trained and knowledgeable 

managers and a short and long-term 

detrimental impact on agency’s 

missions. 

The same individual stated the oneyear requirement is not long enough for 

an employee to gain the knowledge or 

technical skills needed for promotion 

and that, eliminating time-in-grade will 

open the flood gates to more unqualified 

employees being promoted. 

The same person suggested TIG 

elimination may lead to the possibility 

of abuse and misuse and to experienced 

employees being overlooked for 

promotions (or even dismissed) because 

they lacked the wrong connections 

necessary to obtain a promotion. 

Another individual supported TIG 

elimination only if OPM developed a 

watchdog element or a randomly select 

ad-hoc group which investigated 

promotions. 

One respondent believes TIG 

elimination will have no net effect on an 

individual’s chances for promotion as 

long as the requirement for one-year of 

specialized experience remains in tact. 

This individual questioned the logic in 

eliminating an objective measure (TIG) 

in favor of a subjective one (specialized 

experience). 

Beyond the Scope 

One agency commented that OPM 

should give agencies advanced notice 

and adequate time to implement and 

modify merit promotion procedures so 

that agencies can notify employee 

unions as well as provide training 

before the implementation date. 

The same agency and a another 

federal agency suggested that OPM 

clarify whether agencies will continue 

to have the option of imposing agencyspecific TIG requirements after the 

November 7, 2008 final rule becomes 

effective (i.e., after TIG is eliminated). 

One of these agencies also commented 

that OPM provide clear and timely 

policy guidance on transitioning this 

change. 

Another agency suggested OPM 

provide guidance on a variety of topics 

in the event that TIG is eliminated. 

These topics include: How to credit 

experience, whether TIG removal 

applies to career ladder positions, 

whether employees in career ladder 

positions may skip grade levels, and 

whether there are any limitations on 

movement within career ladder 

positions. 

Two employee organizations noted 

that seniority is a widely accepted 

explanation by the courts and other 

federal agencies to justify the difference 

in pay for equally qualified employees. 

The same two entities suggested OPM 

consult with stakeholders and provide 

sufficient training and objective 

measures for a fair and transparent 

process before eliminating time-ingrade. 

One individual submitted a statement 

describing his personal experience with 

time-in-grade requirements, but not 

commenting on the rule. 

Another individual commending the 

administration for proposing to 

eliminate time-in-grade, however this 

comment was made in reference to a 

demonstration project authority which 

is not subject to time-in-grade 

restrictions. 

Comments From the May 11, 2009 

Federal Register Notice 

OPM received comments from 154 

individuals, 3 employee organizations, 

and 2 federal agencies on the merits of 

retaining, revoking, or amending the 

final rule. 

Retaining Time-in-Grade 

OPM received 33 comments on 

retaining the time-in-grade regulation. 

These comments were provided by 

thirty two individuals and one national 

employee organization. 

The national employee organization 

suggested that eliminating time-in-grade 

will cause low employee morale and 

lead to confusion. This entity 

commented that the time-in-grade 

regulation provides a tool for eligibility 

that eliminates capriciousness, 

favoritism, prejudice or bias. 

Sixteen individuals commented 

generally that time-in-grade should be 

retained. 

One individual suggested TIG 

elimination will stress agencies’ budgets 

and place added burdens on supervisors 

to promote employees sooner than 

otherwise would be the case. 

Seven individuals commented on the 

need for a mechanism to ensure fair 

recruitment and placement. These 

respondents indicated that TIG 

elimination would provide management 

with a tool to use favoritism to select or 

promote employees based on personal 

choices. 

One individual commented that TIG 

elimination may result in increased 

litigation for the Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission, federal 

agencies, and employee unions. 

One individual commented the 

elimination of time-in-grade would put 

a huge burden on human resources, and 

that keeping time-in-grade restrictions 

would eliminate rapid advancements. 

One individual suggested that 

elimination of time-in-grade will lead to 

disproportionate control on the part of 

employees regarding their opportunities 

for promotion. 

One individual commented that 

elimination of time-in-grade would 

result in a popularity contest, and 

therefore abuse by management, to 

determine which employees receive 

promotions. 

One individual commented that TIG 

elimination would cause continued 

recruitment of inexperienced people 

and provide management an 

opportunity to promote their favorite 

high performer. 

One individual suggested that TIG 

elimination would lead to imbalances 

within an agency’s workforce (due to 

increased promotions) and that TIG 

removal would only benefit newly hired 

employees. 

One individual suggested that TIG 

elimination will lead to and justify 

abuses by management. 

One individual commented that TIG 

elimination would erode Federal 

employee’s faith in their human 

resources promotion policy. 

Revoking Time-in-Grade 

OPM received 107 comments on the 

merits of revoking the time-in-grade 

regulation. These comments were 

provided by 106 individuals, and 1 

federal agency. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 11, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 40059 

Sixty-seven individuals commented 

generally that TIG should be revoked. 

One agency commented that the 

elimination of time-in-grade will allow 

the federal government to compete with 

private industry, decrease stagnation of 

talent, enhance succession planning 

efforts, and free-up management to 

become mentors. 

Four individuals commented that 

employees should be rewarded 

(promoted) based on performance, and 

that the passage of time has nothing to 

do with an individual’s contribution to 

his or her agency. 

Four individuals commented that 

time-in-grade is an arbitrary and 

outdated time period. These individuals 

also believed that favoritism in 

promotions currently exists and that 

TIG removal would give managers 

additional flexibility to promote their 

staff without any additional 

impropriety. 

Five individuals commented that 

time-in-grade holds back young 

professionals, and causes qualified 

individuals to leave Federal service. 

One individual questioned whether a 

52-week period was necessary in order 

to determine an individual’s readiness 

for promotion. This individual believed 

that because of TIG, agencies run the 

risk of losing good people. 

Four individuals commented that TIG 

elimination (or modification) is needed 

to improve agency mission readiness 

and reduce overtime cost associated 

with maintaining a daily workforce. 

Two individuals commented that 

time-in-grade is a form of 

discrimination. 

Three individuals commented that 

TIG penalizes hard working employees 

who perform well in their jobs. 

One individual commented that TIG 

elimination would remove protectionist 

language which favors entrenched 

federal employees. 

One individual commented that the 

time-in-grade regulation serves as a 

recruitment disincentive which may 

cause Federal agencies to miss out on 

hiring skilled talent. This individual 

also stated that TIG creates unnecessary 

human capital cost. 

One individual suggested that TIG 

punishes loyal Federal employees at the 

expense of recent hires from the private 

sector. 

One individual commented that the 

elimination of time-in-grade would 

afford greater flexibility for the federal 

managers. 

Another individual questioned the 

ethics of applying a TIG standard to 

hard working employees. 

One individual stated that the current 

time-in-grade rules limit opportunities 

and incentives for internal employees, 

veterans, and applicants with 

educational qualifications. 

Two individuals commented that the 

federal government needs to modernize 

the promotion processes in order to 

attract and retain talent; and that 

talented federal employees should be 

able to move up the grade scale at a 

quicker pace than the rules currently 

allow. 

One individual believes that TIG 

elimination would contribute to a 

smarter more productive Federal 

workforce. 

One individual believes the existence 

of TIG results in applicants having to 

accept lower-graded positions than 

those for which they are otherwise 

qualified. 

One individual commented that TIG 

elimination would place all employees 

on a leveled playing field with respect 

to promotions. 

Another individual suggested that TIG 

elimination would contribute to greater 

diversity among the Federal workforce. 

Three individuals commented that 

TIG negatively impacts underpaid 

employees. 

One person believes TIG rules 

encourage mediocrity among federal 

employees. This individual suggested 

that TIG provides a disincentive against 

hard work because the standards for 

promotion are the same for hardworking and non-hardworking 

employees. 

One Individual commented that the 

TIG rules unfairly penalize employees 

with previous work experience who 

may otherwise be promoted on the basis 

of that experience in the absence of the 

52-week requirement. 

One person commented that TIG 

elimination makes good business sense 

and may support the notion that the best 

worker gets hired (promoted). 

Amending Time-in-Grade 

OPM received 9 comments on the 

merits of amending the time-in-grade 

regulation. These comments were 

provided by six individuals and two 

employee organizations. 

One employee organization suggested 

OPM revise the time-in-grade regulation 

to allow for filling positions at the 

‘‘target grade’’ for individuals that are 

fully qualified. 

Another national employee 

organization suggested that OPM 

consider a TIG exclusion for positions 

directly tied to ensuring public safety. 

One individual suggested that OPM 

develop a formula to ensure employees 

could get promoted after 52 weeks of 

Federal service. 

One individual suggested OPM 

amend the TIG rules to allow for 

temporary promotion. 

One individual suggested OPM 

conduct an overhaul of the TIG rules to 

better meet the needs of agencies and 

employee. This individual also believes 

the current system will induce 

increased numbers of federal 

government employees to migrate to 

jobs in private industry. 

Two individuals suggested TIG needs 

to be re-evaluated and modified so that 

employees of the government will not 

be penalized for accepting lower graded 

positions. 

One individual commented that OPM 

need to eliminate time-in-grade for GS– 

13, 14 and 15 grade levels. 

Another individual suggested that 

OPM consider whether a 1-year TIG 

period provides enough time for 

managers to determine an employee’s 

readiness for promotion. 

Beyond the Scope 

OPM received 6 comments which 

were beyond the scope of the merits of 

TIG retention, revocation, or 

amendment. These comments were 

provided by five individuals and one 

federal agency. 

The agency suggested that OPM 

provide agencies with advanced 

notification prior to implementing TIG 

elimination. This notification is 

necessary so that agencies will have 

adequate time to modify merit 

promotion procedures, notify employee 

unions, and provide training before the 

implementation date. 

The same agency commented that 

OPM needs to clarify, if TIG is 

eliminated, whether an agency will still 

have the option to impose a TIG 

requirement at its discretion. 

The same agency also commented that 

OPM provide clear and timely policy 

guidance on transitioning to TIG 

elimination. 

Two individual commented that it is 

detrimental that the government 

promote internally. 

One individual objected to extending 

and applying TIG requirements for 

employees covered under the National 

Security Personnel System. 

One individual suggested OPM revise 

the qualification requirement for TIG. 

One individual commented on the 

pay-for-performance system and the 

importance of funding and involving 

Federal supervisors. 

OPM carefully considered the 

comments we received during each of 

these comment periods, which reflected 

a variety of views. As a result, we have 

decided to withdraw the elimination of 

time-in-grade regulation that was 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
40060 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 11, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

published in the Federal Register on 

November 7, 2008. After carefully 

considering all of the comments, OPM 

has determined that it would be more 

productive to consider the merits of the 

time-in-grade issue as part of a more 

comprehensive review of pay, 

performance, and staffing issue that 

OPM and the Administration are 

conducting in various contexts than to 

regulate one isolated issue in a 

piecemeal fashion. 

This means that the TIG rules remain 

in effect. 

Office of Personnel Management. 

John Berry, 

Director. 

[FR Doc. E9–19174 Filed 8–10–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6325–39–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Part 72 

RIN 3150–AI60 

[NRC–2009–0132] 

List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage 

Casks: HI–STORM 100 Revision 6, 

Confirmation of Effective Date 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Direct final rule: Confirmation 

of effective date. 

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is confirming the 

effective date of August 17, 2009, for the 

direct final rule that was published in 

the Federal Register on June 2, 2009 (74 

FR 26285). This direct final rule 

amended the NRC’s spent fuel storage 

regulations in 10 CFR 72.214 to revise 

the HI–STORM 100 dry cask storage 

system listing to include Amendment 

No. 6 to Certificate of Compliance (CoC) 

Number 1014. 

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date 

of August 17, 2009, is confirmed for this 

direct final rule. 

ADDRESSES: Documents related to this 

rulemaking, including any comments 

received, may be examined at the NRC 

Public Document Room, Room O–1F23, 

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 

20852. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jayne M. McCausland, Office of Federal 

and State Materials and Environmental 

Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555, telephone (301) 415–6219, 

e-mail Jayne.McCausland@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 2, 

2009 (74 FR 26285), the NRC published 

a direct final rule amending its 

regulations at 10 CFR 72.214 to include 

Amendment No. 6 to CoC Number 1014. 

Amendment No. 6 modifies the CoC to 

add instrument tube tie rods used for 

pressurized water reactor 15x15 and 

17x17 fuel lattices, for both intact and 

damaged fuel assemblies, to the 

approved contents of the multipurpose 

canister (MPC)–24, MPC–24E, MPC– 

24EF, MPC–32, and MPC–32F models; 

and to correct legacy editorial issues in 

Appendices A and B Technical 

Specifications. In the direct final rule, 

NRC stated that if no significant adverse 

comments were received, the direct 

final rule would become final on August 

17, 2009. The NRC did not receive any 

comments on the direct final rule. 

Therefore, this rule will become 

effective as scheduled. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day 

of August 2009. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Michael T. Lesar, 

Chief, Rulemaking, Directives and Editing 

Branch, Division of Administrative Services, 

Office of Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–19213 Filed 8–10–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Part 72 

[NRC–2009–0162] 

RIN 3150–AI62 

List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage 

Casks: Standardized NUHOMS®

System Revision 10, Confirmation of 

Effective Date 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Direct final rule: Confirmation 

of effective date. 

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is confirming the 

effective date of August 24, 2009, for the 

direct final rule that was published in 

the Federal Register on June 10, 2009 

(74 FR 27423). This direct final rule 

amended the NRC’s spent fuel storage 

regulations at 10 CFR 72.214 to revise 

the Standardized NUHOMS® System 

listing to include Amendment Number 

10 to Certificate of Compliance (CoC) 

Number 1004. 

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date 

of August 24, 2009, is confirmed for this 

direct final rule. 

ADDRESSES: Documents related to this 

rulemaking, including any comments 

received, may be examined at the NRC 

Public Document Room, Room O–1F23, 

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 

20852. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jayne M. McCausland, Office of Federal 

and State Materials and Environmental 

Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555, telephone (301) 415–6219, 

e-mail Jayne.McCausland@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 

10, 2009 (74 FR 27423), the NRC 

published a direct final rule amending 

its regulations at 10 CFR 72.214 to 

include Amendment No. 10 to CoC 

Number 1004. Amendment No. 10 

modifies the CoC to add two new dry 

shielded canisters (DSCs) designated the 

NUHOMS® –61BTH DSC and the 

NUHOMS® –32PTH1 DSC, add an 

alternate high-seismic option of the 

horizontal storage module (HSM) for 

storing the 32PTH1 DSC, allow storage 

of Westinghouse 15x15 partial length 

shield assemblies in the NUHOMS®

–24PTH DSC, allow storage of control 

components in the NUHOMS® –32PT 

DSC, and add a new Technical 

Specification, which applies to 

Independent Spent Fuel Storage 

Installation sites located in a coastal 

marine environment, that any load 

bearing carbon steel component which 

is part of the HSM must contain at least 

0.20 percent copper as an alloy 

addition. In the direct final rule, NRC 

stated that if no significant adverse 

comments were received, the direct 

final rule would become final on August 

24, 2009. The NRC did not receive any 

comments on the direct final rule. 

Therefore, this rule will become 

effective as scheduled. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day 

of August 2009. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Michael T. Lesar, 

Chief, Rulemaking, Directives and Editing 

Branch, Division of Administrative Services, 

Office of Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–19214 Filed 8–10–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION 

12 CFR Parts 619, 620, and 621 

RIN 3052–AC35 

Definitions; Disclosure to 

Shareholders; Accounting and 

Reporting Requirements; Disclosure 

and Accounting Requirements; 

Effective Date 

AGENCY: Farm Credit Administration. 

ACTION: Final rule; notice of effective 

date. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES