Treasury
3-MO 3.82% -1bp 6-MO 3.98% +1bp 1-YR 4.04% unch 2-YR 4.23% +1bp 3-YR 4.30% +1bp 5-YR 4.38% +1bp 7-YR 4.52% +1bp 10-YR 4.68% +1bp 20-YR 5.22% +1bp 30-YR 5.21% +1bp 3-MO 3.82% -1bp 6-MO 3.98% +1bp 1-YR 4.04% unch 2-YR 4.23% +1bp 3-YR 4.30% +1bp 5-YR 4.38% +1bp 7-YR 4.52% +1bp 10-YR 4.68% +1bp 20-YR 5.22% +1bp 30-YR 5.21% +1bp 3-MO 3.82% -1bp 6-MO 3.98% +1bp 1-YR 4.04% unch 2-YR 4.23% +1bp 3-YR 4.30% +1bp 5-YR 4.38% +1bp 7-YR 4.52% +1bp 10-YR 4.68% +1bp 20-YR 5.22% +1bp 30-YR 5.21% +1bp 3-MO 3.82% -1bp 6-MO 3.98% +1bp 1-YR 4.04% unch 2-YR 4.23% +1bp 3-YR 4.30% +1bp 5-YR 4.38% +1bp 7-YR 4.52% +1bp 10-YR 4.68% +1bp 20-YR 5.22% +1bp 30-YR 5.21% +1bp 3-MO 3.82% -1bp 6-MO 3.98% +1bp 1-YR 4.04% unch 2-YR 4.23% +1bp 3-YR 4.30% +1bp 5-YR 4.38% +1bp 7-YR 4.52% +1bp 10-YR 4.68% +1bp 20-YR 5.22% +1bp 30-YR 5.21% +1bp 3-MO 3.82% -1bp 6-MO 3.98% +1bp 1-YR 4.04% unch 2-YR 4.23% +1bp 3-YR 4.30% +1bp 5-YR 4.38% +1bp 7-YR 4.52% +1bp 10-YR 4.68% +1bp 20-YR 5.22% +1bp 30-YR 5.21% +1bp
US Treasury par yield curve · Jul 30 · Source: U.S. Treasury
Friday, July 31, 2026
U.S. Edition
MONEY & WORLD
Subscribe
RIF appeals

OPM has taken federal layoff appeals away from the Merit Systems Protection Board and given them to itself, and 99 percent of the comments opposed it

Money & World
The Editorial Team ·
A close photograph of a sawn board of pale tan timber filling the frame, the vertical grain broken by saw marks running diagonally across it, with no object, marking or lettering in the picture.
Photo: Kaboompics.com / Pexels

Nineteen eighty-three is when the Merit Systems Protection Board got this job, and a regulation is what gave it to them.

That is the argument at the centre of a second final rule the Office of Personnel Management filed on Friday morning alongside its rewrite of the reduction in force rules themselves. OPM revised part 351 in October 1983 to route non-Senior Executive Service RIF appeals to the board. It now writes that the choice of forum was its own regulatory choice, and it is making a different one. From 30 days after publication, an employee furloughed for more than 30 days, separated or demoted by a layoff appeals to OPM.

The comment file is unusually one-sided. OPM received 1,252 comments during the 30-day window, from serving and former civil servants, members of Congress, local and national unions and federal agencies. By its own count, fewer than 1 percent were supportive, neutral or mixed. Ninety-nine percent opposed.

What the new process looks like

It is a record. The appellant carries the burden on all of it: that the filing was timely and proper, that OPM has jurisdiction, that the agency failed to comply with a statute or an OPM regulation governing part 351 actions, and that the failure caused the action or the loss of a materially better outcome. OPM replaced a broader standard from the proposal with that two-part showing.

Hearings are available, and they are not a right. The revised text authorises OPM to hold one where the written record cannot resolve a material issue. Commenters asked for discovery and a hearing in every appeal and OPM declined, writing that it would impose delay and expense across cases where the documentation usually settles the question.

Two other boundaries are drawn hard. Part 351 becomes the sole and exclusive route for challenging a RIF action, and the rule adds that RIFs cannot be raised in a grievance procedure or through grievance arbitration. The no-judicial-review provision stays in.

What survives outside it

The rule preserves the collateral routes. An employee can still take a discrimination claim to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a matter to an Inspector General, a prohibited personnel practice to the Office of Special Counsel, a veterans' rights claim to the Labor Department, and anything the board holds independent statutory jurisdiction over to the board. OPM also added a tolling rule so that a person who filed one of those in time has 30 days after it finally concludes to bring a RIF appeal, where that outcome materially affects their retention standing or assignment rights.

Named commenters argued OPM cannot do this by regulation at all, that Congress created the board as the independent adjudicator of federal personnel appeals, and that only Congress can take the jurisdiction away. OPM sets out that objection in the rule and proceeds.

Nothing here touches appeals already running. A RIF noticed before the effective date stays with the board, pending cases included.

The document: Office of Personnel Management, Reduction in Force Appeals, final rule, 5 CFR Part 351, Docket ID OPM-2025-0239, RIN 3206-AO99, FR document 2026-15666, filed for public inspection on 31 July 2026 at 8:45 a.m. Eastern. The complete public inspection text was downloaded and read here; no fetch-tool summary was relied on and every figure and characterisation below was matched against the document. The rule states that OPM will replace the Merit Systems Protection Board as the adjudicative agency for appeals of a furlough of more than 30 days, a separation, or a demotion by a reduction-in-force action, that it establishes a uniform record-based OPM appeal process, clarifies the appellant's burden, requires production of the complete agency record, preserves collateral statutory remedies, and applies prospectively. It states the rule is effective 30 days after publication and applies only to a RIF action for which an agency issues a specific RIF notice under 5 CFR 351.802 on or after that date, which is the same date as the effective date of the final rule under RIN 3206-AO86, and that an appeal of a RIF action noticed before that date, including an appeal already pending before the MSPB, remains subject to MSPB adjudication under the procedures applicable when the action was taken. It states that in 1983, at 48 FR 49462 of 25 October 1983, OPM revised part 351 to provide for MSPB adjudication of non-SES RIF appeals, and that this reflected OPM's regulatory choice of forum, which it is now revising. On the burden it states the appellant bears the burden to prove timely and proper filing, OPM jurisdiction, a failure to comply with an applicable statute or OPM regulation governing RIF actions under part 351, and prejudice caused by that failure, and that the final text replaced the proposed merits standard with a two-part showing of prejudicial RIF-compliance error. It states that part 351 procedures are the sole and exclusive means of appealing a RIF action, that RIFs and matters related to RIF appeals cannot be raised in grievance procedures or through grievance arbitration, that collateral matters within the independent jurisdiction of the EEOC, Inspectors General, the MSPB where it has independent statutory jurisdiction, the Department of Labor Veterans' Employment and Training Service and the Office of Special Counsel are expressly preserved, and that the final text retains the no-judicial-review provision. On hearings it states that revised section 351.905(c) authorises OPM to conduct a hearing where the written record is insufficient to resolve a material issue, that OPM declines to provide discovery and a hearing as of right, and that requiring a hearing in every appeal would impose delay and expense. On comments it states that OPM received 1,252 comments during the 30-day comment period from individuals including current and former civil servants and members of Congress, and from organisations including local and national unions and federal agencies, that 1,251 were posted on regulations.gov and one was withheld for vulgar language unrelated to the rulemaking, and that less than 1 percent of the overall comments were supportive, neutral or mixed while 99 percent opposed the proposed regulation. It states that named commenters argued OPM lacks authority to transfer RIF appeals from the MSPB, that Congress created the MSPB as the independent adjudicatory body for federal personnel appeals, and that any removal of MSPB jurisdiction must be accomplished by Congress rather than by regulation. It states that changes made in response to comments include a detailed RIF-specific agency-record requirement, disclosure and privilege protections, stronger adjudicator-separation and ex parte safeguards, narrower e-filing sanctions, a filing deadline of 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time rather than Eastern Standard Time, and a tolling rule at section 351.902(b)(3) allowing an appeal within 30 calendar days after a final decision on a timely collateral matter that materially affects the employee's rights under part 351..

More on Economics