OPM’s Proposed “RIF Appeals” Rule Would Strip MSPB Review and Concentrate Power Inside OPM — Comment Now
Feb 10, 2026OPM just published a proposed rule titled “Reduction in Force Appeals” (RIN 3206–AO99) that would take most Reduction-in-Force (RIF) appeal rights away from the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and move them into OPM itself. It also proposes to make OPM’s process the exclusive route for challenging a RIF and to cut off judicial review of OPM’s decisions.
If you’re a federal employee, this is not abstract. RIFs are career-ending events. And the proposed rule would dramatically change who hears your case, what process you get, and whether any court can review the outcome.
Below: (1) what OPM is proposing, (2) why your comment matters, (3) the strongest legal and practical concerns to raise, and (4) sample comment language you can copy/paste and tailor.
Where to Read the Rule and Where to Comment
Use these links: https://www.federalregister.gov/public-inspection/2026-02576/reduction-in-force-appeals
Comment portal: https://www.regulations.gov
(Search for “Reduction in Force Appeals” or RIN “3206-AO99” and click “Comment”)
OPM’s notice says comments must be received by the deadline listed in the Federal Register (the document states a 30‑day comment window after publication) and that comments are submitted through Regulations.gov.
Important: OPM warns that comments are generally posted publicly “as received,” including any personal information you include. So comment smart. No Social Security numbers, no case-file screenshots, no sensitive medical details.
What OPM is Proposing — In Plain English
1) Move to OPM
Right now, OPM’s regulations provide that employees furloughed more than 30 days, separated, or demoted by a RIF may appeal to the MSPB. OPM proposes to revise that so those employees must appeal exclusively to OPM instead.
2) Make OPM the “sole and exclusive” forum — overriding CB
OPM proposes to make its appeal process the “sole and exclusive means” to challenge any RIF action and says it would supersede conflicting appeal procedures in agency policies or collective bargaining agreements, including grievance/arbitration routes for RIF disputes.
3) Foreclose judicial review
The proposed text states: “judicial review” of an OPM decision under this part.
4) Narrower process: written record by default
OPM’s proposal is designed to return RIF appeals to an administrative-record, paper-review model. It allows OPM to investigate/audit and to hold a hearing only if OPM decides it is “necessary and efficient.”
5) Burden of proof on the employee
OPM proposes placing burden to prove (by a preponderance) timeliness, jurisdiction/venue, and that the RIF was conducted contrary to statute/regulation in a way that changed the outcome (i.e., that you would not have suffered the same or another RIF action if properly conducted).
6) Mandatory e-filing on a system with URL “TBD”
The proposed responses to be filed through an electronic filing system with a URL not yet specified in the proposed rule text, and it says OPM generally will not accept email/mail filings absent OPM-approved “good cause.”
Why Your Comment Matters (Even If You’ve Never Comment)
Comments are not “petitions.” In federal rulemaking, they are the record.
If enough employees (and unions, and managers, and HR specialists, and veterans, and the public) raise substantive problems—especially problems OPM fails to answer—that becomes critical later:
- It can force revisions in the final rule.
- It can force OPM to extend the comment period or provide missing data.
- It creates a record that courts, Congress, and oversight bodies can evaluate if the rule is finalized and challenged.
OPM is explicitly asking commenters to identify comments by section number—which is a tell: they’re building an administrative record to justify major structural changes.
The Strongest Concerns to Raise
Pick the points that match your experience and values. But these are the big ones.
1) Independence: OPM cannot be judge and policy architect at the same time
OPM is the governmentwide HR rulemaker for RIFs (it writes and interprets the rules), and it proposes to become the primary adjudicator of disputes about those rules. Even if OPM claims internal separation between policy and adjudication functions, the optics and the incentives are real: the same agency that designs the system should not be the only one that can declare it was followed.
2) No judicial review is a red-alert proposal
OPM proposes to foreclose judicial review outright. That is extraordinary in any context, and especially in a context involving job loss.
Even if OPM believes the CSRA channels or limits judicial review, commenters should demand answers:
- What is the statutory authority for a regulation that purports to bar all judicial review?
- What forum, if any, remains for correcting legal errors or arbitrary action?
Remove the “no judicial review” clause and preserve review consistent with the CSRA’s review structure (at a minimum, judicial review for legal errors and constitutional claims).
3) Exclusivity that overrides negotiated grievance procedures is an attack on bargaining-unit rights
OPM proposes to supersede “any” conflicting appeal procedures in CBAs and agency policies and explicitly discusses shutting down grievance arbitration for RIF challenges.
Even if OPM argues it can issue a government-wide regulation, polices are severe:
- bargaining-unit employees could lose a negotiated pathway they paid for through collective bargaining,
- unions could lose the ability to bring systemic RIF challenges,
- employees could be forced into a single OPM process with limited procedural tools.
Preserve an election of remedies (OPM appeal or negotiated grievance/arbitration), or keep the current MSPB route.
4) Due process and fairness: paper-only review and limited tools favors the agency record
In real life, RIF disputes often turn on things like:
- competitive area/level errors,
- retention standing calculations,
- performance credit/rating-of-record issues,
- assignment rights (bump/retreat),
- documentation gaps (what did management consider and when).
A system that defaults to the “written record,” with no guaranteed hearing and no discovery, risks becoming a rubber stamp of whatever the agency chose to include in its file.
At a minimum—require agencies to produce the complete“RIF appeal file” with defined contents, require a hearing when there are material factual disputes or credibility disputes, and allow targeted discovery or mandatory OPM audits in specified categories of cases.
5) Burden of proof: OPM’s proposed “but-for” causation is too heavy for employees
The proposed burden requires employees to prove not only error, but that they would not have suffered the same or another RIF action absent the error. That is a steep burden when the agency controls key documents.
Rebalance burdens and standards. For example:
- require agencies to prove compliance with core RIF procedures once an employee identifies a plausible error,
- adopt a harmful-error framework that is realistic and not “but-for job saved” in every scenario,
- clarify that missing records or incomplete records weigh against the agency.
6) Access barriers: mandatory e-filing with “URL TBD” and strict “good cause” discretion
OPM proposes mandatory e-filing, a deadline measured to the minute (11:59 p.m. Eastern), and states “good cause” determinations are in OPM’s “sole and exclusive discretion.”
Instead, please provide multiple filing methods (e-filing, email, mail), clear accommodation standards, and a defined “good cause” rule with predictable factors.
7) Representation limits can undercut union and employee representation
The proposed representation section says that if the representative is a federal employee, they cannot perform representational functions while in duty status (including official time) and agencies can disallow certain representatives.
8) Request a longer comment period
This is a major structural change packaged as a rulemaking with a 30‑day window.
Comment ask: Extend the comment period (e.g., to 60 or 90 days given the high stakes).
How to Write a Comment That Hits Hard (And Actually Helps)
When you submit on Regulations.gov:
- Identify the rule clearly: “Reduction in Force Appeals; RIN 3206–AO99.”
- Lead with your bottom line: “I oppose transferring RIF appeals to OPM and oppose eliminating judicial review.”
- Organize by section number (OPM asked for this): § 351.901, § 351.902, etc.
- Include real-world impact: what a RIF means for your mission, your community.
- Ask for specific fixes: delete/modify exact clauses; propose alternatives.
- Keep it respectful: anger is understandable; credibility wins.
Sample Comment Language You Can Copy/Paste
Re: Reduction in Force Appeals (RIN 3206–AO99)
I am a federal employee. I strongly oppose OPM’s proposal to transfer RIF appeal rights from the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) to OPM and to make OPM’s process the sole and exclusive means of challenging a RIF.
RIF actions involve job loss and major disruption. Employees need review by an independent, neutral adjudicator. Moving RIF appeals into OPM—the same agency that writes and interprets RIF rules—creates an unacceptable appearance and risk of bias and undermines trust in the merit system.
I am especially concerned that proposed § 351.901 would: (1) eliminate MSPB review, (2) supersede collective bargaining agreement grievance/arbitration procedures, and (3) foreclose judicial review of OPM decisions. No regulation should attempt to cut off all judicial review of a final agency decision involving termination, demotion, or long furlough.
I also oppose shifting heavy burdens of proof to employees while limiting procedural tools (no guaranteed hearing, no meaningful discovery, mandatory e-filing with strict discretionary “good cause” standards). This will prevent employees from proving errors in complex RIF processes.
OPM should withdraw this proposal or, at minimum, preserve MSPB review and judicial review; preserve negotiated grievance procedures or allow election of remedies; and guarantee fair procedures including a hearing when material facts are disputed and robust access to the full RIF record.
(You can add 1–2 sentences about your service/agency mission without naming sensitive details.)
Bottom line
This proposed rule is not “process housekeeping.” It would:
- move RIF appeals out of an independent adjudicatory body (MSPB) and into OPM,
- make OPM the exclusive route (overriding CBAs and agency paths)
- and attempt to eliminate judicial review.
Please comment because the comment record is what OPM must confront before finalizing anything.
Standard note: This post is general information, not legal advice for any individual situation. If you are facing a RIF action or notice, consult counsel about your specific rights and deadlines.