Comment from James Scarborough

I submit this comment on OPM-2026-0067, “Elimination of Time-in-Grade.” OPM’s proposal is coherent in its basic aim. A 52-week time-in-grade rule can delay promotion for employees qualified and performing at the next level. Flexibility may help agencies retain and advance capable employees. But the notice does not yet provide enough evidence or safeguards to justify governmentwide repeal. First, OPM should provide data showing the size of the problem. The proposal says TIG is outdated and unnecessary, but does not quantify how often TIG blocks otherwise qualified employees, how often waivers or training agreements are used, or how often agencies encounter candidates ready for promotion before the current period expires. Without that baseline, commenters cannot evaluate whether full repeal is proportional. Second, OPM should explain what replaces TIG as a common merit safeguard. Qualification standards, merit-system principles, and prohibited personnel practices remain important, but they do not show how promotion readiness will be calibrated across agencies, occupations, and supervisors. If agencies may adopt their own job-related criteria, OPM should provide model criteria, documentation expectations, review steps, and monitoring measures to reduce inconsistent promotion practices. Third, OPM should analyze narrower alternatives. The proposal largely compares the current rule with full repeal, but there are middle paths. One useful alternative would be graduated TIG relief. OPM could allow an employee to bypass one TIG interval when the agency documents that the employee is fully qualified, performing at the higher level, and supported by job-related criteria. The next TIG interval would then remain fully applicable. A variation would permit the second interval to be shortened, but not eliminated. For example, after one accelerated promotion, the next TIG period could be reduced to six months only with documented justification, while the following interval would remain fixed at one year. This would preserve flexibility for unusually ready employees while reducing the risk of stacked accelerations or multiple rapid grade movements before performance has been observed at each level. OPM should also address transparency in the comment process. As of July 8, 2026, regulations.gov reported 43 comments received for this docket, but Regulations.gov displayed no posted comments and the API returned zero comments. If received comments are being held for agency review, OPM should make them available during the active comment period whenever possible. Public access to comments helps later commenters identify evidence, respond to arguments, and participate meaningfully. I do not oppose revisiting TIG. I ask OPM to strengthen the record before finalizing repeal by publishing baseline data, explaining replacement safeguards, comparing partial alternatives such as graduated TIG relief, and ensuring comments are visible during the comment period.