On March 18, 2016, the Competitive Service Act of 2015 (the “Act”) was enacted as Public Law 114-137 ( https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-114publ137/pdf/PLAW-114publ137.pdf ). The Act allows an “appointing authority” to share a competitive certificate issued under delegated examining procedures with one or more “appointing authorities” to make an appointment to a position that is in the same occupational series, grade level (or equivalent), and duty location during the 240-day period beginning on the date of issuance of the certificate of eligibles. OPM issued implementing regulations, which became effective February 17, 2017 (see 82 FR 5335; RIN 3206-AN46). Since that time, OPM's Human Resources Solutions and agencies using shared certificates have provided feedback on how to improve these provisions. OPM has considered that input in the context of Executive Order (E.O.) 14170, “ Reforming the Federal Hiring Process and Restoring Merit to Government Service”   1 signed by the President on January 20, 2025, and the OPM-Executive Office of the President (EOP) joint implementing guidance of May 29, 2025, titled “Merit Hiring Plan,”  2 with the aim of making these provisions more efficient for agencies and applicants alike. OPM is modifying these rules to create greater efficiencies for hiring agencies. These changes include:

• Expanding the application of the three-considerations rule in 5 CFR 332.405 to allow a manager or selecting official in a receiving agency to use/apply a decision(s) by a hiring manager(s) in other agencies to remove applicants from further consideration. We are revising § 332.405(d) to remove the bar on applying the rule to shared certificates and, in its place, to codify the limitation of the rule to certificates issued using numerical rating;

• Expanding the application of veterans' pass over procedures to allow a veteran passed over by the original hiring agency (or OPM in the case of thirty percent or more disabled veterans) to be removed from consideration by a receiving agency;

• Adding language which reminds agencies of their obligations with respect to individuals who have selection priority ( e.g., displaced employees eligible under Reemployment Priority List (RPL), Career Transition Assistance Plan (CTAP), Interagency Career Transition Assistance Plan (ICTAP), and workers' compensation provisions);

• Clarifying that an original hiring agency may share a certificate with other agencies simultaneously;

• Modifying the requirement that receiving agencies must work a shared certificate independently. The modification allows a receiving agency to leverage another agency's pass-over or three-considerations decision.

• Including language which reminds agencies that pass overs of disabled veterans with a thirty percent or more compensable disability must be sent to OPM for adjudication;

• Removing a reference to collective bargaining units to attune the rules with a statutory amendment which removed the reference with the CSA; and

• Expanding the application of shared certificates to positions filled in the excepted service.

OPM received five comments on the interim final rule published on January 18, 2017 (82 FR 5335; Docket ID OPM-2017-0004), from a Federal agency, a nonprofit organization, and three individual members of the public. Because this rule reissues the 2017 interim regulations with modifications, OPM has considered those comments in developing this rule and responds to them here. Comments are identified by their Regulations.gov comment numbers.

Comment (OPM-2017-0004-0002): An individual commenter supported the rule's focus on drawing talent into the Federal Government but questioned what would motivate an original hiring agency to share a certificate and suggested a mandate or quota requiring each hiring agency to share at least three certificates per year.

Response: OPM declines to adopt a sharing mandate or quota by regulation. The Competitive Service Act is permissive: 5 U.S.C. 3318 provides that an appointing authority “may” share a certificate, and a regulatory quota would be inconsistent with that discretionary framework. This rule instead addresses the commenter's underlying concern by reducing the burden of sharing—permitting simultaneous sharing, permitting the sharing of assessment scores, and allowing receiving agencies to leverage another agency's pass-over or three-considerations decision—and by establishing OPM-led pooled hiring actions, which systematically make a single hiring action available to multiple agencies. OPM notes that it has recently set, via guidance, a governmentwide goal of at least 60% of selections made from shared certificates (including OPM-led pooled hiring actions and agency certificates shared under 5 U.S.C. 3318(b)) for all new external competitive-service hires, measured as a share of external selections during Fiscal Year 2027. 3

Comment (OPM-2017-0004-0003): A Federal agency posed six operational questions: (1) how agencies would identify other agencies' need for the same hires in advance of an announcement; (2) whether a receiving agency could access applicants in a lower category than the one certified; (3) the effect of the 240-day shared-certificate period on OPM's 80-day hiring cycle model; (4) whether an original hiring agency may decline to share a certificate with a particular agency, and any reporting mechanism or repercussions for declining; (5) what happens if two agencies select the same candidate; and (6) how candidates who are no longer available are removed from shared certificates.

Response: Sharing remains within the discretion of the original hiring agency, including the choice of agencies with which to share; there is no reporting mechanism or repercussion for declining to share. The OPM-led pooled hiring provisions in new § 332.409 and new subpart F of part 302, together with the Merit Hiring Plan's direction that agencies collaborate with OPM to identify sharing opportunities and the Annual Staffing Plan process created by E.O. 14356 ( Ensuring Continued Accountability in Federal Hiring ), 4 provide the advance mechanism for identifying common hiring needs that the commenter described. A receiving agency must use the certificate in its original form and may not re-rate or re-rank applicants, so it may not reach into a category other than as certified. The 240-day period is fixed by statute and does not alter the 80-day time-to-hire goal; indeed, the changes in this rule allowing receiving agencies to leverage pass-over and three-considerations decisions are designed to shorten the time receiving agencies need to work a certificate. Where more than one agency seeks the same candidate, the candidate may elect which offer to accept, and this rule requires notations on the certificate and prompt notification of errors, while under pooled hiring actions OPM will notify all participating agencies when an applicant is removed from further consideration. Remaining operational details are addressed in the Delegated Examining Operations Handbook and implementing guidance.

Comment (OPM-2017-0004-0004): An organizational commenter recommended that OPM (1) remove the requirement that applicants “opt in” to having their applications shared and adopt an opt-out default; (2) remove “duty location” from the conditions for using a shared certificate; (3) add language encouraging timely hiring decisions and expedited sharing; and (4) set a clear date for agencies to report to OPM on their use of the authority, with annual reporting thereafter. The commenter also encouraged OPM to promote staffing-system interoperability, enable USAJOBS searches for announcements with shared certificates, pilot the authority for mission-critical occupations, engage the CHCO Council and other interagency councils, and train agencies.

Response: OPM declines to replace the opt-in structure. Requiring an applicant's affirmative consent before his or her application and personal information are disseminated to agencies to which the applicant did not apply protects applicant privacy, and this rule retains that structure. OPM also declines to remove “duty location”: the Competitive Service Act itself limits use of a shared certificate to positions in the same occupational series, grade level, and duty location, so that condition cannot be removed by regulation. OPM agrees with the objective of timely action and has addressed it operationally rather than through hortatory language—this rule permits simultaneous sharing and allows receiving agencies to leverage another agency's pass-over and three-considerations decisions, both of which expedite use of shared certificates. OPM declines to codify a fixed reporting date in regulation; the recordkeeping and documentation requirements of this rule create the audit trail necessary for OPM oversight, and OPM collects usage information through its oversight functions under 5 U.S.C. 1104. The commenter's remaining suggestions are operational and outside the scope of this rulemaking, but OPM has acted consistent with their aims, including through OPM-led pooled hiring actions for occupations common across agencies, as described in section V of this preamble.

Comment (OPM-2017-0004-0005): An individual commenter recommended that certificate sharing be mandatory rather than discretionary (“shall” rather than “may”), subject to limits such as sharing only the top three candidates for each position or submitting an overall certificate quarterly, and suggested a quota of shared certificates.

Response: OPM declines to make sharing mandatory or to impose a quota, for the reasons stated in response to comment OPM-2017-0004-0002: the statute is permissive, and a mandate would impose burden where no cross-agency need exists. OPM believes the OPM-led pooled hiring provisions of this rule better achieve the commenter's aim of making talent systematically available across the Government from a single hiring action.

Comment (OPM-2017-0004-0006): An individual commenter, a veteran, supported the concept but expressed concern that agencies and their components would not follow the rules, described being passed over in favor of another candidate notwithstanding his veterans' preference, and urged OPM to examine agency policies and agreements and enforce the rules so applicants receive fair consideration.

Response: Veterans' preference protections apply fully to shared certificates, and this rule strengthens the documentation that supports enforcement: objections and pass-over requests must be resolved before a certificate is shared, pass overs of preference eligibles with a compensable service-connected disability of thirty percent or more must be adjudicated by OPM, sustained pass overs must be notated on the certificate, and both original and receiving agencies must maintain records sufficient to reconstruct their use of the certificate. These requirements support OPM's oversight of agency compliance under 5 U.S.C. 1104(b). Concerns about specific hiring actions are outside the scope of this rulemaking and may be pursued through applicable complaint and appeal procedures.

OPM is reissuing the interim regulations published on January 18, 2017, with the following modifications:

Section 332.408(b)(1)(iv) has been amended to include a reference to OPM as the entity which must resolve pass over requests of thirty percent or more disabled veterans with a service-connected disability. This also requires an original hiring agency to notate the certificate when it has sustained, or received OPM approval to sustain, a pass-over of a preference eligible veteran.

A new paragraph (b)(2) in § 332.408 provides that an original hiring agency may apply the three-consideration rule in § 332.405 to a certificate issued under § 332.402 and must make a notation next to the name of any applicant it removed from further consideration; the paragraphs that follow in § 332.408(b) are renumbered accordingly.

OPM is also revising § 332.405(d). The existing paragraph (d) provides that the three considerations rule does not apply to shared certificates. Because this rule permits an original hiring agency to apply the rule to a certificate it intends to share and permits a receiving agency to rely on that agency's decision, the existing bar is inconsistent with the amendments made in this rule and is removed. In its place, OPM is codifying the limitation of the rule to certificates issued using numerical rating, which OPM has previously stated but has not until now set out in regulatory text. See 90 FR 43135, 43138 (Sept. 8, 2025).

Section 1107 of Public Law 115-232 added the three-considerations provision at 5 U.S.C. 3318(e), which governs selections using numerical ratings, while at the same time amending 5 U.S.C. 3319 without adding a comparable provision for category rating. Section 3319 incorporates provisions of section 3318 where Congress intended them to apply, see 5 U.S.C. 3319(c)(5) and (c)(6)(A) and (B), and it does not incorporate section 3318(e). Congress also addressed separately, and more narrowly, the circumstances in which a preference eligible may be dropped from further consideration under category rating, providing for discontinuation of certification only where the preference eligible has been three times considered and passed over from a standing register, and only after advance notice. See 5 U.S.C. 3319(c)(6)(C). OPM is stating the limitation in regulatory text so that it applies uniformly to an agency's own certificates, to shared certificates, and to certificates issued in OPM-led pooled hiring actions.

OPM is updating renumbered § 332.408(b)(3) to clarify that an original hiring agency may, but is not required to, share the assessment scores of certified applicants with receiving agencies. OPM is making this update to provide agencies with more information when considering shared applicants with the aim of boosting interest and use of shared certificates.

Renumbered § 332.408(b)(4) is revised to clarify that an original hiring agency may share a certificate with one or more agencies, either sequentially or simultaneously. OPM is making this change to reduce delays in time-to-hire that would otherwise result if agencies could only share certificates sequentially. In the interim rule effective February 17, 2017 (82 FR 5335), OPM discussed simultaneous use and coordination of certificates by receiving agencies but did not squarely address simultaneous sharing by the original hiring agency. Because the CSA does not prohibit an original hiring agency from sharing a certificate with several agencies at the same time, OPM finds no basis to limit an agency from doing so. Paragraph (c)(4)(i) in § 332.408, discussed below, addresses how receiving agencies work a certificate that has been shared simultaneously.

OPM is amending § 332.408(c)(2) to remind receiving agencies of their responsibilities with respect to Reemployment Priority Lists (RPL) and Career Transition Assistance Plans (CTAP), in accordance with 5 CFR part 330, subparts B and F, respectively, before using a shared certificate.

OPM is amending § 332.408(c)(3)(i) by removing the reference to collective bargaining obligations. OPM is making this change in accordance with Public Law 115-232, section 1107, 5 which removed the reference from section 2(b)(4) of the Competitive Service Act of 2015.

OPM is also revising § 332.408(c)(3)(ii) to provide that an agency may not give internal candidates an application period longer than 10 business days. Sections 3318(b)(4)(B) and 3319(c)(5)(B) of title 5, U.S. Code, each direct the other appointing authority to “provide up to 10 business days” for its employees to apply for the position. OPM is conforming the regulatory text to the statutory period so that the same limit applies whether the shared certificate was issued using numerical rating or category rating procedures. As under the 2017 interim rule, this time limit may not be waived or extended.

OPM is adding new subparagraph (c)(4)(ii) in § 332.408 to provide that a receiving agency may, but is not required to, consider an applicant passed over by another agency in accordance with paragraph (b)(1)(iv) or an applicant who received three bona fide considerations by another agency in accordance with paragraph (b)(2). The flexibility to allow a receiving agency(s) to leverage an original hiring agency's three-consideration decision is consistent with 5 U.S.C. 3318(e) and 5 CFR 332.405. In the statute and the codified regulations, “appointing officer” is not specific to a particular agency.

OPM is modifying current § 332.408(c)(4)(i) which requires a receiving agency to consider applicants independently of the actions of another agency with which the certificate is shared simultaneously. The modified provision provides an exception which allows a receiving agency to apply another agency's pass-over or three-considerations decision as described in new paragraph (c)(4)(ii). In the interim rule effective February 17, 2017 (82 FR 5335), OPM noted, “Congress did not define precisely what it means to “share” the certificate. One possible approach is that when the original hiring agency “shares” the certificate with other agencies they must simultaneously work the certificate in a coordinated fashion, accounting for declinations, failures to respond, selections, and so on as if they were integrated arms of the same employer. (This is how the process might work when a department shares a certificate among a number of its different components.) Another possible approach is that each of the other agencies may work the certificate independently, as if the certificates had been referred from the top of a register or inventory. Neither of these approaches is compelled by the text of the statute and as such OPM has determined that the most reasonable approach, and the one that best effectuates Congress's apparent purpose, is the latter of the two.”

OPM has reconsidered its original position and determined this change will allow agencies to use the shared certificate process more efficiently. It will do so by relieving a receiving agency from having to replicate the pass-over or three-considerations process when another agency already has done so. Though certificates may be shared simultaneously, the timing of when they are worked by each receiving agency may differ within the 240-day period depending on capacity, need, or urgency to fill the position, internal priorities, etc. For this reason, we are providing that a receiving agency may coordinate with another agency only for the purpose of leveraging another agency's pass-over or three-considerations decision.

OPM's revised approach satisfies the standards governing a change in agency position. See Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of the U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 41-43 (1983); FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 515-16 (2009). OPM acknowledges that it is modifying the position adopted in the 2017 interim rule and is doing so consciously rather than sub silentio. The new position is permissible under the statute: as the 2017 preamble itself recognized, neither the coordinated approach nor the fully independent approach is compelled by the text of the Competitive Service Act, which does not prescribe how simultaneously shared certificates must be worked. The revised rule retains independent consideration as the general requirement and adds only a narrow, discretionary exception permitting a receiving agency to leverage another agency's pass-over or three-considerations decision—an accommodation consistent with 5 U.S.C. 3318(e), which refers to consideration by “an appointing officer” without confining the relevant considerations to a single agency.

There are also good reasons for the change, and OPM believes the new policy is better: nearly a decade of experience administering shared certificates, together with feedback from OPM's Human Resources Solutions and from agencies using shared certificates, has demonstrated that requiring each receiving agency to replicate a pass-over or three-considerations process that another agency has already completed adds time and administrative burden without a corresponding benefit to applicants or to merit-based selection. In addition, eliminating that duplication directly advances the efficiency objectives of E.O. 14170 and the Merit Hiring Plan. Finally, the change does not disturb serious reliance interests that would require a more detailed justification. See Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 579 U.S. 211, 221-22 (2016).

The independence requirement in current § 332.408(c)(4)(i) is a procedural direction to agencies about how a shared certificate is to be worked. It confers no entitlement on applicants to duplicative consideration by every receiving agency. The exception is permissive rather than mandatory, so a receiving agency remains free to consider any applicant notwithstanding another agency's action. And applicants' substantive protections are unchanged: a pass-over of a preference eligible may be leveraged only where the original hiring agency has sustained the pass-over, or received OPM approval to sustain it in the case of a disabled veteran with a thirty percent or more service-connected disability, in accordance with paragraph (b)(1)(iv) and as notated on the certificate, and a three-considerations decision may be leveraged only as to an applicant who has received three bona fide considerations for the same position, as documented on the certificate under paragraph (b)(2).

The excepted service encompasses those positions in the Federal civil service that are not in the competitive service or the Senior Executive Service. Positions in the excepted service are organized under several schedules, including Schedule D—which covers Pathways Program positions for students and recent graduates—and Schedule Policy/Career—which covers career positions of a confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character not normally subject to change as a result of a Presidential transition. Employment in the excepted service is governed by 5 U.S.C. 2103 and the regulations set forth at 5 CFR parts 213 and 302.

OPM notes there are differences between the competitive and excepted services. One of these is the use of the term “certificate.” A certificate is a competitive service term defined in 5 CFR 332.102 as a list of qualified eligibles from which an appointing officer selects one or more applicants for appointment. For purposes of new subpart E in part 302, OPM is adopting the term certificate as defined in the competitive service.

Another difference lies in how agencies are required to consider employees and former employees involuntarily separated due to downsizing. In the competitive service, agencies must adhere to the requirements of Reemployment Priority List (RPL), Career Transition Assistance Plans (CTAP), and Interagency Career Transition Assistance Plans (ICTAP) in 5 CFR part 330 subparts B, F, and G, respectively, before considering other applicants from outside the hiring agency's workforce. RPL, CTAP, and ICTAP apply when filling positions in the competitive service. CTAP applies in the excepted service only if the hiring agency's CTAP plan specifically provides for selection priority in the excepted service (§ 330.607(c)(5)).

Another difference between the two services is the provision which allows an appointing officer to not consider an eligible candidate who has been given bona fide consideration by one or more hiring managers for three separate appointments from the same or different certificates for the same position ( i.e., the same title, series, and grade). This is known as “three-considerations” and is codified in § 332.405 of the competitive service but not in the excepted service.

The three-considerations provision applies in conjunction with numerical ranking ( i.e., rule of many) but not category rating. See Reinvigorating Merit-Based Hiring Through Candidate Ranking in the Competitive and Excepted Service, 90 FR 43135, 43138 (Sept. 8, 2025) (“The three considerations rule applies to the rule of many, not to category rating. The Act did not apply this provision to category rating.”). Because the excepted service utilizes a parallel numerical rating provision (§ 302.302(b)(1)), OPM establishes that agencies may use § 332.405 in conjunction with a shared certificate in the excepted service where applicants were assigned numerical scores under that paragraph. Consistent with the competitive service, the three-considerations rule does not apply to an excepted service certificate on which applicants were placed in quality categories under § 302.302(b)(2).

Currently, 5 CFR part 302 establishes the procedures Federal agencies must follow when filling excepted service positions, including eligibility standards, application and rating procedures, and selection requirements. This interim rule adds a new subpart E to part 302 to create a framework for agencies to share certificates of eligibles generated under the excepted service examining process—a practice analogous to existing certificate-sharing authorities in the competitive examining context—thereby reducing duplicative recruitment efforts, lowering hiring costs, and expanding qualified applicant pools across the Federal Government.

This rule is issued pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 1103, 1104, 3301, and 3302, which vest in OPM the authority to prescribe regulations governing the examination, selection, and appointment of individuals in the Federal civil service. Section 1103(a)(5) charges the Director of OPM with executing, administering, and enforcing the civil service rules and regulations and the laws governing the civil service, and section 1104(b)(1) requires OPM to establish standards for, and oversee, the performance of delegated personnel management functions. Sections 3301 and 3302 authorize the President to prescribe regulations for the admission of individuals into the civil service and to make exceptions from the competitive service when warranted; by E.O. 10577 (Civil Service Rule I and 5 CFR 1.1, 5.1, and 6.1), the President has directed OPM to administer those authorities, including the designation of excepted service schedules and the regulation of appointments within them.

The provisions governing shared use of competitive service certificates rest on the Competitive Service Act of 2015, Public Law 114-137, which amended 5 U.S.C. 3318 and 3319 to authorize an appointing authority to share a certificate of eligibles—whether issued under numerical rating and ranking or under alternative (category) rating—with one or more other appointing authorities for selection to positions in the same occupational series, grade level (or equivalent), and duty location, within 240 days of issuance. Section 2(d) of the Act directs the Director of OPM to issue an interim final rule with comment to carry out its amendments, supplying both the substantive authority and the procedural vehicle for the amendments to § 332.408. Section 1107 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, Public Law 115-232, subsequently amended section 2 of the Act, and this rule conforms OPM's regulations to that amendment.

OPM's authority to establish parallel certificate-sharing procedures for the excepted service derives from several sources. Positions in the excepted service are defined at 5 U.S.C. 2103 and are excepted from the competitive service under 5 U.S.C. 3302 and Civil Service Rule VI (5 CFR part 6), and OPM regulates appointments to those positions under 5 CFR parts 213 and 302. Part 302 itself implements, among other authorities, 5 U.S.C. 3320, which requires that the nominating or appointing authority select for excepted service and District of Columbia government positions “in the same manner and under the same conditions” required for the competitive service by the Veterans' Preference Act provisions codified at 5 U.S.C. 3308 through 3318. Because Congress has thus directed that excepted service selection track competitive service selection mechanics—including the examination, certification, consideration, and pass-over provisions those sections contain—OPM may, by regulation, make available in the excepted service the same certificate-sharing, three-consideration, and pass-over procedures Congress authorized for the competitive service, while preserving the veterans' preference protections that section 3320 makes applicable of its own force.

The OPM-led pooled hiring provisions rest on OPM's retained, non-delegated examining authority. Under 5 U.S.C. 1104(a)(2), OPM's delegation of examining functions to agencies is discretionary, not mandatory; OPM retains full authority to conduct competitive examinations itself, for one agency or for many, under 5 U.S.C. 1103, 3301, 3302, and 3304 and Civil Service Rule II (5 CFR 2.1). Nothing in the delegation framework limits OPM to single-agency examining, and conducting a single examination whose results serve multiple agencies with a common hiring need is a straightforward exercise of the central examining function Congress vested in OPM. The assessment components of pooled hiring actions are conducted consistent with 5 U.S.C. 3304, as amended by the Chance to Compete Act of 2024 (Pub. L. 118-188), which requires examinations that permit direct assessment of job-related skills and competencies. The direct hire provisions in new § 337.206 implement 5 U.S.C. 3304(b)(3), under which OPM authorizes direct hire appointments upon a determination of severe candidate shortage or critical hiring need, and OPM's attendant authority to prescribe the conditions under which such appointments are made.

Finally, while E.O. 14170 and the Merit Hiring Plan do not themselves supply rulemaking authority, they direct the policy this rule implements, and the rule effectuates the merit system principle that the Federal workforce be used efficiently and effectively, 5 U.S.C. 2301(b)(5).

Agencies will share certificates in the excepted service in a manner similar to how certificates are shared in the competitive service under § 332.408. A description of this process and regulatory provisions to implement them follows:

OPM is placing these provisions in 5 CFR part 302 subpart E and relabeling this subpart “Shared use of an excepted service certificate.” OPM is redesignating current subpart E, “Appeals,” as a new subpart G, and is placing the OPM-led pooled hiring provisions in a new subpart F.

OPM is adding provisions which allow agencies to share certificates for excepted service positions when the original hiring agency is using either the numerical list option or category rating option in accordance with § 302.401(a)(2) and (3), respectively. OPM is adopting this flexibility in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 3320  6 which states that appointments in the excepted service shall be filled “in the same manner and under the same conditions” as positions filled in the competitive service. Current regulations in 5 CFR 332.408 allow for competitive service shared certificates to be used in conjunction with both numerical ranking and category rating procedures at §§ 332.402 and .404, and part 337 subpart C, respectively. Because the same examining methods exist for filling positions in the excepted service, OPM believes the same efficiencies can be realized in excepted service hiring. OPM believes this approach is consistent with the intent of the CSA and 5 U.S.C. 3304(a)(3), (c)(1) and (4), and accords with 5 U.S.C. 3320, and promotes efficiency within excepted service hiring.

OPM is limiting the application of shared certificates in the excepted service to positions filled under excepted service Schedule D—Pathways Programs, and Schedule Policy/Career. OPM does not include positions in Schedule A of the excepted service for purposes of shared certificates because Schedule A is defined as “Positions other than those of a confidential or policy-determining character for which it is impracticable to examine.” Furthermore, 5 CFR 213.3102 states “Examining for this purpose means application of the qualification standards and requirements established for the competitive service.” The absence of governmentwide qualification standards for Schedule A positions makes sharing certificates cumbersome and difficult, which undermines the efficiency this flexibility is designed to create.

These rules allow an original hiring agency to flag with a designated code any applicant(s) to which the original hiring agency applied the three-consideration rule. For these purposes, OPM is allowing an agency to apply the three-consideration rule in § 332.405 to an excepted service certificate on which applicants were assigned numerical scores under § 302.302(b)(1). A receiving agency may apply the three-consideration rule to any applicant flagged by the original hiring agency with the designated code. Thus, a receiving agency will have its choice: it can leverage the original hiring agency's three-consideration determination or make its own determinations when applying this rule.

The excepted service provisions also allow a receiving agency to apply a sustained pass over of a preference eligible veteran made by another agency for the same hiring action. OPM is adopting this on the basis that all agencies using the certificate will be using the same qualification standard for the position being filled.

The excepted service shared certificate rules do not require a receiving agency to consider internal candidates before making a selection from a shared certificate. OPM's rationale is that the eligibility for Schedule D and Policy/Career positions is specific; Schedule D applicants must be eligible under the Pathways Program Internship Program (see 5 CFR part 362, subpart B) or the Pathways Program Recent Graduate (see 5 CFR part 362 subpart C). This significantly limits the number of agency employees who could participate in these programs. Keeping the requirement for Schedule Policy/Career positions but not Schedule D positions would be confusing and lead to inefficient application of this flexibility.

The excepted service provisions provide that an original hiring agency may share a certificate with one agency at a time, or several agencies simultaneously.

OPM is establishing the competitive service provision that allows a receiving agency in the excepted service to use another agency's pass-over or three-considerations decisions. Our rationale is the same as that for the competitive service: to obviate the need for each agency to replicate these processes when another agency has already done so. The premise for sharing certificates in either service is to make hiring more efficient for agencies using the same certificate to fill a position in the same occupational series, at the same grade level (or a corresponding rate or level of pay for a position excluded from the General Schedule), with the same full performance level, and in the same duty location as was listed on the original hiring agency's certificate.

Each receiving agency will still be responsible for establishing a unique instance of a case file to document that agency's use of the certificate. This will be helpful in the event a receiving agency must later reconstruct its hiring actions. Allowing multiple agencies to use certificates independently of one another also supports the timeliest and practical implementation of these provisions and minimizes the risk of error associated with multiple agencies simultaneously working the same certificate.

Section 302.501 establishes the foundational authority and conditions applicable to all certificate-sharing activity under this subpart. Under § 302.501(b), a hiring agency may share an excepted service certificate issued for filling positions under Schedule D and Schedule Policy/Career with one or more Federal agencies, for positions filled on a permanent or time-limited basis. Time-limited positions remain subject to the conditions set forth in § 213.104. Shared use may encompass full-time and other-than-full-time positions, including part-time, seasonal, on-call, and intermittent positions, ensuring broad flexibility in workforce management.

In § 302.501(c), OPM establishes a 240-day time limit on all actions taken on a shared certificate, measured from the date on which the original hiring agency issued the certificate. This limit may not be extended. OPM establishes the 240-day duration to attune to the similar provision in the competitive service for the purpose of ensuring that shared certificates do not remain in active use for an indefinite period and that applicants on the certificate do not remain subject to potential selection for an unreasonable duration. We believe standardizing this duration will promote efficient use in both service and eliminate confusion among practitioners that might otherwise occur with different time limits.

Section 302.501(d) establishes documentation and safeguarding obligations. Both the original hiring agency and any receiving agency must maintain sufficient documentation to permit reconstruction of their respective use of the certificate, and must safeguard examination materials, assessment materials, and applicant information in accordance with § 300.201. This requirement supports accountability and enables OPM oversight of agency compliance.

Paragraphs (e) and (f) of § 302.501 provide general compliance reminders: all sharing activity must comply with part 302, and agencies must keep records of instances of sharing and use of shared certificates, establishing a clear audit trail.

Section 302.502 sets forth the conditions and obligations governing the original hiring agency's decision to share an excepted service certificate and its conduct in doing so. These provisions are designed to ensure that certificate sharing is carried out in a manner that respects applicant consent, preserves veteran preference rights, and maintains the integrity of the original examining process.

Conditions Precedent to Sharing (§ 302.502(a)). An original hiring agency may share a certificate issued under § 302.302 only if six conditions are satisfied:

• The original hiring agency itself intends to use the certificate for its own hiring needs (§ 302.502(a)(1)), ensuring that shared certificates are not generated solely for the benefit of other agencies.

• The agency informed applicants at the time of the announcement that the resulting certificate may be used by one or more hiring agencies (§ 302.502(a)(2)), consistent with transparency and due notice principles.

• The agency provided applicants an opportunity to opt in to having their applications and personal information shared with other agencies (§ 302.502(a)(3)). This opt-in structure protects applicant privacy and ensures that personal data is not disseminated to agencies without the individual's affirmative consent.

• All objections to eligibles and requests to pass over preference eligible veterans have been resolved in accordance with subpart D of part 302, or by OPM in the case of a disabled veteran with a 30% or more service-connected disability (§ 302.502(a)(4)). The agency must notate on the certificate the name of any preference eligible it successfully passed over, preserving a clear record for receiving agencies.

• The original hiring agency either made a selection from the certificate or documented its reason for making no selection (§ 302.502(a)(5)), preventing agencies from sharing a certificate they have declined to use without explanation.

• The agency determined that sharing complies with part 302 and applicable agency policy (§ 302.502(a)(6)).

New § 302.502(b)permits the original hiring agency to apply the three-consideration rule of § 332.405 during its use of the certificate on which applicants were assigned numerical scores under § 302.302(b)(1), and to remove candidates accordingly, with required notations on the certificate before sharing; the paragraphs that follow are renumbered accordingly.

Obligations in Sharing (§ 302.502(c) through (e)). When sharing a certificate, the original hiring agency must transmit all documentation related to the certificate's creation, including the job analysis, testing and examination materials, the job opportunity announcement or applicable public notification, and applications as relevant. The agency may share certified applicants' assessment scores but must share the certificate in its original form to preserve the original candidate ordering. The agency must safeguard personally identifiable information during transmission and must redact the names of applicants who did not opt in, ensuring those individuals cannot be considered by receiving agencies.

An original hiring agency may share a certificate with one or more agencies, either sequentially or simultaneously (§ 302.502(d)), providing flexibility in multi-agency hiring efforts. If the original hiring agency discovers an error that may affect selections by a receiving agency, it must notify each affected agency promptly (§ 302.502(e)).

Section 302.503 establishes the conditions and procedures governing receiving agencies' use of shared certificates, with particular attention to position compatibility, applicant notification, selection procedures, and safeguards against further redistribution.

Eligible Vacancies (§ 302.503(a)). A receiving agency may use a shared certificate only to fill a vacancy in the same occupational series, at the same grade level (or corresponding pay rate or level), with the same full-performance level, and in the same duty location as specified on the original hiring agency's certificate. If the original certificate was issued for an interdisciplinary position, the receiving agency may use it to fill an interdisciplinary position. Before use, the receiving agency must independently verify through its own job analysis that the minimum qualification requirements—including any selective placement factors—and the competencies, knowledge, skills, and abilities used for the original position remain appropriate for the position to be filled. This verification requirement ensures that shared certificates are not misapplied to positions with materially different requirements.

Notification to Applicants (§ 302.503(b)). Before using a shared certificate, a receiving agency must notify eligible applicants that it has received their names and application materials and intends to consider them for employment. The notification must identify the receiving agency, position title, occupational series, grade level or equivalent, and duty location. This requirement ensures that applicants are informed of the expanded use of their application materials prior to any employment consideration, consistent with principles of transparency and individual notice.

Section 302.503(c)(1) clarifies that these requirements do not affect agencies' right to fill a position from any appropriate source under §§ 330.102 and 335.103. Section 302.503(c)(2) requires that, before considering other candidates, a receiving agency must first provide for priority consideration for individuals entitled to it under §§ 302.303 and 302.304.

Selection Procedures (§ 302.503(d)). Section 302.503(d)(1) permits—but does not require—a receiving agency to consider applicants designated as having been passed over or as having received three bona fide considerations, affording the agency discretion in these cases. Under § 302.503(d)(2), the receiving agency may not reassess applicants for rating or ranking purposes, preserving the integrity of the original agency's examining process and preventing double examination.

Time Limit and Prohibition on Further Sharing. Section 302.503(e) confirms that a receiving agency has 240 days from the date of original certificate issuance to make selections—consistent with the governmentwide limit established in § 302.501(c). Section 302.503(f) expressly prohibits the receiving agency from sharing or distributing the shared certificate to any other Federal agency, ensuring that certificate sharing remains a controlled, bilateral transaction between the original hiring agency and its designated receiving agency or agencies, and does not become an uncontrolled daisy-chain distribution.

OPM is establishing regulatory frameworks for OPM-led pooled hiring actions for both excepted service and competitive service positions, under which OPM will centrally recruit and preliminarily assess applicants or prepare and provide ready-made certificates to participating agencies which will use OPM-generated lists and certificates to make selections consistent with existing hiring authorities and protections. These rules memorialize OPM's current use of pooled hiring actions. OPM-led pooled hiring actions are a governmentwide hiring approach designed to allow multiple agencies to select from a single hiring action rather than each agency running separate announcements and creating individual or agency-specific certificates for the same occupation. The goal of these actions is to eliminate duplication of effort and resources, shorten the time-to-hire, improve the applicant experience, and increase the number of hires made from a single certificate. OPM uses this process for jobs filled under competitive examining procedures, direct hire authority (DHA), and when filling positions in the excepted service.

OPM, under its general authority governing admission of individuals into the executive branch of the civil service, may recruit and conduct examining for positions to be filled by multiple federal agencies. 5 U.S.C. 3301, 3302, and 3304. OPM-led pooled hiring actions utilize one announcement, an assessment process in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 3304(a)(3), (c)(1) and (4), one common certificate, and enable multiple agencies to hire from the same talent pool. These actions are a common-certificate hiring strategy that leverages OPM's experience, efficiency, policy and examining expertise with respect to competitive examining, excepted service hiring procedures, or direct hire authority and applies this expertise to cross-agency hiring needs. The aim of these actions is to maximize hiring outcomes from a single recruitment effort. Key features of OPM-led pooled hiring rules include:

• OPM may recruit, screen applicants for minimum requirements and qualifications, and provide lists of applicants who meet these requirements to agencies which will conduct the technical assessment process and certify applicants;

• OPM may recruit, assess applicants for both minimum requirements and qualifications and technical qualifications, certify applicants for selection, and provide ready-made certificates to agencies from which to make selections;

• OPM may screen applicants for eligibility under the Career Transition Assistance Plan (CTAP), or the Interagency Career Transition Assistance Plan (ICTAP), or both, and provide lists of these eligibles to agencies;

• Allow agencies to apply the three-consideration rule in § 332.405, on certificates issued using numerical rating, such that a manager or selecting official in one agency may use/apply a decision by a hiring manager in another agency to remove applicants from further consideration;

• Allow a hiring manager in one agency to apply a pass over of a preference eligible veteran made by another hiring agency (or by OPM in the case of a preference eligible veteran with a thirty percent or more disability); and

• OPM may conduct these actions for hiring under competitive examining procedures, direct hire authority, or positions in the excepted service.

Both shared certificates and OPM-led pooled hiring actions create efficiencies within the hiring process, support merit system principles, and support several tenets of E.O. 14170 and the Merit Hiring Plan. The E.O. directed that “recruitment and hiring processes” become “more efficient and focused on serving the Nation.” Section I.D. of the Merit Hiring Plan speaks to “. . . the use of validated assessments, talent pools, and shared certificates.” The Merit Hiring Plan notes that “OPM has already begun this process by centralizing hiring actions for common occupations such as Budget Analysts, Human Resources Specialists, and Information Technology positions. This allows applicants to apply once for roles at many agencies and allow agencies to select qualified candidates from a single shared certificate.” The Merit Hiring Plan also states that, “Agencies should collaborate with OPM to identify hiring actions that will use shared certificates or lists of eligible candidates external to the agency as both the originating and receiving agency (such as pursuant to the Competitive Service Act of 2015 (5 U.S.C. 3318-19) and other hiring authorities), so that OPM can assist in connecting agencies for the purposes of certificate sharing.” All of this supports Merit System Principles, which state, inter alia, “Recruitment should be from qualified individuals from appropriate sources in an endeavor to achieve a work force from all segments of society, and selection and advancement should be determined solely on the basis of relative ability, knowledge and skills, after fair and open competition which assures that all receive equal opportunity.” 5 U.S.C. 2301(b)(1).

For the excepted service, new subpart F of part 302 authorizes OPM to issue excepted service certificates, permits agencies to make selections from those certificates in accordance with applicable law and regulation, and requires agencies to continue to meet all applicable requirements relating to priority reemployment and veterans' preference, including those in §§ 302.103, 302.303, 302.304, and 302.401. Under § 302.603, OPM may recruit applicants, determine whether they meet minimum requirements and qualifications and provide lists of qualified applicants to agencies, while agencies remain responsible for conducting technical assessments in accordance with the Merit Hiring Plan and 5 U.S.C. 3304(a)(3), (c)(1) and (4), preparing and issuing their own certificates under part 302, and applying existing mechanisms such as the three-consideration rule and pass-over procedures for preference eligibles, with notice to OPM so that OPM can notify all participating agencies when an applicant has been removed from further consideration. Section 302.604 permits OPM to create and issue one or more ready-made certificate(s) for pooled excepted service hiring and to establish policies governing the timeframe for agency selections, while retaining requirements that agencies satisfy all applicable priority reemployment and veterans' preference obligations and follow the three-consideration rule and pass-over procedures, with OPM informing all participating agencies when an applicant or veteran has been removed from further consideration.

Subpart F authorizes OPM to conduct pooled hiring for excepted service positions by recruiting applicants, determining their minimum qualifications, and providing lists or certificates that may be used by one or more agencies. Agencies retain responsibility for technical assessments, selections, and compliance with existing legal requirements, including priority reemployment, the three-consideration rule, and protections for preference eligibles.

Section 302.601 establishes that OPM may issue lists of qualified applicants to agencies, or excepted service certificates, that can be used by single or multiple agencies under part 302. It provides that agencies may conduct technical assessments and certification on lists of qualified applicants, or make selections from OPM-issued certificates consistent with applicable law and regulation, reinforcing that pooled hiring operates within existing statutory and regulatory hiring frameworks.

Section 302.602 defines OPM-led pooled hiring action to mean a hiring approach under which OPM will (1) centrally recruit and provide agencies with lists of applicants who meet minimum requirements and qualifications for hiring agencies to conduct the technical assessment, certification, and selection processes, or (2) centrally recruit, screen applicants for minimum requirements and qualifications, conduct the technical assessment and certification processes, and provide agencies with ready-made certificates of qualified applicants to make selections.

Section 302.603 explains that OPM may recruit applicants and determine whether they meet minimum requirements and qualifications, then provide agencies with lists of qualified candidates. Agencies remain responsible for conducting technical assessments, issuing their own certificates, and ensuring that all requirements related to applicants eligible for priority reemployment (including those in §§ 302.103, 302.303, 302.304, and 302.401) are satisfied.

Section 302.603 also permits agencies to apply the three-consideration rule under § 332.405, on certificates on which applicants were assigned numerical scores under § 302.302(b)(1), with a requirement to notify OPM so that OPM can inform all participating agencies when an applicant has been removed from further consideration under that rule. An agency may, but is not required to, consider an applicant who has already received three bona fide considerations by another agency; similarly, when an agency passes over a preference eligible and that pass over is sustained, it must notify OPM so that OPM can inform participating agencies that the veteran has been removed from further consideration, and any agency may—but is not required to—consider an applicant previously passed over under § 302.401 and the Delegated Examining Operations Handbook.

Section 302.604 authorizes OPM to issue one or more excepted service certificates for a given hiring instance under the procedures of part 302. When an agency uses an OPM-generated certificate, it may not reassess applicants for rating or ranking purposes, ensuring that OPM's central assessment governs how applicants are ordered on the certificate.

Section 302.604 further allows OPM to establish policies governing the timeframe within which an agency using an OPM certificate may make a selection, including any extensions. Agencies using these certificates must still meet all applicable requirements for applicants eligible for priority reemployment (referencing §§ 302.103, .303, .304, and .401), may apply the three-consideration rule with notice to OPM (so OPM can notify all participating agencies of removals from consideration), and must notify OPM when a pass over of a preference eligible is sustained so that OPM can remove the veteran from further consideration for all participating agencies, which may but are not required to consider such applicants thereafter.

For competitive service positions, new § 332.409 establishes parallel authority for OPM-led pooled hiring actions conducted under delegated examining procedures, permitting OPM to issue lists of qualified applicants or ready-made competitive service certificates for use by one or more agencies. Under paragraph (c), OPM may recruit applicants, determine whether they meet minimum qualifications, and provide agencies with lists of qualified applicants, including identifying applicants with ICTAP eligibility who must receive selection priority consistent with 5 CFR part 330, subpart G, before other applicants from an OPM-generated certificate. Participating agencies remain responsible for conducting technical assessments and issuing certificates under parts 332 and 337 and are required to satisfy all applicable Reemployment Priority List (RPL), CTAP, and ICTAP requirements before making selections.

Paragraph (d) authorizes OPM to issue one or more competitive certificates for a hiring instance and to establish policies specifying the timeframe within which agencies may make selections and any extensions, while providing agencies with ICTAP-eligible lists and requiring each agency to clear RPL and CTAP in accordance with 5 CFR part 330 before selecting from an OPM-generated certificate. As with the excepted service framework, agencies using pooled competitive examining certificates remain subject to the three-consideration rule and pass-over requirements for preference eligibles; agencies must notify OPM when invoking the three-consideration rule or when a pass over is sustained, and OPM will notify all participating agencies when an applicant has been removed from further consideration, while allowing agencies discretion, consistent with law and the Delegated Examining Operations Handbook, to consider applicants who have received three bona fide considerations or been subject to a sustained pass over.

Section 332.409 authorizes OPM to conduct pooled hiring for competitive service positions by issuing lists of qualified applicants or competitive service certificates that may be used by multiple agencies under delegated examining procedures. Agencies make selections from these OPM-issued certificates in accordance with existing law and regulation, while remaining responsible for technical assessments, their own certificates, and for clearing applicable Reemployment Priority List (RPL), CTAP, and ICTAP requirements before selecting from the pooled lists.

Paragraph (a) provides that OPM may issue lists of qualified applicants or competitive service certificates for use by one or more agencies operating under delegated examining procedures. It further states that agencies may make selections from these certificates consistent with applicable law and regulation, making clear that pooled hiring is an optional mechanism that functions within the existing competitive examining framework.

Paragraph (b) defines OPM-led pooled hiring action to mean a hiring approach under which OPM will (1) centrally recruit and provide agencies with lists of applicants who meet minimum requirements and qualifications for hiring agencies to conduct the technical assessment, certification, and selection processes, or (2) centrally recruit, screen applicants for minimum requirements and qualifications, conduct the technical assessment and certification processes, and provide agencies with ready-made certificates of qualified applicants to make selections. OPM at its discretion may provide agencies with lists of applicants eligible under 5 CFR part 330, subpart F, subpart G, or both.

Paragraph (c) explains that OPM may recruit applicants, determine minimum qualifications, and provide agencies with lists of qualified applicants. As part of this pooled process, OPM will provide agencies with a list of applicants with ICTAP eligibility, who must be selected before other applicants from the OPM-generated certificate, consistent with 5 CFR part 330, subpart G.

Participating agencies remain responsible for conducting technical assessments and issuing certificates under this part and part 337, and must satisfy all applicable requirements related to RPL, CTAP, and ICTAP before making selections. The paragraph also allows an agency to apply the three-consideration rule under § 332.405, on certificates issued under § 332.402, with an obligation to notify OPM so that OPM can inform all participating agencies when an applicant has been removed from further consideration; agencies may, but are not required to, consider applicants who have already received three bona fide considerations by another agency, and similarly must notify OPM when a pass over of a preference eligible is sustained so that OPM can notify participating agencies and remove the veteran from further consideration, while leaving each agency the discretion to consider applicants previously passed over under § 332.406 and the Delegated Examining Operations Handbook.

Paragraph (d) authorizes OPM to issue one or more competitive certificates for a hiring instance under delegated examining procedures. When an agency uses an OPM-generated certificate, it may not reassess applicants for rating or ranking, ensuring that OPM's assessment governs the order of candidates.

Paragraph (d) also permits OPM to establish policies specifying the timeframe within which agencies using an OPM certificate may make selections, including any extensions. In addition, OPM will provide agencies with a list of ICTAP-eligible applicants who must be selected before other applicants from the OPM-generated certificate, and each agency must clear RPL and CTAP before selecting from the certificate, while still being able to invoke the three-consideration rule on certificates issued under § 332.402 and to follow pass-over procedures for preference eligibles—again with notice to OPM so that it can inform all participating agencies and remove such applicants from further consideration, while allowing agencies the discretion to consider applicants who have been subject to three considerations or a sustained pass over.

OPM is also adding a new § 337.206 to subpart B of part 337, and redesignating existing § 337.206 (Terminations, modifications, extensions, and reporting) as § 337.207, to address OPM-issued certificates used in connection with direct hire authority as part of OPM-led pooled hiring. Paragraph (a) authorizes OPM to issue direct hire certificates in conjunction with any direct hire authority authorized under subpart B of part 337. Paragraph (b) requires OPM to provide participating agencies information concerning applicants entitled to priority consideration under 5 CFR part 330, subpart G, who applied to the pooled announcement, and requires each agency to provide those applicants selection priority in accordance with that subpart. Paragraph (c) requires each agency using an OPM-issued direct hire certificate to satisfy its Reemployment Priority List and Career Transition Assistance Plan obligations under 5 CFR part 330, subparts B and F, before making a selection from the certificate. Paragraph (d) provides that agencies may not assess applicants for purposes of determining relative qualifications through rating and ranking, consistent with the limitations on assessment applicable under direct hire authority, but may select among qualified candidates on the basis of relative qualifications. Paragraph (e) provides that these requirements apply to OPM-issued direct hire certificates notwithstanding § 337.201(a).

Paragraph (d)'s two clauses reflect the distinction, inherent in the direct-hire framework, between assessment and selection. Under 5 U.S.C. 3304(b)(3), direct-hire appointments are made without regard to 5 U.S.C. 3309 through 3318, the provisions governing numerical rating, additional points for preference eligibles, and certification of eligibles in rank order. Because those provisions do not apply, agencies using direct-hire authority may not rate and rank applicants: assigning scores, categories, or ordinal standing would reconstruct a competitive-examining process without the preference and certification safeguards that ordinarily accompany one, and paragraph (d) carries that assessment-stage limitation forward for OPM-issued direct-hire certificates.

That limitation, however, has sometimes been misread to require selecting officials to treat every qualified candidate as interchangeable, as though any job-related comparison at the point of selection were forbidden. Neither 5 U.S.C. 3304(b)(3) nor subpart B of part 337 compels that result: the statute lifts the examining procedures of sections 3309 through 3318; it does not direct agencies to disregard merit when choosing among qualified candidates. Paragraph (d) therefore makes explicit that, once qualifications have been established, a selecting official may weigh the relative qualifications of qualified candidates—for example, depth and relevance of experience, education, and demonstrated competencies—in making a selection.

A selection-stage comparison of this kind is not rating and ranking within the meaning of paragraph (d): it assigns no scores, establishes no ordered register or certificate, occurs only after the certificate has been issued, and creates no entitlement to selection in any particular order. This clarification harmonizes direct-hire procedures with the merit system principle that selection should be determined on the basis of relative ability, knowledge, and skills (5 U.S.C. 2301(b)(1)) and with the direction of E.O. 14170 and the Merit Hiring Plan that agencies select the best-qualified candidates, while preserving the streamlined character of direct hiring that 5 U.S.C. 3304(b)(3) is designed to provide.

OPM is issuing this interim rule to implement the provisions of E.O. 14170, the Merit Hiring Plan, and 5 U.S.C. 2301(b)(5). These provisions emphasize efficiency and an effective use of the federal workforce. The modifications to the shared certificates provisions are responsive to agency feedback on the limitations of current § 332.408. This interim rule is needed to reinvigorate the use of shared certificates, broaden its applicability to excepted service hiring, and attune these rules with the Merit Hiring Plan and the Chance to Compete Act, 5 U.S.C. 3304(a) and (c). The OPM-led pooled hiring provisions memorialize current OPM hiring practices thereby creating transparency and consistency for high-demand occupations or those common across federal agencies. Pooled hiring actions enable a more efficient and effective hiring system. They eliminate duplication and variation of outcomes for the same hiring need across government and provide agencies with ready-made lists of applicants from which to make selections. They increase efficiency and expedite the hiring process by increasing the number of selections made from one certificate.

OPM is issuing these provisions to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of hiring across the federal landscape. OPM-led hiring actions leverage OPM's extensive expertise with respect to examining while alleviating agencies from having to replicate the process for the same hiring action. This will result in economies of scale when it comes to filling the same high-demand positions across government. Another impact will be that this approach reduces the time to hire. Agencies are provided ready-made certificates and pools of qualified applicants from which to make selections or conduct technical assessments and certify candidates. Applicants need only apply one time to the original job announcement or notification and can be considered by multiple agencies instead of applying to each agency separately. All of these outcomes will mean a more effective, twenty-first century hiring process for agencies and applicants.

These provisions are expected primarily to improve efficiency and consistency in Federal hiring while preserving existing protections and priority programs for affected applicants. The impact of this rule is as follows:

• Centralized recruitment and preliminary qualification screening by OPM should reduce duplicative agency recruiting efforts and help agencies access broader, shared pools of qualified applicants for excepted and competitive service positions.

• Use of OPM-generated lists and certificates for multiple agencies is expected to shorten time-to-hire and support more consistent application of qualification standards and rating and ranking procedures.

• Agencies will retain responsibility for technical assessments and selections, so any changes to internal workflows are expected to be incremental and focused on integrating OPM-issued lists and certificates into existing hiring processes.

• The provisions are designed to maintain, rather than reduce, protections for preference eligibles and applicants covered by priority and transition programs.

• Agencies must continue to satisfy all applicable requirements related to priority reemployment (for excepted service) and RPL, CTAP, and ICTAP (for competitive service) before making selections, and OPM will identify ICTAP-eligible applicants who must be selected in accordance with 5 CFR part 330.

• Existing veterans' preference protections, including the pass-over procedures for preference eligibles and the three-consideration rule, remain in place, with additional coordination through OPM notification to ensure that all participating agencies act consistently when an applicant is removed from further consideration.

• For agencies, the pooled hiring model is expected to provide greater flexibility and access to ready candidate pools, potentially improving the speed and quality of hiring decisions without imposing fundamentally new obligations beyond integrating OPM-led processes and notification requirements.

• For applicants, the ability for multiple agencies to use shared OPM-generated lists and certificates may increase opportunities for consideration across agencies from a single application, while ensuring that those subject to priority and preference rules continue to receive the protections required by statute and regulation.

OPM considered minor regulatory changes to current rules at 5 CFR 332.408. We determined this approach did not support Merit System Principles and the Administration initiatives mentioned above. OPM opted for a more expansive approach aimed at producing a more efficient and effective hiring system for federal agencies, job applicants, and taxpayers. We determined the wording in 5 U.S.C. 3301, 3302, and 3320 allows us to expand the use of shared certificates under the Competitive Service Act of 2015, as amended, for positions filled in the excepted service using rating or ranking selection methods.

As OPM's use of pooled hiring actions has grown, we believe there is benefit to memorializing in regulation the provisions which govern this approach. This provides for a standardized and transparent system of rules to the benefit of hiring agencies and applicants. Under these provisions, applicants essentially apply once and become part of a pool of talent available for consideration by several federal agencies. Agencies are able to access candidates who have already been assessed and found qualified for similar positions, grades, and locations. This eliminates duplication of effort and resources. OPM determined the benefits of regulating far outweigh the alternative.

This interim rule will affect the operations of over 80 Federal agencies—ranging from cabinet-level departments to small independent agencies. OPM will provide guidance on implementing this rule in various forms: fact sheets, frequently asked questions, and podcasts. OPM estimates that this rulemaking will require individuals employed by these agencies to train human resources (HR) practitioners and hiring managers on its use. For this cost analysis, OPM assumed an average salary rate of Federal employees performing this work using the rate in 2025 for GS-14, step 5, from the Washington, DC, locality pay table ($161,486 annual locality rate and $77.38 hourly locality rate). We assumed that the total dollar value of labor, which includes wages, benefits, and overhead, is equal to 200 percent of the wage rate, resulting in an assumed labor cost of $154.76 per hour. To comply with the regulatory changes in the interim rule, affected agencies will need to review the rule and update their policies and procedures where necessary. We estimate that, in the first year following publication of the interim rule, doing so will require an average of 100 hours of work by employees per agency with an average hourly cost of $154.76. This work would result in estimated costs in that first year of implementation of about $15,476 per agency, and about $1,238,080 in total governmentwide. In addition, OPM estimates that agencies will train human resources practitioners and hiring managers on these procedures, as contemplated by the guidance OPM will issue with this rule; assuming approximately 10,000 individuals governmentwide require an average of 2 hours of training at the same loaded hourly rate of $154.76, first-year training costs are approximately $3,095,200. OPM further estimates that agencies will update staffing-system configurations, applicant-notification templates, and case-file procedures to accommodate shared and OPM-issued certificates, at an average of 40 hours per agency, or approximately $495,232 governmentwide. Total estimated first-year costs are therefore approximately $4.8 million. OPM invites comment, accompanied by data, on these estimates. Some agencies may incur additional costs because they have to establish excepted service employment policies where none existed. We do not believe this rulemaking will substantially increase the ongoing administrative costs to agencies (including the administrative costs of using these new procedures and training new staff) because the rulemaking streamlines existing procedures and processes.

The benefits of the interim rule are many. This interim rule supports Administration efforts to improve hiring processes across federal agencies. These rules will prevent agencies from “reinventing the wheel” for every job opening, which will reduce the time to hire and allow agencies to tap into existing pools of top-tier talent. By streamlining the hiring process, these rules make federal hiring more efficient and beneficial for hiring agencies and applicants.

If any provision of the interim sections or its application to any person, act, or practice is held invalid, the remainder of the subpart or the application of its provisions to any person, act, or practice shall not be affected thereby.

Section 2(d) of Public Law 114-137, the Competitive Service Act of 2015 (“CSA”), directs that “the Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall issue an interim final rule with comment to carry out the amendments made by this section.” On January 18, 2017, OPM published an interim final rule to implement the amendments made by the CSA. Based on experience with the rule, these amendments to § 332.408 and related provisions of part 332 governing shared use of competitive service certificates are issued as an interim final rule with comment pursuant to this express statutory directive, and the general notice-and-comment requirement of 5 U.S.C. 553(b) is statutorily waived as to those provisions.

With respect to the new framework for shared use of excepted service certificates (5 CFR part 302, subpart E) and OPM-led pooled hiring actions (§§ 302.601 and 332.409), which are not amendments compelled by the CSA, OPM separately finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to issue these provisions without prior notice of proposed rulemaking. OPM currently uses pooled hiring approaches and coordinated excepted-service referral practices administratively, and agencies have structured ongoing and planned hiring actions—including centralized hiring for Budget Analyst, Human Resources Specialist, and Information Technology positions referenced in the Merit Hiring Plan—around the expectation that these practices will continue without interruption. Requiring a delay for notice and comment before formalizing these existing practices in regulation would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest, because it would create uncertainty for agencies and applicants currently relying on these hiring mechanisms and could require unwinding hiring actions already underway.

OPM-led pooled hiring actions are in active use for occupations common across the Government, with announcements open, certificates outstanding, and applicants awaiting selection as of the date of this rule. Interposing a notice-and-comment cycle before these provisions take effect would suspend or cast doubt on selections from those certificates, prejudice applicants who applied in reliance on the announced process, and delay the filling of high-need positions; those results would be impracticable to administer and contrary to the public interest.

In addition, these provisions are procedural and organizational in character: they govern the internal mechanics by which OPM and Federal agencies refer, share, and act upon lists and certificates of eligibles, and they impose no new substantive burden on applicants, whose rights—including veterans' preference, priority reemployment, and career transition protections—are preserved in full.

Accordingly, OPM has also concluded that these provisions fall within the exception for rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A), which independently permits issuance without prior notice and comment. Codifying these existing practices now, rather than only after a comment cycle, also serves the public interest by providing applicants and agencies immediately with the transparency and uniformity of published rules. OPM is nonetheless requesting public comment on all provisions of this interim rule, including the excepted-service and pooled-hiring provisions, and will consider all comments received in determining whether to modify these provisions in a subsequent final rule.

OPM has examined the impact of this rule as required by E.O.s 12866 and 13563, which direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if a regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health, and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). A regulatory impact analysis must be prepared for rules that have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities. This rulemaking does not reach that threshold but has otherwise been designated as a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, as supplemented by E.O. 13563. This rulemaking is not considered an E.O. 14192 regulatory action because it imposes no more than de minimis costs.

The Director of the Office of Personnel Management certifies that this regulation will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because it applies only to Federal agencies and employees.

This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, no Federalism Assessment is required.

This rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988.

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that would impose spending costs on State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or on the private sector, in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. That threshold is currently approximately $206 million. This rulemaking will not result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, in excess of the threshold. Thus, no written assessment of unfunded mandates is required.

OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined this rule does not meet the criteria for a “major rule” as defined in 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, as amended, (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number.

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.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preamble, OPM amends 5 CFR parts 302, 332, and 337 as follows:

On August 3, 2026, OPM published a final rule titled “Reduction in Force” at 91 FR 49178 (FR 2026-15665), effective September 2, 2026. Among other things, the final rule revised the definitions of “displaced” and “surplus” in 5 CFR 330.602 to replace references to career and career-conditional (tenure group I or II) employees with references to employees in the competitive service tenure group.

Amendatory instruction 11 of the final rule, at 91 FR 49217, directed that paragraph (1) of the definition of “displaced” in § 330.602 be revised, and set out only the introductory text of that paragraph as the revised text. OPM intended to revise only the introductory text of paragraph (1), and to leave paragraphs (1)(i) and (1)(ii) of the definition unchanged. As published, however, instruction 11 had the effect of removing paragraphs (1)(i) and (1)(ii), which describe the circumstances under which a competitive service employee is “displaced” for purposes of CTAP: receipt of a reduction in force separation notice under 5 CFR part 351, or receipt of a notice of proposed removal under 5 CFR part 752 for declining a directed geographic relocation outside the local commuting area. Without these paragraphs, the definition is incomplete. This document corrects the error by revising paragraph (1) of the definition of “displaced” in its entirety, restating the introductory text as revised by the final rule and restoring paragraphs (1)(i) and (1)(ii) as they read before the final rule.

The revision of paragraph (1) of the definition of “surplus” in instruction 11 was published as intended and is not affected by this correction.

OPM finds that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to issue this correcting amendment without prior notice and opportunity for public comment. This document makes no substantive change to the regulations. It restores regulatory text that was in effect before September 2, 2026, that OPM did not propose to remove, and that the final rule did not discuss removing; notice and comment are therefore unnecessary. For the same reasons, OPM finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make this correction effective upon publication.

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.

Accordingly, 5 CFR part 330 is corrected by making the following correcting amendment:

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Pilatus Model PC-24 airplanes. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on May 13, 2026 (91 FR 26949). The NPRM was prompted by EASA AD 2026-0008, dated January 15, 2026 (EASA AD 2026-0008) (also referred to as the MCAI), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. The MCAI states that the PC-24 windshield de-fog (low power windshield heating) is switched ON and OFF by an SSR. The affected part allows current to flow in reverse direction when it is in the OFF position. If, during a dual generator failure, the emergency windshield heat button is pushed, the batteries power the windshield heating. The batteries also power the electrical power distribution units (EPDU) 1 and 3 via the affected part. A reversal of current flow could cause the function of the emergency windshield heat to fail when required. As a result, the LH side window may not be fully de-fogged, and ice may not be cleared from either the LH or the right-hand windshield.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require modification of the airplane and replacement of the affected SSR with a serviceable part. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2026-4632.

The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the costs.

These products have been approved by the civil aviation authority of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, that authority has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2026-0008, which specifies procedures for replacement of the LH windshield heating SSR with a serviceable part. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 168 airplanes of U.S. registry.

The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2024-23-06, Amendment 39-22885 (89 FR 91248, November 19, 2024) (AD 2024-23-06). AD 2024-23-06 applied to certain MD Helicopters, LLC Model 369, 369A, 369D, 369E, 369F, 369FF, 369H, 369HE, 369HM, 369HS, 500N, and 600N helicopters. AD 2024-23-06 was prompted by a report of a seized and damaged roller bearing assembly in the torque tube assembly of an MD Helicopters, LLC Model 369E helicopter. AD 2024-23-06 required repetitively inspecting the torque tube assembly and roller bearings, and depending on the results, replacing parts or accomplishing additional inspections.

The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on November 18, 2025 (90 FR 51596). The NPRM was prompted by a report that additional torque tube assemblies are affected by the same unsafe condition addressed in AD 2024-23-06 and should be included in the AD action. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to continue to require the actions of AD 2024-23-06, and also proposed to expand the applicability to include all MD Helicopters, LLC Model 369, 369A, 369D, 369E, 369F, 369FF, 369H, 369HE, 369HM, 369HS, 500N, and 600N helicopters, regardless of the torque tube part number. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent failure of the torque tube assembly, which, if not addressed, could result in reduced controllability and loss of control of the helicopter.

The FAA received comments from the Citizens Rulemaking Alliance. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance requested that, absent justification for finding good cause to bypass notice and comment procedures, the FAA either convert this action to an NPRM with a 30-day comment period or defer the effective date by 30 to 60 days while maintaining a parallel safety alert or special airworthiness information bulletin and highlighting voluntary compliance with the service information. The commenter asserted the FAA has not adequately justified use of the good cause exemption to bypass notice and comment and the 30-day delayed effective date.

The FAA notes the comment was submitted in response to an NPRM for which the FAA provided a 45-day comment period. This final rule is effective 35 days after its publication in the Federal Register . Therefore, the FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance requested that the FAA add to the AD docket the FAA's risk assessment, the background report data, the dates of the triggering service information and any foreign authority AD, and a summary of alternatives considered and rejected for safety reasons. The commenter stated that this will allow commenters to address safety tradeoffs while preserving urgent mitigation if warranted.

The FAA has assessed and disclosed the background and basis for this rulemaking in the preamble of the NPRM, including a discussion of the previous AD, a description of the unsafe condition, and the FAA's rationale for the required actions on additional torque tube assemblies. This information was available to the public during the 45-day comment period provided by the NPRM.

The FAA evaluated the alternative of not promulgating this AD but ultimately determined that this alternative would create a significant safety hazard. Relying on voluntary compliance or existing requirements would leave the unsafe condition unaddressed and would not ensure an acceptable level of safety. Accordingly, the FAA has determined that promulgating this AD is necessary to ensure an acceptable level of safety.

Since the FAA has assessed and disclosed the basis for this rulemaking in the preamble of the NPRM, there is no service material or foreign authority AD related to this rulemaking action, and the commenter did not provide additional safety data for the FAA to consider in its analysis, it is not necessary to provide additional information in the AD docket.

The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance requested that the FAA revise the proposed AD to comply with the PRA if reporting is required, or remove any reporting provisions and stay enforcement until PRA requirements are satisfied. The commenter stated that the PRA requires providing the applicable Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number(s), required PRA statements, and burden estimates in the AD and docket. If reporting is not required, the commenter requested the FAA clarify that in the AD.

The FAA notes that this AD does not require reporting. If an AD were to require reporting, the preamble of the AD would include a paragraph titled “Paperwork Reduction Act” that would provide the applicable OMB control number, required PRA statements, and the estimated time to collect the required information (burden). Any costs associated with the reporting requirement would be included in the Costs of Compliance section in the preamble of the AD. Therefore, the FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance stated that the FAA's current practices for IBR frequently fail to meet the legal and regulatory standards for reasonable availability. The commenter called on the FAA to guarantee that all IBR materials are easily and freely accessible to the public and affected parties for both commenting and compliance purposes. They also requested that this access be documented in the rulemaking record. Further, the commenter requested that, if reasonable availability cannot be assured, enforcement of the incorporated by reference requirements be deferred until it is assured.

The FAA notes that this AD does not incorporate by reference any material. All required actions and compliance times are contained within the regulatory text of this AD. Therefore, the FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance requested that the FAA either provide the factual basis for its Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) certification that the AD will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities or prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis and seek input from the Office of Advocacy from the Small Business Administration (SBA).

The FAA has considered the AD's impact on small businesses and provides the following analysis.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, Public Law 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164 (5 U.S.C. 601-612), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121, 110 Stat. 857, Mar. 29, 1996) and the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-240, 124 Stat. 2504, Sept. 27, 2010), requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory action on small business and other small entities and to minimize any significant economic impact. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses and not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.

The FAA used the definition of small entities in the RFA for this analysis. The RFA defines small entities as small businesses, small governmental jurisdictions, or small organizations. In 5 U.S.C. 601(3), the RFA defines “small business” to have the same meaning as “small business concern” under section 3 of the Small Business Act. The Small Business Act authorizes the SBA to define “small business” by issuing regulations.

The SBA has established size standards for various types of economic activities, or industries, under the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). These size standards generally define small businesses based on the number of employees or annual receipts. The following table provides the SBA size standards for all industries with at least one entity  1 impacted by this AD. Note that the SBA definition of a small business applies to the parent company and all affiliates as a single entity.

To identify small entities, the FAA first identified the primary NAICS of the entity or parent company, and then used data from different sources ( e.g., company annual reports, Bureau of Transportation Statistics) to determine whether the entity meets the applicable size standard. The FAA provides the estimated number of small entities affected by this AD:

The FAA estimates affected entities will incur an inspection cost of $149 per inspection cycle, with an average of 7 inspection cycles per year. FAA analyzes the cost of inspection of $1,043 as the low-case for each small entity. Based upon the results of the inspections, operators could incur up to 3 on-condition costs of $6,024. If an operator were to incur all inspection and on-condition costs, FAA estimates each operator would incur $7,067 per helicopter annually. The FAA has no way to determine if each helicopter will require these on-condition costs. The high-case includes both inspection and on-condition costs for each small entity. The following table presents the small entity case burdens average percentage for compliance based on the average annual revenue by each NAICS industry.

The FAA evaluated the alternative of not promulgating this AD but ultimately deemed that this alternative would create a significant safety hazard. Since the issuance of AD 2024-23-06, which affected certain MD Helicopters, LLC Model 369, 369A, 369D, 369E, 369F, 369FF, 369H, 369HE, 369HM, 369HS, 500N, and 600N helicopters, it has been determined that the risk of failure of the torque tube assembly extends to additional torque tube assemblies. Relying on the existing requirements would leave these additional torque tube assemblies unmonitored. By expanding the applicability, this AD addresses the unsafe condition and prevents potential failure, ensuring a level of safety that the alternative of no action could not provide.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Except for minor editorial changes, replacement of the RFA certification with a final regulatory flexibility analysis, a change in the Costs of Compliance section (from 353 helicopters to 680 helicopters and corresponding cost changes), and any other changes described previously, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 680 helicopters of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any on-condition actions that would be required based on the results of the inspections. The agency has no way of determining the number of helicopters that might need these on-condition actions:

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect 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.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, and

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends the legal description for Class D and Class E airspace in Hyannis, MA.

Class D and Class E airspace designations are published in paragraphs 5000 and 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11M, dated July 30, 2026, and effective September 15, 2026. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. FAA Order JO 7400.11M, which lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points, is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

An airspace review revealed that administrative updates were needed for the Class D and Class E airspace legal descriptions related to Cape Cod Gateway Airport, Hyannis, MA. Accordingly, this action amends 14 CFR part 71 by updating the term “Notice to Air Missions” in the Hyannis, MA Class D airspace legal description to “Notice to Airmen” in order to comply with current FAA guidance. This action also updates the airport name for Cape Cod Gateway Airport in the Falmouth, MA Class E5 airspace legal description. This action does not change the airspace boundaries or operating requirements.

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) authorizes agencies to dispense with ordinary notice and comment requirements for rules when the agency for “good cause” finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). Under this section, an agency, upon finding good cause, may issue a final rule without first publishing a proposed rule subject to public notice and comment. This rule only involves administrative changes, including the update of the airport's name. This amendment will not impose any additional or amended substantive restrictions or requirements on the persons affected by these regulations as it does not affect the airspace boundaries or operating requirements. The changes are ministerial in nature only.

This action constitutes “a routine determination, insignificant in nature and impact, and inconsequential to the industry and to the public.” Mack Trucks, Inc. v. EPA, 682 F.3d 87, 94 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (quoting Util. Solid Waste Activities Grp. v. EPA, 236 F.3d 749, 755 (D.C. Cir. 2001)); see also Attorney General's Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act (1947), at 31; U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Order 2100.6B, paragraph 11.j(1)(b) (saying proposed rules are not required for “[r]ules for which notice and comment is unnecessary to inform the rulemaking, such as rules correcting de minimis technical or clerical errors or rules addressing other minor and insubstantial matters, provided the reasons to forgo public comment are explained in the preamble to the final rule”.). Accordingly, the FAA finds good cause that notice and public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) is unnecessary.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1G, “FAA National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures” paragraph B-2.5(a). This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant the preparation of an environmental assessment.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

The Coast Guard received notification of a dredge pipeline installation and removal in the Calcasieu River Channel near the Cameron LNG turning basin. The subline installation and removal operation presents navigational and safety hazards to commercial and recreational traffic over the entire width of the Calcasieu River Channel in that area. Hazards from this project include but are not limited to deployment of heavy equipment which will obstruct vessel traffic, and associated activities which create underwater hazards for workers and the public. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Marine Safety Unit Port Arthur has determined that potential hazards associated with the installation and removal are a safety concern for anyone that may transit within the area. Therefore, the COTP is issuing this rule under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034, which is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone.

Because of these potential hazards, the Coast Guard is issuing this rule without prior notice and comment. As is authorized by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. The Coast Guard was notified of this event on September 1, 2026, but we must establish this safety zone by September 11, 2026, to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment. Therefore, we do not have enough time to solicit and respond to comments.

For the same reason, the Coast Guard finds that under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register .

This rule establishes a safety zone that will be enforced for approximately four hours on the days of the pipeline installation and removal, to occur between September 11, 2026 and October 31, 2026. The COTP will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to inform the public of the exact date and time of enforcement, which will depend on the schedule for installation and removal of a dredge pipeline. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters in the Calcasieu River Channel within the following points: Point 1 at 30°2′45.43″ N 93°19′53.01″ W, thence to Point 2 at 30°2′44.30″ N 93°19′39.54″ W, thence to Point 3 at 30°2′0.65″ N 93°19′56.76″ W thence to Point 4 at 30°2′0.16″ N 93°19′40.92″ W; thence returning to Point 1. The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters during the pipeline installation and removal. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. Vessels and persons will not be allowed to enter the zone during this time, unless authorized by the Captain of the Port.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders.

The regulatory flexibility analysis provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, do not apply to rules that are not subject to notice and comment. Because the Coast Guard has, for good cause, waived the notice and comment requirement that would otherwise apply to this rulemaking, the Regulatory Flexibility Act's flexibility analysis provisions do not apply here.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), if this rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions, contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Small businesses may send comments to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards by calling 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in that Order.

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

As required by The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), the Coast Guard certifies that this rule will not result in an annual expenditure of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted for inflation) by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.

This rule is a safety zone. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket.

SpaceX conducts rocket testing at their Massey's Test Site on a weekly basis. This test site is on the Rio Grande River, approximately 6 miles inland from the mouth of the river. Test activities at this location create hazards such as the potential accidental discharge of cryogenic fuel and test failures resulting in dangerous projectiles and falling hot embers or other debris. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Corpus Christi has determined that the testing activities that create these potential hazards are a safety concern for anyone on the Rio Grande River within a half mile of the test site. Therefore, the COTP is issuing this rule under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034, which is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone.

Because of these potential hazards, the Coast Guard is issuing this rule without prior notice and comment. As is authorized by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The Coast Guard is notified of these tests on a weekly basis, but it is not determined if static fire or cryogenic testing will be conducted, requiring activation of the safety zone, until hours before their start. Therefore, we do not have enough time to solicit and respond to comments. However, the Coast Guard has previously published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to establish a permanent safety zone around this site and is preparing a final rule for that project (90 FR 61112, December 30, 2025, Docket number USCG-2025-0898). This temporary zone is necessary to ensure safety on the Rio Grande River until the permanent zone is established.

For the same reasons, the Coast Guard finds that under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register .

This rule establishes a safety zone from September 4, 2026, through October 31, 2026. The safety zone would cover all navigable waters within a half mile radius of the testing facility located at 25°57′09.0″ N, 97°14′50.0″ W. The safety zone will only be enforced during times when explosive or hazardous testing operations are being conducted at the site. During those limited times, no vessel or person would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or their designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analysis based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders.

The regulatory flexibility analysis provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, do not apply to rules that are not subject to notice and comment. Because the Coast Guard has, for good cause, waived the notice and comment requirement that would otherwise apply to this rulemaking, the Regulatory Flexibility Act's flexibility analysis provisions do not apply here.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), if this rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions, contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Small businesses may send comments to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards by calling 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in that Order.

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

As required by The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), the Coast Guard certifies that this rule will not result in an annual expenditure of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted for inflation) by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.

This rule is a safety zone. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document might apply to them:

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

EPA is issuing this rulemaking under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a. FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the exemption is “safe.” FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings but does not include occupational exposure. Pursuant to FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), in establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C), which require EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . . . .” Additionally, FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D) requires that the Agency consider, among other things, “available information concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues” and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. If you fail to file an objection to the final rule within the time period specified in the final rule, you will have waived the right to raise any issues resolved in the final rule. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify the docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2024-0308 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before November 16, 2026.

EPA's Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ), in which the Hearing Clerk is housed, urges parties to file and serve documents by electronic means only, notwithstanding any other particular requirements set forth in other procedural rules governing those proceedings. See “Order Urging Electronic Filing and Service,” dated December 3, 2025, which can be found at https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2025-12/2025-12-03-order-urging-electronic-filing-and-service.pdf. Although EPA's regulations require submission via U.S. Mail or hand delivery, EPA intends to treat submissions filed via electronic means as properly filed submissions; therefore, EPA believes the preference for submission via electronic means will not be prejudicial. When submitting documents to the OALJ electronically, a person should utilize the OALJ e-filing system at https://yosemite.epa.gov/oa/eab/eab-alj_upload.nsf.

In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. If you wish to include CBI in your request, please follow the applicable instructions at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets#rules and clearly mark the information that you claim to be CBI. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice.

In the Federal Register of May 20, 2022 (87 FR 30855) (FRL-9410-13-OCSPP), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a, announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 1F8915) by Gowan Company in cooperation with SDS Biotech K.K., c/o Landis International, Inc. (P.O. Box 5126, 3185 Madison Highway, Valdosta, GA 31603). The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the fungicide Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain AT-332 in or on all food commodities. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner and included in the docket.

There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing. EPA modified the tolerance exemption by removing “fungicide.” The reason for this change is explained in Unit III.C.

EPA has assessed the individual risks from exposure to the pesticide active ingredients identified and discussed in this rule, taking into consideration all reliable data on toxicity and exposure, including for infants and children, and has included a safety finding under FFDCA section 408(b) for the tolerance actions in this rule. The data upon which EPA relied and its risk assessment based on those data can be found within the document entitled “Human Health Risk Assessment of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain AT-332, a New Active Ingredient, in SB-950 (Manufacturing-use Product) and SB-9503 (End-use Product) Proposed for Registration and an Associated Petition Requesting a Tolerance Exemption.” ( Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain AT-332 Human Health Risk Assessment). This document, as well as other relevant information, is available in the docket for this action, docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2024-0308.

The toxicological profile of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain AT-332 is described in the Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain AT-332 Human Health Risk Assessment. Based upon its evaluation, EPA concludes that, with regards to humans, Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain AT-332 is not anticipated to be toxic, pathogenic, or infective. Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain AT-332 is ubiquitous in soil and the rhizosphere. Dietary and drinking water and residential exposure is expected. However, Bacillus amyloliquefaciens is present in soil, on fresh produce, and in water. Further, food crops undergo postharvest washing and municipal water treatment practices would reduce any residues further. Even if dietary or residential exposure to residues of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain AT-332 were to occur, there are no risks of concern due to the lack of adverse effects from toxicity, pathogenicity, or infectivity of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain AT-332. EPA determined that no additional margin of safety is necessary to protect infants and children as part of the qualitative assessment conducted, as data and rationale demonstrated that Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain AT-332 is not toxic, pathogenic, or infective.

Based on the supporting assessments and registration review documents, which demonstrate that the aggregate exposure for each individual chemical is below the Agency's level of concern, EPA concludes there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or specifically to infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of the pesticide active ingredients identified and discussed in this action.

An analytical method is not required for Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain AT-332 because EPA is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation.

The Agency removed the descriptor “fungicide” from the tolerance exemption to reduce any unnecessary future regulatory burden and conform with current standard practices.

Therefore, EPA is finalizing the tolerance exemption that was petitioned for by Gowan Company in cooperation with SDS Biotech K.K., c/o Landis International, Inc. (PP 1F8915) for residues of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain AT-332 in or on all food commodities when used in accordance with label directions and good agricultural practices.

Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/and-executive-orders.

This action is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), because it establishes or modifies a pesticide tolerance or a tolerance exemption under FFDCA section 408 in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866.

Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065, February 6, 2025) does not apply because actions that establish a tolerance under FFDCA section 408 are exempted from review under Executive Order 12866.

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., because it does not contain any information collection activities.

This action is not subject to the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. The RFA applies only to rules subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other statute. This rule is not subject to the APA but is subject to FFDCA section 408(d), which does not require notice and comment rulemaking to take this action in response to a petition.

This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more (in 1995 dollars and adjusted annually for inflation) as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector.

This action does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it 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.

This action does not have Tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because it will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866, and because EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.

However, EPA's 2026 Policy on Children's Health applies to this action. This rule finalizes tolerance actions under the FFDCA, which requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . . .” (FFDCA 408(b)(2)(C)). The Agency's consideration is documented in the pesticide-specific review documents, located in the applicable docket at https://www.regulations.gov.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355) (May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

This action does not involve technical standards that would require Agency consideration under NTTAA section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272.

This action is subject to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., and EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA is amending 40 CFR chapter I as follows:

On June 16, 2026, NMFS published a final rule implementing fishing periods ( i.e., season dates) and fishing period limits ( i.e., vessel catch limits) for the IPHC Area 2A Pacific halibut non-Tribal directed commercial fishery that operates south of Point Chehalis, WA, Lat. 46°53.30′ N (91 FR 36094). The Area 2A non-Tribal directed commercial fishery allocation for 2026 is 261,211 lb (118 mt), net weight ( i.e., the weight of Pacific halibut that is without gills and entrails, head off, washed, and without ice and slime) (91 FR 14464, March 25, 2026).

The initial fishing periods for the 2026 fishery occurred June 23-25 and July 7-9, 2026, with fishing period limits ranging from 2,000 to 5,000 lb (0.907 to 2.268 mt), varying by vessel size class. Third, fourth, and fifth fishing periods were added through inseason actions on July 20, 2026 (91 FR 45224), August 6, 2026 (91 FR 50726), and August 28 (91 FR 55497), respectively. The third fishing period occurred between July 21 and 23, 2026; the fourth occurred between August 18 and 20, 2026; and the fifth occurred between September 1 and 3, 2026. All three additional periods had 5,000-lb (2.27-mt) fishing period limits for all vessels. Landings information to date indicates that sufficient allocation remains to warrant another additional, sixth fishing period without exceeding the allocation. Approximately 223,761 lb (101 mt) net weight have been harvested of the 261,211 lb (118 mt) allocation (86 percent) through September 10, 2026, leaving 37,450 lb (17 mt) remaining (14 percent).

NMFS is implementing an additional fishing period via inseason in accordance with 50 CFR 300.63(e)(1)(iii). Consistent with 50 CFR 300.63(e)(1)(ii), and the final rule for the 2026 fishery, fishing period limits for any additional fishing period(s) implemented through inseason action will be equal across vessel size classes and developed based on the estimated remaining allocation to date, projected participation, and catch rates.

NMFS has determined that the following inseason action is necessary to meet the management objective of attaining the non-Tribal directed commercial fishery's 2026 allocation, not anticipated to risk exceeding the allocation, and consistent with the inseason management provisions at 50 CFR 300.63(e)(1)(iii).

This inseason action implements an additional fishing period, beginning September 15, at 8 a.m. PDT and ending on September 17, at 6 p.m. PDT. This inseason action also implements a fishing period catch limit of 5,000 lb (2.27 mt) per vessel, dressed weight (head on, with ice and slime), for all vessel size classes, during this fishing period.

On September 10, 2026, notice of this inseason action was sent via email notification directly to the affected public.

NMFS issues this action pursuant to the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982. This action is taken under the regulatory authority at 50 CFR 300.63(e)(1)(iii) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. There is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this inseason action because the public had an opportunity to comment on the final rule implementing the 2026 non-Tribal directed commercial Pacific halibut fishery in Area 2A. The final rule specifically provided that additional fishing periods and fishing period limits may be set through inseason action during the 2026 fishing season, in accordance with 50 CFR 300.63(e)(1)(iii), if another fishing period(s) is deemed necessary to attain the 2026 allocation. The final rule further specified that NMFS would implement additional 58-hour fishing periods every 2 weeks, and that if a fishing period could not be scheduled in time it would take place on the next 2-week interval. The sixth fishing period would follow this pattern, beginning 2 weeks after the fifth fishing period on September 15, 2026, at 8 a.m. PDT and closing on September 17, 2026, at 6 p.m. PDT. The final rule for the 2026 non-Tribal directed commercial fishery was subject to notice and comment rulemaking. Therefore, the public had specific notice and an opportunity to comment on NMFS' intent to implement inseason action to open this sixth fishing period for the non-Tribal directed commercial fishery during that rulemaking process.

Additionally, the California, Oregon, and Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife provide estimated harvest data to NMFS in season, tracking the estimated catch of Pacific halibut within the fishery to date. As of September 10, 2026, Area 2A non-Tribal directed commercial fishery caught an estimated 86 percent of the fishery's 2026 allocation. NMFS uses current fishery harvest and participation estimates, and fishing period catches from prior years, to determine whether additional fishing periods are necessary to reach the fishery's annual allocation, and to set fishing period limits for any additional fishing periods set through inseason action. Given that harvest in the first five fishing periods for the 2026 fishery is estimated to be below the allocation, a sixth fishing period is considered necessary to maximize the opportunity and likelihood that the fishery will attain its 2026 allocation.

The final rule implementing the 2026 fishing season sets the regulated public's expectations for both the initial and additional fishing periods for the fishery by setting a prescribed schedule in the final rule (91 FR 36094, June 16, 2026). The regulated public needs sufficient time to plan for additional fishing periods and makes business planning decisions for the 2026 season, accordingly. The annual directed commercial fishing season for Pacific halibut in Area 2A is relatively short and occurs primarily during the summer months. The landings information needed to determine if additional openers are warranted is not available until less than 2 weeks before the additional opener would begin. Conducting notice and comment rulemaking to implement these additional openers would result in them being implemented well after the summer months. As such, implementing this action through proposed and final rulemaking would limit the benefit this action would provide to fishery participants and there is good cause to waive notice and comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). Specifically, delaying this inseason action for notice and comment rulemaking would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest because it would limit the rule's ability to create meaningful opportunity for the fishery to achieve its 2026 allocation. Without implementation of an additional fishing period, the fishery allocation would not be reached. This would eliminate economic benefits for fishery participants and be inconsistent with the goals of the Catch Sharing Plan. Finally, no aspect of this action is controversial, and changes of this nature were anticipated in the process described in regulations at 50 CFR 300.63(e)(1)(iii) and in the final rule (91 FR 36094, June 16, 2026).

NMFS has also determined that the 30-day delay in the date of effectiveness required by 5 U.S.C. 553(d) does not apply to this inseason action because this action relieves a restriction on the fishery and there is good cause to waive the requirement pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) and (d)(3), respectively.

The 30-day delay in effective date requirement pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) does not apply to this inseason action because this inseason action relieves a restriction by allowing participants to fish on the additional fishing dates described above. Waiving the 30-day delay in effectiveness thus provides additional opportunity for commercial Pacific halibut fishermen to harvest Pacific halibut and increases the likelihood of full utilization of the 2026 allocations in Area 2A.

Additionally, there is good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to establish an effective date less than 30 days after the date of publication, as a delay in effectiveness of this action would: (1) constrain fishing opportunity; (2) be inconsistent with the goals of the Catch Sharing Plan; and (3) potentially limit the economic opportunity intended by this rule to the associated fishing communities. NMFS regulations allow for implementing additional fishing periods and setting period limits for the directed commercial fishery inseason to provide opportunity for the fishery to achieve its annual allocation, so long as this additional fishing will not result in exceeding the catch limit for the fishery. NMFS recently received landings data for the non-Tribal directed commercial fishery that indicates that an additional fishing period is necessary to ensure optimal harvest of the allocation. The non-Tribal directed commercial fishery's season is limited. Thus, timely action to implement additional fishing periods is necessary to achieve the allocation. It is therefore in the public interest that this action is not delayed, because a delay in the effectiveness of this additional fishing period could prevent the allocation objectives of the Area 2A Pacific halibut non-Tribal directed commercial fishery from being met.

NMFS and the Council manage U.S. commercial fishing for Western Pacific pelagic management unit species, including striped marlin, under the FEP and implementing Federal regulations.

In addition, the WCPFC is the regional fisheries management organization that manages WCNPO striped marlin internationally. A 2023 stock assessment for WCNPO striped marlin indicates that while the stock was experiencing overfishing, it was not overfished under domestic status determination criteria. This most recent stock assessment indicates improvement in the status of the stock from the previous 2019 stock assessment, when the stock was both experiencing overfishing and overfished. Negotiations at the WCPFC resulted in the adoption of a rebuilding plan for this stock that requires rebuilding to 20 percent of unfished biomass with at least 60 percent probability by 2034. In December 2024, the WCPFC adopted a new CMM for WCNPO striped marlin (CMM 2024-06) (available at https://cmm.wcpfc.int/measure/cmm-2024-06 ) that includes a total allowable catch (TAC) of the stock across all WCPFC member nations as well as specific catch limits for five nations, including the United States. CMM 2024-06 indicates in paragraph 5 that the TAC of the stock annually from 2025-2027 is 2,400 mt (5,291,000 lb). The WCPFC determined this TAC was necessary to achieve the requirements of the rebuilding plan for WCNPO striped marlin.

The base U.S. catch limit specified in CMM 2024-06 is 228.4 mt (503,500 lb), or 9.5 percent of the TAC for the stock. The U.S. catch limit would apply to retained striped marlin caught by all vessels of the United States in the Pacific Ocean north of the Equator (0° latitude) and west of 150° W longitude. Consistent with CMM 2024-06, the U.S. catch limit under the framework depends on three factors: a base catch limit for the United States set at 228.4 mt (503,500 lb); the availability of unused quota relative to the overall international catch limit for the stock 2 years prior; and any overages of the U.S. limit that occurred 2 years prior.

Hawaii-based longline fisheries catch approximately 97 percent or more of the total U.S. striped marlin catch annually and report catch to NMFS on a daily basis. U.S. troll and handline fisheries account for the remaining catch and report catch on a monthly basis. Therefore, near-real-time catch monitoring by this sector is not possible. To ensure that the catch limit is not exceeded, the Council recommended and NMFS is implementing a retention limit of 97 percent of the catch limit, for any U.S. fishing vessel with a Hawaii longline limited entry permit issued under 50 CFR 665.801(b). This longline retention limit ensures that when troll and handline catches are determined after the season ends, the total U.S. catch of WCNPO striped marlin will not exceed the catch limit.

Pursuant to this framework, NMFS will annually specify the WCNPO striped marlin limit and longline retention limit through a Federal Register notice. For 2026, the U.S. WCNPO striped marlin catch limit is 393.4 mt (867,300 lb) and is comprised of the base limit of 228.4 mt (503,500 lb) and unused quota relative to the overall international catch limit for the stock 2 years prior, which CMM 2024-06 determined to be 165 mt (363,800 lb). The U.S. longline retention limit is 381.6 mt (841,300 lb).

If NMFS projects, based on vessel logbook, landing and other available information, that the retention limit will be reached, we will prohibit for the remainder of the year retention of striped marlin caught by U.S. longline vessels holding a Hawaii limited entry longline permit issued under 50 CFR 665.801(b) in the Pacific Ocean north of the Equator (0° latitude) and west of 150° W longitude. This retention prohibition will apply to striped marlin alive or dead when fishing gear is recovered. A retention prohibition would go into effect no earlier than 7 days after NMFS publishes a non-retention date notice in the Federal Register and continue until the end of the calendar year. The Regional Administrator will also update owners and operators of longline vessels affected by the retention prohibition using other means. You may find additional background information on this action in the preamble to the proposed rule.

On May 1, 2026, NMFS published a proposed rule, Environmental Assessment (EA), and Regulatory Impact Review for public comment (91 FR 23387). The comment period ended June 1, 2026. NMFS received three comments on the proposed rule; two from individuals and one jointly submitted by two non-governmental organizations (NGOs). NMFS did not receive any comments from fishery management agencies or from individuals who identified themselves as fishery participants. We summarize the comments and respond below.

Comment 1: A commentor supported the proposed rule, with an interest in maintaining a sustainable striped marlin population to protect biodiversity, strengthen ecosystem resilience, and ensure resources for future generations.

Response: For the reasons set out in the proposed rule (91 FR 23387; May 1, 2026), we agree with the commentor.

Comment 2: A commentor did not support the proposed rule and advocated for an end to fisheries for striped marlin and other highly migratory species based on animal welfare arguments.

Response: NMFS is charged with natural resource management under applicable statutes and, for WCNPO striped marlin, international agreements. NMFS's role is to evaluate management recommendations from the Council relative to the National Standards (50 CFR 600 Subpart D) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, international requirements, and other applicable laws and implement those that are consistent with these requirements. Closing the fishery based solely on animal welfare concerns is inconsistent with the statutory objectives of sustainable fisheries management.

Comment 3: Two NGOs jointly objected to the proposed rule and the analysis in the EA on several points and recommended NMFS: (1) include all retained catch and discarded catch in the TAC calculation and (2) fully analyze other alternatives that will reduce the U.S. catch per unit effort of striped marlin including (a) gear restrictions; (b) mandatory release of live striped marlin; (c) a minimum size limit; (d) area-based management; (e) protection of spawning and nursery grounds; and (f) maintaining the closure of the Papahānaumokuākea marine national monument (PMNM) to longline fishing.

In addition, the commenters further recommended NMFS consider positive economic impacts any additional mitigation measures would have on small boat fishermen and recommended NMFS adopt Alternative 4 (no retention of WCNPO striped marlin) if the agency is unable to incorporate changes to the proposed rule that would reduce catch per unit effort of the stock in U.S. fisheries.

Response: CMM 2024-06 requires the United States to implement a catch limit for WCNPO striped marlin, which the WCPFC determined was necessary to achieve the requirements of the rebuilding plan for WCNPO striped marlin. This final rule implements a framework for specifying the U.S. catch limit for WCNPO striped marlin and ensures that the catch of WCNPO striped marlin by the United States will not exceed the international limit for the United States established by the WCPFC in CMM 2024-06.

Regarding recommendation 1 to include all retained catch and discarded catch in the TAC calculation, the calculations and catch information presented in the EA are based on the best scientific information available. Because there has not been a prohibition on retention of WCNPO striped marlin in the past, we assume that there have been no significant discards of striped marlin in this fishery due to their economic value. Internationally, catch reports provided to and available from the WCPFC have consisted of only retained catch and past assessments have been based on these retained-catch estimates. CMM 2024-06 specifically requires all WCPFC member countries, including the United States, to provide “catch, effort, and estimates of total live and dead discards . . . as soon as possible, but no later than 2027” (paragraph 13). The provision of discard estimates is a new requirement, and differs from the reporting requirements for any other targeted highly migratory species managed through the WCPFC. CMM 2024-06 specifically differentiates between catch and estimates of discards in paragraph 13 and does not mention discards in paragraphs related to overall or country specific catch limits (paragraphs 5 & 6). Consistent with WCPFC management for other species, and plain reading of CMM 2024-06, catch limits apply to retained catch, and not to the combination of catch and discards. Our analysis in the EA and application of only retained catch to catch and retention limits in this rule are consistent with CMM 2024-06, and thus we did not accept the actions recommended in the comment. Doing so would be inconsistent with the CMM and would exceed its requirements.

Regarding recommendation 2a to fully analyze alternatives that will reduce the U.S. catch per unit effort of striped marlin, as described in the EA and noted in the comment, we considered several alternatives. We did not analyze them in detail because they did not meet the purpose and need for the action, are inconsistent with CMM 2024-06, and would exceed its requirements. The alternatives raised by the comment specifically included alternatives involving gear modification such as removal of the shallowest hooks as evaluated by Bigelow and Mourato (2012; as cited in the comment). As noted by Bigelow and Mourato, although removal of the shallowest hooks resulted in reduced catch per unit effort (CPUE) for striped marlin, it also resulted in “operational difficulties as more mainline will need to be deployed, thus increasing both the setting and retrieval times” (Bigelow and Mourato 2012). Increases in both setting and retrieval times would have negative economic impacts to the longline fleet, counter to the purpose and need for the action. Bigelow and Mourato also examined the use of circle hooks and found a 42 percent reduction in striped marlin CPUE. This gear modification was previously adopted in the Hawaii longline fisheries (50 CFR 665.813(f) and 50 CFR 229.37(c)). For these reasons, we did not modify the alternatives considered in the analysis associated with this final rule.

Regarding recommendation 2b on mandatory release of live striped marlin, the analysis in the EA specifically considered mandatory release of live striped marlin. As described in the EA and illustrated in Figure 4 of the EA, an analysis by Brodziak (2020) found that given 48 percent of striped marlin are alive at the vessel and, assuming post release survival was 100 percent, even if live-release was universally adopted across all international fleets catching this stock, it would not achieve stock rebuilding goals. Therefore, adopting live releases in U.S. fisheries alone would not be sufficient to achieve stock rebuilding goals and would exceed the requirements of CMM 2024-06. Requiring live releases in U.S. fisheries without concurrent requirements for other international fleets would result in U.S. fishermen assuming a disproportionate burden of the costs associated with international conservation efforts and be contrary to the purpose and need for the action given economic impacts to U.S. fisheries. Given recent catches of striped marlin and the catch and longline retention limits for U.S. fisheries under the framework finalized with this rule, it is likely that we will reach the longline retention limit and retention will be prohibited in the future. For these reasons, NMFS did not adopt this recommendation in this final rule.

Regarding recommendation 2c on minimum size limits, the EA did not explicitly consider a minimum size limit for U.S. fisheries, and such limits have not previously been considered for commercial fisheries on this WCNPO stock. The impact of a minimum size limit on the dynamics of the WCNPO striped marlin stock and economics of the fishery are not obvious and would require considerable analysis. In addition, such a measure would likely introduce disproportionate burdens on U.S. fishermen that would not be equally applied to other international fleets.

Like recommendation 2b on mandatory release of live striped marlin (above), consideration of a minimum size limit measure does not meet the purpose and need for the action and is inconsistent with and would exceed the requirements of CMM 2024-06. For all the reasons noted above, NMFS did not adopt this recommendation in this final rule.

Regarding recommendation 2d on area-based management, NMFS is unaware of published work that suggests that longline catch rates of striped marlin in PMNM were higher than other locations open to fishing, and commercial fishing has been prohibited within the current PMNM boundary since 2011 (50 CFR 404.10). Bigelow and Mourato (2012) specifically analyzed catch rates to determine if there were catch hotspots for striped marlin. If they existed, striped marlin catch rate hotspots could be considered as candidates for spatial management as a method of reducing catch. Bigelow and Mourato concluded that across years “there were no hot-spots identified that were spatially persistent in the area fished by the Hawaii-based tuna fishery” (Bigelow and Mourato 2012). Like recommendations 2b and 2c, consideration of area-based management does not meet the purpose and need for the action and is inconsistent with and would exceed the requirements of CMM 2024-06. For all the reason noted above, NMFS did not adopt this recommendation in this final rule.

Regarding recommendation 2e protection of spawning and nursery grounds, although there is rare evidence of WCNPO striped marlin spawning in waters around Hawaii, scientific consensus is that the primary spawning grounds for this stock are in the far western Pacific outside the jurisdiction of the United States. As summarized by Martinez et al. (2025; as cited in the comment), “the CNP [central north Pacific Ocean] likely serves as a dynamic juvenile nursery and feeding ground for sub-adult Striped Marlin, characterized by juvenile-sized fish and relatively limited spawning activity compared to other regions of the Pacific” (Martinez et al. 2025). Combined with a lack of catch hotspots as noted in our response for recommendation 2d, above, this relatively low spawning activity in the waters around Hawaii argues against specific time or area-based management measures for WCNPO striped marlin to protect spawning or rearing fish. Like recommendations 2b, 2c, and 2d, consideration of spawning ground protection does not meet the purpose and need for the action, and is inconsistent with and would exceed the requirements of CMM 2024-06. For all the reasons noted above, NMFS did not adopt this recommendation in this final rule.

Regarding recommendation 2f to maintain the closure of the PMNM, this final rule does not modify regulations affecting fishing access in the PMNM.

Regarding the potential positive economic impacts these additional mitigation measures would have on small boat fishermen, NMFS responds as follows. Although we appreciate that studies of some fish species, including striped marlin, have shown CPUE in recreational fisheries is correlated with angler participation, trip frequency, and regional expenditures, these findings are the result of extensive directed socio-economic research. NMFS currently has not conducted, and is not aware of, specific socio-economic research evaluating how striped marlin CPUE in the Hawaii longline fishery affects the economic performance of non-commercial fisheries in Hawaii. Although dated, the value of the charter fishery in Hawaii was estimated at close to $50 million dollars in gross sales and it supported nearly 900 jobs statewide in 2011, but current values or understanding of the effect of striped marlin CPUE on fishery values is unclear. In the absence of existing Hawaii-specific economic information of this type, NMFS is unable to provide a rigorous analysis of the potential economic impacts of variable striped marlin CPUE on non-commercial or charter fisheries associated with this action. We did not implement this recommendation, as there are no data to understand what, if any, benefits would accrue to non-commercial or charter fisheries with the recommended additional measures to reduce CPUE; which all exceed the requirements of CMM 2024-06.

NMFS declines to adopt the commenters' recommendation to select Alternative 4 (no retention of WCNPO striped marlin) as it fails to meet the purpose and need for the action, is inconsistent with and would exceed the requirements of the CMM, and would maximize the disproportionate burden of costs for international conservation efforts of this stock to U.S. fishermen.

Ultimately, the United States is obligated under international agreements to have regulations in place that implement the requirements of WCPFC CMM 2024-06. Based on catches to date in 2026, it is likely that the retention limit will be reached before the end of the year. Without this rule in place and effective, we will be unable to prohibit retention and prevent the U.S. catch limit under CMM 2024-06 from being exceeded.

The final rule changes the organization of 50 CFR 665.813(l) from the proposed rule to improve readability with minor changes to the proposed rule text. We modified the text in paragraph (l)(2) “is based on” to “is composed of” to improve readability. We removed the text “, for which there are no in-season catch estimates,” from paragraph (l)(3) because there are in-season estimates for troll and handline fisheries, but the data are not available to support in-season management. This clarification would not affect the rule's purpose of avoiding exceedance of the catch limit. We also added paragraph titles to key rule paragraphs to further clarify interpretation of the regulatory text.

Pursuant to section 304(b)(3) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this final rule is consistent with the FEP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.

This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

This final rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 14192 because it is a routine fishing action.

A Tribal summary impact statement under section (5)(b)(2)(B) and (c)(2) of E.O. 13175 was not required for this final rule because this action does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian Tribal Governments and this action does not preempt Tribal law. A Tribal summary impact statement is not required and has not been prepared.

The Senior Lead Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received regarding this certification. As a result, a final regulatory flexibility analysis was not required and none was prepared.

This final rule contains no information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS amends 50 CFR part 665 as follows: