Administrative Leave for Workforce Realignment and Other Purposes

Issuing agencies

Abstract

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is issuing a final rule to amend its regulations governing administrative leave for workforce realignment and other purposes. This final rule more fully addresses the appropriate uses of administrative leave, including use in connection with deferred resignation programs and other workforce realignment initiatives, and for other purposes. The final rule also clarifies when an agency may provide administrative leave during a reduction-in-force notice period and accept or deny an employee's request to withdraw a resignation in the context of a deferred resignation program.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 200 (Monday, October 19, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 200 (Monday, October 19, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65924-65940]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-21320]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

5 CFR Parts 351, 630, and 715

[Docket ID: OPM-2026-0397]
RIN: 3206-AP07


Administrative Leave for Workforce Realignment and Other Purposes

AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is issuing a final 
rule to amend its regulations governing administrative leave for 
workforce realignment and other purposes. This final rule more fully 
addresses the appropriate uses of administrative leave, including use 
in connection with deferred resignation programs and other workforce 
realignment initiatives, and for other purposes. The final rule also 
clarifies when an agency may provide administrative leave during a 
reduction-in-force notice period and accept or deny an employee's 
request to withdraw a resignation in the context of a deferred 
resignation program.

DATES: This rule is effective November 18, 2026.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bryce Baker by telephone at (202) 606-
2858 or by email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#58343d392e3d283734313b2118372835763f372e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="741811150211041b181d170d341b04195a131b02">[email&#160;protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OPM is issuing a final rule to amend its 
regulations on administrative leave in 5 CFR part 630, subpart N, and 
related regulations on reductions in force in 5 CFR 351.806 and on 
resignations in 5 CFR 715.202. OPM issued a proposed rule on June 29, 
2026 (91 FR 39032).

I. Digest of Public Comments

    In response to the proposed rule, OPM received 30 comments during 
the 30-day public comment period from multiple individuals, one agency 
(0027), two unions (0022 and 0030), and three employee advocacy groups 
(0025, 0026, and 0029). All comments were posted and made available to 
the public in the docket at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/docket/OPM-2026-0397">https://www.regulations.gov/docket/OPM-2026-0397</a>. A reference to a comment provides the location of the item 
in the public record (i.e., comments filed in response to the proposed 
rule are available at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/comment/OPM-2026-0397-nnnn">https://www.regulations.gov/comment/OPM-2026-0397-nnnn</a> where ``nnnn'' is the comment number).
    At the conclusion of the public comment period, OPM reviewed and 
analyzed the comments. In general, the comments on the proposed 
regulation changes were mixed. The comments are summarized below, 
including suggestions for revisions that OPM considered and either 
adopted, adopted in part, or declined to adopt, along with OPM's 
supporting rationale. Section II of this preamble provides background 
information. Section III responds to the comments. Section IV provides 
a section-by-section analysis of the regulatory changes, section V sets 
forth the regulatory analysis, and section VI addresses regulatory 
compliance requirements.

II. Background

    On December 17, 2024, OPM issued final regulations on 
administrative leave that added a new subpart N in 5 CFR part 630 (89 
FR 102256). The regulations in subpart N govern use of administrative 
leave authorized for Federal employees under 5 U.S.C. 6329a, which was 
enacted as part of the Administrative Leave Act of 2016 (section 1138 
of Pub. L. 114-328, December 23, 2016). OPM subsequently

[[Page 65925]]

identified the need to clarify certain matters in subpart N. On June 
29, 2026, OPM issued a proposed rule (91 FR 39032) pursuant to its 
regulatory authority at 5 U.S.C. 6329a(c). The proposed rule addressed 
acceptable and unacceptable uses of administrative leave. In 
particular, OPM proposed to add a list of specific examples of 
acceptable uses, including use in connection with deferred resignation 
programs \1\ and other workforce restructuring initiatives. These final 
regulations codify existing OPM policies on administrative leave. The 
primary OPM policy documents are a ``Fact Sheet: Administrative Leave'' 
and an OPM memorandum to agency Chief Human Capital Officers entitled 
``Template for Agency Administrative Leave Policies'' (CPM 2025-12, 
July 30, 2025) (``Agency Policy Template'').\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See the following OPM memoranda on the 2025 Governmentwide 
deferred resignation program available at <a href="https://www.opm.gov/chcoc/published-memos/">https://www.opm.gov/chcoc/published-memos/</a>: ``Guidance on Probationary Periods, Administrative 
Leave and Details'' (January 20, 2025), ``Guidance Regarding 
Deferred Resignation Program'' (January 28, 2025), ``Guidance on 
Collective Bargaining Obligations in Connection with Deferred 
Resignation Offer'' (February 4, 2025), and ``Legality of Deferred 
Resignation Program'' (February 4, 2025).
    \2\ The OPM ``Fact Sheet: Administrative Leave'' is found at 
<a href="https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/leave-administration/fact-sheets/administrative-leave/">https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/leave-administration/fact-sheets/administrative-leave/</a>. The OPM memorandum 
``Template for Agency Administrative Leave Policies'' (CPM 2025-12, 
July 30, 2025) is available at <a href="https://www.opm.gov/chcoc/published-memos/">https://www.opm.gov/chcoc/published-memos/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the proposed rule included proposed changes to related 
regulations. It proposed to amend OPM's reduction-in-force (RIF) 
regulations at 5 CFR 351.806 to clarify the conditions under which an 
agency may provide administrative leave during a RIF notice period. It 
also proposed to amend OPM's resignation regulations at 5 CFR 715.202 
to (1) provide that an agency has sole and exclusive discretion in 
deciding whether to accept or deny an employee's request to withdraw a 
resignation before the resignation has become effective and (2) 
specifically address that an employee's receipt of benefits provided 
under a deferred resignation agreement, such as paid administrative 
leave, is a valid reason to deny an employee's request to withdraw a 
resignation.

III. Responses to Comments

A. Use of Administrative Leave in Connection With a Deferred 
Resignation Program

    A number of comments, including 0004, 0006, 0016, 0019, 0025, 0026, 
and 0029, opposed codifying use of administrative leave in connection 
with deferred resignation programs (DRP) as an acceptable use, arguing 
that use of administrative leave for workforce restructuring 
circumvents RIF procedures in 5 CFR part 351, which includes legal 
safeguards to ensure that, when necessary, employees are released from 
employment in an orderly manner. Commenters argued that voluntary early 
retirement authority (VERA) and voluntary separation incentive payments 
(VSIP) already provide bounded, accountable mechanisms with statutory 
caps, and that open-ended administrative leave is designed to escape 
those limits. Comment 0004 stated that OPM should reject any regulatory 
framework that treats administrative leave as a preferred alternative 
to lawful RIF procedures. Comment 0006 objected that administrative 
leave, traditionally a short-duration tool, is being expanded into a 
workforce reduction mechanism that departs from established civil 
service procedures.
    Comment 0025 argued that deferred resignation programs require a 
statutory foundation separate from section 6329a, noting that Congress 
has separately authorized the VSIP and VERA programs and asserting that 
section 6329a cannot be used to ``create and fund a massive 
governmentwide paid separation benefit.'' The commenter cited public 
reporting estimating the cost of 2025 deferred resignation programs at 
approximately $11.1 billion and urged OPM to work with Congress on a 
legislated transition or severance program. The commenter urged OPM to 
withdraw the proposal in its entirety, begin using administrative leave 
as intended by Congress, and seek legislation for any broader paid 
transition or severance program.
    Comment 0016 similarly argued that VERA and VSIP already provide 
bounded, accountable voluntary-reduction tools with statutory caps, 
making open-ended administrative leave unnecessary, and that codifying 
open-ended administrative leave as a ``transition-to-separation tool'' 
invites agencies to route around the disciplined mechanisms Congress 
enacted, and to do so with public funds and no meaningful oversight. 
Comment 0026 recommended that OPM work with Congress to raise the 
statutory cap on voluntary separation incentive payments to make it a 
more useful tool. An individual commenter argued that the proposed rule 
weakens the due process protections that have sustained a competent, 
professional, merit-based civil service, and that it will harm Federal 
recruitment and retention and requested withdrawal of the proposed 
rule. Due process concerns are addressed further in section III.F.
    OPM disagrees that a separate statutory authorization is required 
to use administrative leave in conjunction with a DRP. Administrative 
leave provided in connection with a DRP is administrative leave under 
section 6329a, provided pursuant to a written agreement in which the 
employee voluntarily commits to separate on a specified future date. 
Such leave is not ``placed'' on an unwilling employee; it is a benefit 
the employee elects to accept as part of a voluntary transition to 
separation. The concerns that animated the Administrative Leave Act--
open-ended, involuntary removal of employees from the workplace during 
unresolved personnel matters--are not implicated where an employee has 
voluntarily agreed to separate and to the terms of the transition 
period.
    The existence of VSIP and VERA does not preclude the use of 
administrative leave as a complementary workforce-shaping tool. Those 
authorities address different benefits--lump-sum incentive payments and 
modified retirement eligibility, respectively--and nothing in those 
statutes states or implies that they are the exclusive means by which 
agencies may facilitate voluntary separations. Indeed, the new Sec.  
630.1403(c)(9) expressly contemplates that administrative leave may be 
used in conjunction with VSIP and VERA. Section 630.1403(c)(9) is 
limited to cases where employees sign voluntary written agreements to 
separate on a specified future date and receive administrative leave as 
a part of that voluntary agreement. Agencies have long had discretion 
to determine how employees in a transition-to-separation posture will 
be utilized, and the final rule confirms that discretion while 
subjecting it to Governmentwide limits established by OPM and 
applicable agency limits.
    OPM acknowledges that VERA and VSIP are separate authorities with 
their own limits; the inclusion of those authorities in the same 
example is descriptive of the range of voluntary transition tools and 
does not subject administrative leave to, or exempt it from, the 
statutory conditions governing VERA or VSIP, which continue to apply on 
their own terms.
    OPM does not agree that this final rule expands administrative 
leave into a workforce reduction tool that circumvents RIF procedures. 
The final rule does not waive, suspend, or displace any requirement of 
5 CFR part 351. Retention registers, retention standing, veterans' 
preference, and all

[[Page 65926]]

other RIF requirements continue to apply in full to any involuntary RIF 
separation. The only change made to part 351 is to Sec.  351.806, which 
addresses an employee's duty status during the RIF notice period. 
Paragraph (a) retains the general expectation that an employee will 
remain in a duty status during the notice period. It replaces the 
``when possible'' language with ``under ordinary circumstances,'' which 
is consistent with the language used in 5 CFR 752.404(b)(3) that 
addresses duty status during an advanced notice period in connection 
with a proposed removal or suspension. The new paragraph (b) permits--
but does not require--administrative leave for all or part of that 
period when the agency determines such leave is appropriate. This 
regulatory clarification is consistent with OPM policy guidance \3\ 
which already provided that an authorized agency official may provide 
administrative leave between an employee's receipt of a notice of 
involuntary separation and the effective date of that separation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See section D.1.b in OPM memorandum ``Template for Agency 
Administrative Leave Policies'' (CPM 2025-12, July 30, 2025), which 
is available at <a href="https://www.opm.gov/chcoc/published-memos/">https://www.opm.gov/chcoc/published-memos/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    New Sec.  630.1403(c)(10) and revised Sec.  351.806 address only 
whether an employee may be placed in a paid, non-duty status during a 
RIF notice period. Those provisions do not alter the substantive or 
procedural requirements governing RIF, which continue to apply in full 
whenever an agency conducts a RIF. Nothing in this rule authorizes an 
agency to bypass RIF competition, retention registers, or appeal 
rights.
    As to cost, OPM addresses costs in section III.B and regulatory-
impact matters in section III.E. OPM notes here that the DRPs conducted 
in 2025 were undertaken pursuant to existing regulatory authority and 
OPM guidance; this rule codifies the availability of administrative 
leave for DRP programs prospectively, subject to the limits described 
above. OPM agrees that Congress remains free to enact additional 
workforce-transition authorities but disagrees that such legislation is 
a prerequisite to the uses identified in this rule. The sponsors of the 
Administrative Leave Act were concerned about costs associated with 
open-ended investigations of employees and did not consider a use of 
administrative leave that would produce long-term cost savings by 
facilitating workforce reductions.
    OPM declines to withdraw the rule or to make changes based on this 
line of comments. The final rule is a lawful exercise of OPM's 
authority under 5 U.S.C. 6329a(c)(1), strengthens the regulatory 
framework by converting policy guidance into binding prohibitions and 
clarifying acceptable uses, preserves the duty-status presumption 
during RIF notice periods, and does not alter the statutory 10-workday 
limit or the investigative- and notice-leave framework of section 
6329b.

B. Cost of Administrative Leave and DRP

    Several comments, including 0004, 0016, 0022, and 0025, objected to 
the cost of using administrative leave in conjunction with a DRP. 
Comment 0004 stated the 2025 deferred resignation programs showed 
waste, including paying employees who performed no work and later 
rehiring. The commenter believes a full accounting of the DRPs should 
be conducted before similar programs are codified in regulation. 
Comment 0016 noted that the 2025 DRP placed tens of thousands of 
employees in paid non-duty status for months while delivering no work 
to the public, a direct payroll expenditure for zero output, compounded 
by the loss of institutional knowledge, the collapse of continuity in 
mission-critical functions, and the documented degradation of agency 
capacity that followed. Comment 0022 commented that the proposed rule 
attempts to justify the administration's costly workforce reduction 
efforts, including widespread use of administrative leave, by promising 
``large long-term savings'' without providing concrete support or 
considering downstream effects of letting employees participate in DRP.
    Comment 0022 also stated that OPM failed to provide concrete 
support that justifies costly workforce reduction efforts, even as it 
acknowledges the costs of the workforce reduction initiatives that 
began in early 2025. The organization cited two recent studies that 
highlight significant expenses tied to these workforce reduction 
programs: (1) a June 2026 study estimated that deferred resignation 
programs alone have cost at least $11 billion; and (2) another analysis 
from April 2026 found that the Government paid approximately $4.5 
billion in salary and benefits to employees who were not working under 
DRP agreements.
    OPM respectfully disagrees with the commenters on the costs 
associated with the original DRP. OPM acknowledged in the proposed rule 
that there is a temporary cost to providing administrative leave and 
stated its judgment that use of administrative leave in connection with 
deferred resignation programs and other workforce restructuring 
initiatives can generate long-term savings by reducing Federal staffing 
levels. OPM did not project costs or savings from the proposed 
regulations themselves because the regulations codify Governmentwide 
policies already in place, and OPM does not expect codification to 
produce significant changes in the usage of administrative leave.
    Further, OPM policy guidance has stated that use of administrative 
leave in connection with DRP is in the interest of the agency and of 
the Government as a whole because it facilitates workforce 
restructuring and realignment efforts leading to a leaner, less 
expensive, less wasteful, more efficient, and more mission-focused 
Federal workforce. OPM also notes that this policy is not open-ended: 
beginning in calendar year 2026, use of administrative leave by an 
employee in connection with a workforce realignment initiative is 
limited to 12 weeks in any individual instance unless a higher 
threshold has been jointly approved by OPM and the Office of Management 
and Budget. In addition, Sec.  630.1403(a)(6) requires an authorized 
agency official to consider the effect on productivity and mission 
needs and the strength of the justification for using appropriated 
funds.
    OPM calculates that DRP separations in 2025 represented a workforce 
reduction of over 6 percent, which contributed to the overall reduction 
of the Federal workforce of over 12 percent from December 2024 to March 
2026. Those workforce reductions create significant long-term savings 
even after accounting for the one-time costs of DRP administrative 
leave, which represent less than 3 percent of total basic payroll for 
Federal employees. Because the payroll savings from a smaller workforce 
recur in every subsequent fiscal year while the administrative leave 
outlays are one-time transition costs, the long-term savings 
substantially exceed the short-term costs even under the commenters' 
own estimates.
    OPM makes no changes in the regulations in response to this line of 
comments.

C. 10-Workday Limit

    Comment 0025 asserted that the proposed rule exceeds OPM's 
authority under the Administrative Leave Act of 2016, 5 U.S.C. 6329a-
6329c, by establishing a regulatory exception to the statutory 10-
workday calendar year limit. The commenter argued that the section 
6329a(b) 10-workday calendar-

[[Page 65927]]

year limit reflects Congress's intent to curb extended agency-directed 
paid non-duty status, that OPM's authority under section 6329a(c)(1) to 
prescribe acceptable uses does not include authority to override that 
limit, and that authorizing months of administrative leave for 
workforce realignment, RIF notice periods, and settlements would render 
the statutory cap ``optional and meaningless.'' The commenter urged OPM 
to withdraw the proposal and seek legislation for any broader paid 
transition or severance program. Similarly, comment 0029 asserted that 
the proposed rule conflicts with the 10-workday limit Congress enacted 
in section 6329a(b)(1) by ``re-authorizing exactly the indefinite, 
uncontestable leave status Congress acted to eliminate.''
    However, comment 0029 supported retaining the language found in 
proposed Sec.  630.1403(b)(3) concerning the use of administrative 
leave for investigative purposes. A labor organization (0030) similarly 
argued that the text and structure of the Act--including the separately 
defined and expressly limited investigative leave authority in 5 U.S.C. 
6329b--show that Congress withheld the power to provide unlimited 
amounts of administrative leave, and cited the sense-of-Congress 
findings accompanying the Act (5 U.S.C. 6329a note) that agency use of 
administrative leave had exceeded reasonable amounts and that 
administrative leave should be used sparingly.
    OPM disagrees that the rule exceeds its statutory authority. 
Congress expressly directed OPM to ``prescribe regulations to carry 
out'' section 6329a, including regulations governing the ``acceptable 
agency uses of administrative leave'' and the recording of such leave 
(5 U.S.C. 6329a(c)(1)). The final rule is an exercise of precisely that 
delegated authority: it identifies acceptable and prohibited uses of 
administrative leave and codifies existing Governmentwide policies to 
promote consistency and accountability across agencies.
    The final rule does not waive, extend, or otherwise modify the 10-
workday limit in section 6329a(b)(1). As OPM explained in the December 
2024 final rule (89 FR 102256), the statutory limit applies where an 
agency ``place[s]'' an employee on administrative leave for 
investigative purposes. The 10-workday limit directly connects to a 
provision in the investigative leave law (section 6329b(b)(3)(A)), 
which bars placing an employee on investigative leave until the 10-
workday limit is reached.
    The final rule preserves and indeed strengthens the statutory 
framework. New Sec.  630.1403(b)(3) provides clarity by expressly 
prohibiting use of administrative leave for investigative purposes once 
the employee has reached the 10-workday limit. If necessary, an agency 
may then use investigative leave under section 6329b, with all of that 
section's procedural safeguards, approvals, time limits, and reporting 
requirements. Thus, the final rule gives fuller effect to the statutory 
scheme Congress designed for the specific problem that motivated the 
Administrative Leave Act--prolonged, agency-directed removal of 
employees from the workplace during personnel investigations.
    The commenter's reading--under which the 10-workday limit would 
govern all extended uses of administrative leave--is inconsistent with 
the position the commenter itself acknowledges: that general 
administrative leave for purposes such as voting, blood donation, and 
emergency closures remains outside the cap. The statute does not 
enumerate acceptable purposes; it delegates that task to OPM. Nothing 
in the text of section 6329a confines OPM's authority under subsection 
(c)(1) to brief or de minimis uses, and the enumerated examples in 
Sec.  630.1403(c) operate within, not around, the statutory limits: 
uses that fall within the investigative context remain subject to the 
10-workday limit, which when reached triggers coverage under section 
6329b, while the workforce-realignment uses in paragraphs (c)(9) 
through (c)(11) address categorically different circumstances, 
discussed further below. The December 17, 2024, final rule cited by the 
commenter included this sentence: ``An incidence of administrative 
leave lasting more than 1 workday may be approved when determined to be 
appropriate by an agency'' (5 CFR 630.1403(a)(3)). This final rule 
simply adds specific examples of appropriate uses of administrative 
leave for periods of more than 1 workday.
    The rule does not authorize unlimited administrative leave: the 
workforce-realignment uses in Sec.  630.1403(c)(9) and (c)(11) are 
expressly subject to Governmentwide limits established by OPM--
currently 12 weeks in any individual instance absent joint OPM and 
Office of Management and Budget approval of a higher threshold--and to 
any agency limits, and every use of administrative leave remains 
subject to the principles and decision factors in Sec.  630.1403(a).
    Finally, the ``Sense of Congress'' accompanying the Act--that 
agencies should use administrative leave ``sparingly'' and manage its 
costs prudently--is a non-binding statement of policy that informs, but 
does not displace, the operative statutory text. The final rule is 
consistent with that policy: it retains the general principles in Sec.  
630.1403(a) that administrative leave is discretionary, should be 
limited to the amount reasonably necessary, and ordinarily should not 
exceed one workday for a single incidence, while identifying the 
limited circumstances in which longer periods are appropriate. It also 
adds new binding prohibitions (Sec.  630.1403(b)(3)-(5)) that constrain 
agency use of administrative leave. As noted above, the sponsors of the 
Administrative Leave Act were concerned about costs associated with 
open-ended investigations of employees and did not consider a use of 
administrative leave that would produce long-term cost savings by 
facilitating workforce reductions.
    OPM makes no changes in response to these comments.

D. Mission Capacity

    Three individual commenters (comments 0007, 0008, 0009) raised 
concerns about the consequences of workforce reductions on the delivery 
of Federal services. Comment 0007 described the impact of workforce 
reductions on various public health services, communications during 
emergencies, and technical assistance to states, and argued that the 
proposed rule facilitates those reductions without accounting for their 
effect on the public. Comment 0008 noted OPM's analysis should evaluate 
the cost of reduced program capacity, including reduced preparedness 
and loss of scientific expertise, rather than treating the cost of 
administrative leave in isolation. Comment 0009 was concerned about the 
loss of institutional and technical expertise, especially in 
specialized topics and areas of work and requested that OPM clarify 
that administrative leave is not to be used as a tool for permanent 
downsizing and should not be used as a routine workforce reduction 
strategy and that agencies should first demonstrate that mission 
requirements can still be met.
    OPM appreciates the comments and does not dispute that changes in 
agency staffing can affect the delivery of public services. Those 
effects are addressed in the existing regulatory framework at the point 
of decision rather than through the list of examples of acceptable 
uses.
    This final rule does not require an agency to provide 
administrative leave in any workforce realignment scenario and does not 
state that administrative

[[Page 65928]]

leave should be used as a routine workforce reduction strategy. An 
authorized agency official retains the sole and exclusive discretion to 
decline to provide it based on agency judgments regarding mission needs 
(Sec.  630.1403(a)(2) and (a)(4)). Decisions about the size and 
composition of an agency's workforce, and about which program functions 
must remain staffed, are made by the agency under separate authorities 
and are outside the scope of this rulemaking.
    As to the request that agencies first demonstrate that mission 
requirements can still be met, OPM declines to change the regulatory 
text. Section 630.1403(a)(6) already requires the authorized agency 
official to consider the effect on productivity and the agency's 
ability to meet mission needs. The loss of specialized expertise the 
commenters describe is a workforce planning consideration for the 
agency exercising its staffing authorities rather than a matter to be 
governed by the administrative leave regulations.

E. Economic Impact Analysis

    Comment 0025 argued that OPM's cost-benefit analysis is incomplete 
because it does not disclose amounts already spent on extended 
administrative leave, quantify affected employees, compare projected 
savings against service losses and replacement costs, or justify the 
determination that the rule will not have a $100 million annual 
economic effect.
    Several commenters argued that the no-cost certification is 
arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) 
because it conflates the act of codifying with the substance being 
codified. Comment 0004 stated that OPM fails to account for the major 
economic effects of workforce reductions in its costing of the proposed 
rule. The commenter suggested that OPM should measure more than the 
payroll impact of Federal employees and requested that OPM conduct a 
complete and honest economic impact analysis--that accounts for local 
economic multiplier effects, the impact on housing markets, and the 
cost of lost public services--and make that analysis available for a 
minimum of 60 days of public comment before any rule is finalized.
    Comment 0010 argued that extended administrative leave under a DRP 
operates as a benefit that bridges employees to retirement eligibility 
or to other employment and that the asserted cost savings are not 
credible. The same commenter stated the purported reduction in costs is 
nonsense unless it is accompanied by a legislative reduction in tasking 
to the affected agency, because the work will just fall to the 
remaining employees and will either be done with less rigor and 
attention to detail or will be contracted out to a company that is 
profit-motivated instead of mission-motivated.
    Comment 0016 stated that months of payroll expenditures for tens of 
thousands of DRP participants performing no work, the loss of 
institutional knowledge, the collapse of continuity in mission-critical 
functions, and the documented degradation of agency capacity cannot be 
a de minimis cost. Comment 0029 stated that real-world impacts of 
authorizing administrative leave for employees facing a RIF include 
``not only billions of dollars in direct financial losses but also 
serious constraints on agencies' ability to carry out their statutory 
missions.'' Comment 0004 objected that OPM ``must conduct a complete 
economic impact analysis that accounts for the multiplier effect of 
federal employee spending in local economies, the impact on housing 
markets, the downstream consequences for private sector businesses that 
depend on stable federal employment in their communities, and the 
economic value of public services that go undelivered when federal 
employees are placed on administrative leave rather than deployed 
productively.'' Comment 0030, a labor organization, further asserted 
that OPM's claimed cost savings are contrary to publicly available 
data, citing a June 2026 Public Citizen analysis estimating that the 
2025 deferred resignation programs cost approximately $11 billion, and 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports documenting that 
agencies subsequently rehired employees who had participated in those 
programs.
    OPM disagrees that a more extensive cost analysis is required. The 
relevant question under E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563 is the incremental 
effect of this rule relative to the baseline. The baseline includes the 
Governmentwide policies already in effect--including the Agency Policy 
Template--that parallel the rule's provisions. The distinction 
commenters draw between the act of codifying and the substance being 
codified is precisely what the baseline concept captures: because the 
substance is already in effect, the incremental effect of codifying it 
is the appropriate measure of this rule's costs and benefits. Because 
the rule primarily codifies those existing policies, OPM does not 
project that the rule itself will significantly change the usage of 
administrative leave or result in incremental costs or savings 
approaching the $100 million significance threshold. Expenditures 
associated with the 2025 deferred resignation programs were incurred 
under prior policies and are not costs of this rule; a retrospective 
accounting of those programs is beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
    OPM further notes that decisions to conduct particular workforce 
realignment initiatives--and their associated costs and savings--are 
made by individual agencies under separate authorities and processes; 
this rule does not mandate any such initiative. To the extent the rule 
has effects, OPM expects them to be beneficial: greater consistency 
across agencies, a firmer legal foundation for existing policies, and 
fewer disputes. The rehiring and cost data the commenters cite concern 
the execution of the 2025 programs under then-existing authorities and 
policies; those data may inform how agencies design and administer 
future initiatives, but they do not alter the incremental analysis of a 
rule that codifies the governing framework and directs no particular 
program.
    The economic analysis accurately reflects the impact of this rule, 
which applies only to Federal agencies and Federal employees and 
codifies policies already in effect Governmentwide through the OPM Fact 
Sheet: Administrative Leave and the Agency Policy Template. The 
certification under the Regulatory Flexibility Act addresses the 
absence of a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. The rule does not authorize, fund, or direct any 
particular workforce reduction; decisions on staffing levels are made 
by agencies under separate authorities and remain subject to 
appropriations law.
    OPM acknowledges the contributions Federal civilian employees make 
to the economy and that workforce restructuring may affect their 
incomes and, in turn, their communities. However, the indirect effects 
the commenters identify--the multiplier effect of Federal employee 
spending in local economies, impacts on housing markets, downstream 
consequences for private-sector businesses, and the economic value of 
public services--are consequences of agency staffing decisions made 
under separate authorities, not incremental effects of this rule, and 
E.O. 12866 does not require quantification of speculative indirect 
effects of actions that this rule neither mandates nor funds.
    OPM notes that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 
designated this action significant under

[[Page 65929]]

E.O. 12866 section 3(f) and that OPM examined the impact of the rule as 
required by E.O.s 12866 and 13563. An agency must consider the 
important aspects of the problem before it (see Motor Vehicle 
Manufacturers Association of the United States, Inc. v. State Farm 
Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)), but that 
obligation does not require quantification of the indirect effects of 
separate agency staffing decisions that this rule does not direct, and 
an agency's predictive judgments about the effects of its rules need 
only be reasonable and reasonably explained (see FCC v. Prometheus 
Radio Project, 592 U.S. 414 (2021)).
    Section D.1.b of the Agency Policy Template already contemplates 
that workforce restructuring initiatives such as deferred resignation 
or VERA may lead to a separation for retirement. Section 630.1403(c)(9) 
is drafted consistently with that policy: it reaches employees who sign 
a written agreement to voluntarily separate on a specified future date. 
OPM does not agree that administrative leave may be provided for the 
purpose of enabling an employee to obtain other employment. An employee 
in an administrative leave status remains a Federal employee subject to 
applicable standards of conduct and to agency requirements governing 
outside employment.
    OPM acknowledged in the proposed rule that there is a temporary 
cost to providing administrative leave and stated its judgment that 
these programs can generate long-term savings by reducing Federal 
staffing levels. Whether an agency's remaining workload should be 
reduced, redistributed, or performed under contract is a matter for the 
agency and, where applicable, for Congress, and is outside the scope of 
this rulemaking. OPM makes no changes in response to these comments.

F. Due Process

    Two individual commenters (comments 0019 and 0021) urged OPM to 
withdraw this proposal and preserve the due process protections that 
have helped maintain a competent, professional, merit-based civil 
service for decades. Comment 0019 expressed concern that the rule 
significantly weakens longstanding due process protections for Federal 
employees. Comment 0021 expressed concern that expanded and largely 
unreviewable agency discretion in the proposed rule is inconsistent 
with the merit system principles in 5 U.S.C. 2301 and with the 
independence, professionalism, and nonpartisan character of the career 
civil service. The commenter further stated that regulations should be 
written to withstand misuse by any future administration by anchoring 
workforce management authority to merit system principles in 5 U.S.C. 
2301.
    OPM does not agree that the final rule is inconsistent with the 
merit system principles in 5 U.S.C. 2301. Agency discretion under these 
regulations is not unbounded. As the proposed rule states, acceptable 
uses are those uses, within the bounds of law and regulation, that an 
agency determines to be appropriate in its sole and exclusive 
discretion; the merit system principles, appropriations law, and other 
governing law continue to apply.
    The regulatory framework contains the structural safeguards the 
commenter seeks. A use of administrative leave must satisfy one or more 
of the four guiding principles in Sec.  630.1403(a)(1); it must be 
permitted under written agency policy or, if not specifically 
authorized in policy, be approved on a case-by-case basis by an 
authorized agency official at least one level higher than the official 
making the initial determination (Sec.  630.1403(a)(5); Agency Policy 
Template (CPM 2025-12, July 30, 2025), section B.3.b); and the 
authorized agency official must consider the decision factors in Sec.  
630.1403(a)(6), which include consistent treatment of similarly 
situated employees. Each authorized agency official is accountable for 
the policies he or she establishes and should be prepared to show how 
due consideration was given to the principles and requirements in law, 
regulations, and policy (Agency Policy Template, section B.3.a). Use of 
administrative leave must be recorded as a stand-alone category of 
leave and reported to OPM's Enterprise Human Resources Integration 
database (5 U.S.C. 6329a(b)(2); 5 CFR 630.1406(c); Agency Policy 
Template, section G), and managers are responsible for administering 
the program with integrity and for identifying, investigating, and 
correcting leave errors and abuse (Agency Policy Template, section 
H.1).
    These provisions create no new authority to separate, demote, or 
discipline an employee. Involuntary separations remain governed by 5 
CFR part 351 and, where applicable, 5 U.S.C. chapters 43 and 75. OPM 
declines to withdraw the rule and views these comments as largely 
outside the scope of the rule.

G. Allegations That the Rulemaking Is Arbitrary and Capricious

    A labor organization (comment 0030) objected that OPM's process of 
codifying policy decisions that OPM has already made renders this 
rulemaking arbitrary and capricious. The labor organization also 
asserted that OPM failed to make reasoned conclusions based on 
objective evidence about the rule's ramifications, and that the 
supporting analysis is internally inconsistent because it states both 
that the use of administrative leave in connection with deferred 
resignation programs and other workforce restructuring initiatives can 
generate large long-term savings and that OPM does not project that 
costs or savings will result from the regulations. Similarly, comment 
0025 argued that the rule is arbitrary and capricious because OPM did 
not acknowledge and adequately explain a departure from the December 
2024 final rule, citing FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 
502 (2009).
    OPM disagrees with the premise that this rule reverses the 2024 
final rule. The final rule leaves the 2024 rule's core interpretive 
framework intact: the 10-workday limit continues to apply to agency-
directed placement for investigative purposes; general administrative 
leave for civic, operational, and employee-support purposes continues 
outside that cap; and the general principles of Sec.  630.1403(a)--
including the principle that administrative leave ordinarily should not 
exceed one workday for a single incidence--are retained. What the rule 
adds are clarifying examples of acceptable uses, three new binding 
prohibitions, and conforming terminology. The examples largely codify 
OPM policies issued after the 2024 rule, including the Agency Policy 
Template (CPM 2025-12, July 30, 2025), and were fully explained in the 
proposed rule's preamble.
    To the extent the rule refines the 2024 framework--for example, by 
expressly addressing extended leave in transition-to-separation 
contexts that the 2024 rule did not specifically discuss--OPM has 
acknowledged the additions and explained the basis for them, including 
agencies' experience administering the 2024 regulations and the need 
for greater consistency and a firmer legal foundation for existing 
policies. That explanation satisfies the standard articulated in Fox 
Television, 556 U.S. at 515, which requires a reasoned explanation for 
a change, not a heightened one, except in circumstances not present 
here.
    As explained in the Statement of Need, after more than a year of 
experience applying the December 2024 final regulations, OPM identified 
the need to clarify certain matters, and

[[Page 65930]]

while OPM has issued policy guidance that largely addresses those 
matters, regulations are needed to achieve greater consistency across 
agencies and a firmer legal foundation for the policies.
    Notice-and-comment rulemaking is the appropriate means of 
converting Governmentwide policy into binding regulation, and OPM has 
proposed for public comment both new prohibitions that would bind 
agencies and new examples of acceptable uses. OPM further notes that 
CPM 2025-12 described the Agency Policy Template as a living document 
that would be improved and refined to address issues arising during 
implementation.
    Further, the premise that OPM had already adopted the policies 
being codified does not render the rulemaking arbitrary and capricious. 
An agency does not prejudge a rulemaking by proposing to codify its 
existing policies; the APA requires that the agency maintain an open 
mind and consider the comments received, not that it begin with an 
empty one (see Association of National Advertisers, Inc. v. FTC, 627 
F.2d 1151 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (rulemaker may be disqualified only on a 
clear and convincing showing of an unalterably closed mind)).
    This final rule demonstrates that consideration: in response to the 
comments, OPM is adding a new acceptable-use example for physical 
fitness activities, adding a regulatory definition of ``sole and 
exclusive discretion,'' and making other changes described in this 
preamble. As to the asserted lack of factual support and internal 
inconsistency, OPM responds in section III.E of this preamble. In 
brief, the projection that codification will not significantly change 
the usage of administrative leave rests on the fact that agencies have 
operated under parallel Governmentwide policies since July 2025, and 
there is no inconsistency between OPM's judgment that workforce 
restructuring initiatives can generate long-term savings and its 
projection that this rule--which neither mandates nor funds any such 
initiative--will not itself produce significant incremental costs or 
savings.
    OPM makes no changes in response to these comments.

H. ``Sole and Exclusive'' Discretion

    Comment 0025 argued that describing agency discretion (in 
Sec. Sec.  630.1403(a) and 715.202(b)) as ``sole and exclusive'' is 
unnecessary and misleading because agency discretion remains bounded by 
statute, regulation, appropriations law, collective-bargaining 
obligations, merit system principles, and judicial review. The 
commenter also stated the ``sole and exclusive discretion'' language 
``sits uneasily with OPM's own governmentwide oversight role.''
    One labor organization, comment 0030, asserted that the ``sole and 
exclusive discretion'' language is unlawful and arbitrary in that it 
removes administrative leave from collective bargaining by reference to 
OPM's own judgment without a statutory basis (invoking Federal Labor 
Relations Authority precedent and the right of an exclusive 
representative to negotiate over conditions of employment under 5 
U.S.C. 7102 and 7114). Another labor organization (comment 0022) 
commented that this amendment would create significant legal 
consequences because, under the Federal labor statute, ``agencies are 
not required to bargain over matters over which they have sole and 
exclusive discretion.'' AFGE National Veterans Affairs Council # 53, 71 
F.L.R.A. 410, 412 & n.22 (2019). Similar comments were made by an 
anonymous commenter (comment 0031).
    Comment 0030 asserted that OPM lacks statutory authority to insert 
``sole and exclusive discretion'' into 5 CFR 630.1403(a) and 5 CFR 
715.202(b). Under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA), an 
involuntary resignation or a resignation induced by coercion, duress, 
or agency misrepresentation constitutes an adverse action (constructive 
removal) within the mandatory appellate jurisdiction of the Merit 
Systems Protection Board (MSPB). The commenter states that OPM cannot 
divest the MSPB of jurisdiction over involuntary-resignation and 
constructive-removal claims, or foreclose Federal Circuit review, 
because an involuntary or coerced resignation is an appealable adverse 
action (citing Scharf v. Department of the Air Force, 710 F.2d 1572 
(Fed. Cir. 1983); Luecht v. Department of the Navy, 87 M.S.P.R. 297 
(2000); and Lindahl v. Office of Personnel Management, 470 U.S. 768 
(1985)). The comment asks that OPM remove ``sole and exclusive 
discretion'' and explicitly state that resignation withdrawal denials 
remain subject to MSPB review under 5 U.S.C. chapter 75.
    As the preamble to the proposed rule stated, acceptable uses of 
administrative leave are those an agency determines appropriate 
``within the bounds of law and regulation.'' The ``sole and exclusive'' 
formulation clarifies allocation of decision-making responsibility--
that the decision whether to provide administrative leave in a given 
circumstance rests with the agency, that no use of administrative leave 
is a mandatory entitlement, and that OPM's enumeration of acceptable 
uses does not obligate any agency to provide leave in those 
circumstances. This is consistent with Congress's assignment of leave-
management responsibility to agency heads. The phrase does not diminish 
the binding prohibitions in Sec.  630.1403(b), the statutory limits in 
sections 6329a and 6329b, applicable appropriations law, or the 
recording and reporting requirements that continue to apply, and it 
does not alter any applicable standard of review.
    OPM's intent regarding the use of ``sole and exclusive discretion'' 
in the administrative leave regulations (in Sec.  630.1403(a)(2), 
(a)(4), and (c)) is to make explicit that the acceptable-use 
determination--whether a given circumstance qualifies for 
administrative leave at all--rests with the agency and cannot be 
converted into a mandatory entitlement, including through negotiated 
agreement. The statutory basis for using the term ``sole and exclusive 
discretion'' is that the law in 5 U.S.C. 6329a(c)(1) authorizes the OPM 
Director to prescribe regulations that address the acceptable agency 
uses of administrative leave. OPM believes the change better reflects 
the decision of Congress to give this discretionary leave authority to 
agency heads, who make final decisions on mission needs and the use of 
limited budget resources, and the sense of Congress that agency heads 
would be responsible for managing and overseeing the effective and 
prudent use of the leave.
    OPM believes the intent of Congress was for agencies to always 
retain discretion in providing or not providing administrative leave in 
any circumstance (subject to law and OPM regulations) and has regulated 
accordingly. The use of the ``sole and exclusive discretion'' language 
is consistent with the existing text of Sec.  630.1403(a)(4), which 
already requires that an agency retain the discretion to provide or not 
provide administrative leave in any circumstance based on agency 
judgments regarding mission needs and already prevents an agency from 
establishing any application of administrative leave as a mandatory 
entitlement.
    In response to the comments invoking Federal Labor Relations 
Authority precedent, OPM confirms that the ``sole and exclusive 
discretion'' language is intended to preserve the agency's discretion 
over acceptable-use determinations, which may not be limited or 
conditioned by a negotiated agreement or converted into a mandatory 
entitlement; collective

[[Page 65931]]

bargaining obligations under 5 U.S.C. chapter 71 otherwise continue to 
apply according to their terms. Under 5 U.S.C. 7117(a)(1), the duty to 
bargain in good faith extends to matters that are the subject of a rule 
or regulation only if the rule or regulation is not a Governmentwide 
rule or regulation; the regulations in this subpart are Governmentwide 
regulations issued under 5 U.S.C. 6329a(c)(1). OPM likewise confirms 
that nothing in this rule divests the MSPB of jurisdiction over a claim 
that a resignation was involuntary or the product of coercion, duress, 
or agency misrepresentation--which remains an appealable constructive 
removal--or forecloses judicial review of a final Board decision. See 
section III.R of this preamble.
    In the preamble for the proposed regulations issued on June 29, 
2026, OPM stated that an agency's use of its sole and exclusive 
discretion in providing administrative leave must be done ``within the 
bounds of law and regulation'' (91 FR 39033). Given the comments about 
the ``sole and exclusive discretion'' language related to 
administrative leave, we are adding a definition of the term in Sec.  
630.1402 to make clear that it is discretion that rests with an agency 
alone; that is exercised within the bounds of 5 U.S.C. 6329a and other 
applicable law, applicable Presidential directives, and the regulations 
in this subpart; and that may not be limited or conditioned by any 
agreement or established as a mandatory entitlement. Other than that 
change, OPM is making no changes in response to this line of comments. 
The term ``sole and exclusive discretion'' in Sec.  715.202(b) should 
be interpreted in a similar manner.

I. Physical Fitness Activities

    OPM's proposed regulations requested ``comments on the policy of 
allowing limited use of administrative leave for physical fitness 
activities and on whether this policy should be included in the 
regulatory examples of acceptable uses.'' OPM received numerous 
comments on this proposal. See, for example, comments 0012, 0013, 0018, 
0020, 0024, 0028, and 0030.
    Generally, the comments were favorable for including physical 
fitness as an acceptable use. Comment 0011 stated that as ``someone who 
has recommitted to better health, I would appreciate having the 
administrative leave available'' to make time for physical fitness, 
which is currently difficult to do outside of duty hours with a three-
hour daily commute and home commitments. Comment 0012 recounted 
substantial personal improvements in weight and blood pressure after 
adopting a daily walking and gym regimen during Federal service, along 
with increased energy, no medical issues, and over 2,000 hours of 
unused sick leave. The commenter recommended authorizing administrative 
leave for physical fitness, reasoning that duty time to exercise would 
spur participation, improve employee health, and reduce sick leave 
usage.
    Comment 0013 stated: ``Research has shown that a healthier 
workforce lowers healthcare & benefit costs, enhances productivity & 
performance, reduces stress, improves employee engagement, & improves 
overall mental health.'' The commenter proposed authorizing a total of 
3 hours of administrative leave per week (1 hour per day, three days 
per week, to include time for changing, travel, and showering), 
depending on workload and agency requirements.
    Comment 0015 contended that administrative leave for physical 
exercise would yield near-immediate improvements in engagement and 
productivity and, given the connection between physical and mental 
well-being, would also improve job satisfaction and retention. Comment 
0018 stated that permitting a limited amount of duty time for physical 
fitness is increasingly common across Federal agencies, typically up to 
one hour per day, three days per week, and recommended that OPM adopt a 
comparable allowance to align with prevailing practice and support 
employee health, morale, and readiness.
    Comment 0020 described duty-time physical fitness as a strategic 
``people first'' initiative, citing improved workforce readiness and 
resiliency, enhanced productivity and focus, higher morale and reduced 
burnout, decreased sick leave usage and absenteeism, and--because the 
benefit would be available annually rather than once in a career--the 
formation of lasting healthy habits. Noting significant return on 
investment and widespread private-sector adoption, the commenter urged 
OPM to retain physical fitness as an authorized use of administrative 
leave.
    Comment 0023 supported the provision authorizing limited 
administrative leave for physical fitness, endorsing the retention of 
agency discretion based on mission needs, and stated that the provision 
would reduce burnout and improve work-life balance, well-being, 
motivation, and concentration. The commenter also noted that the rule's 
predictability should reduce disputes.
    Comment 0024 recommended permitting and encouraging administrative 
leave for fitness activities similar to the Civilian Fitness Program, 
with program goals aligned to Army fitness standards, reasoning that 
because Federal employees are mobilized to support the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), immigration efforts, and other 
demand-based taskings, a physically capable workforce improves 
contingency readiness. Comment 0028, citing Centers for Disease Control 
and Prevention (CDC) data on physical inactivity, obesity, diabetes, 
and heart disease, and CDC's Physical Activity in the Workplace: A 
Guide for Employers, stated that administrative leave for physical 
activity would support employers and their business needs because 
engaging in physical activities can result in reduced sick days, 
increased productivity, lower health care costs, and decreased risk of 
developing costly chronic diseases. Pointing to existing agency 
programs offering up to one hour three times per week, the commenter 
recommended permitting onsite or offsite activity.
    A labor organization (comment 0022) stated that it ``supports this 
policy and recommends including it in the regulatory examples of 
acceptable uses.'' The commenter explained that it ``has negotiated a 
Physical Fitness Program into its contract with U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP).'' The commenter ``accordingly supports similar 
programs across the government and supports the idea of OPM including 
physical fitness activities as an example of acceptable use in the 
administrative leave regulations.'' Another labor organization (comment 
0030), while opposing the proposed rule overall, stated that in the 
event OPM does not withdraw the rule, it supports allowing 
administrative leave to be used for physical fitness activities.
    Comment 0027 opposed adding physical fitness because under their 
agency's work schedules policy, employees may elect an unpaid health 
and wellness break period with supervisory approval, including before 
and after the lunch period, to participate in health and wellness 
activities. The commenter further stated: ``Employees must then extend 
their workday by the equivalent amount of time of the break.'' The 
agency stated the use of administrative leave for physical fitness 
activities is unnecessary at their agency, as the unpaid health and 
wellness break period policy has been successful in balancing employee 
personal needs with limited agency resources toward accomplishing its 
critical mission.
    Following consideration of the comments, OPM is adding a new

[[Page 65932]]

Sec.  630.1403(c)(8) in this final rule listing approved physical 
fitness activities as an acceptable use of administrative leave and is 
redesignating the examples proposed as paragraphs (c)(8) through 
(c)(10) as paragraphs (c)(9) through (c)(11). OPM is not establishing a 
minimum or maximum number of hours. Instead, an authorized agency 
official may provide limited amounts of administrative leave for 
approved physical fitness activities consistent with OPM regulations on 
administrative leave, including consideration of the decision factors 
in Sec.  630.1403(a)(6)--which include consideration of the effect on 
productivity and the ability to meet mission needs.
    Also, as provided in Sec.  630.1403(a)(4), authorized agency 
officials must retain the discretion to provide or not provide 
administrative leave based on agency judgments of mission needs. The 
new Sec.  630.1403(c)(8) allows agencies to provide ``limited amounts 
of administrative leave for approved physical fitness activities on a 
conditional basis (consistent with paragraphs (a)(4) and (a)(6) and 
subject to any Governmentwide policies issued by OPM or the 
President).'' This paragraph does not apply to employees who have job-
related mandatory fitness standards that allow for use of official duty 
time for physical fitness activities.

J. Employee Geographic Relocation

    Three individual commenters (comments 0002, 0003, 0005) proposed 
that OPM add an example authorizing administrative leave for an 
employee who must relocate his or her residence to accept a new 
appointment or assignment. Comment 0002 argued that omitting such a use 
is inconsistent with providing administrative leave for a civilian 
employee accompanying a military spouse under 5 CFR 630.1403(c)(7). 
Comment 0003 argued that a recruitment, relocation, or retention 
incentive is not the exclusive means of addressing relocation burdens 
and that administrative leave is needed to avoid a gap in pay status 
when an employee moves between appointments. Comment 0005 noted 
administrative leave for employees relocating a significant distance 
from their current duty station would allow employees to better manage 
the transition without depleting their earned personal leave. All three 
of these commenters acknowledged that agencies already have the 
discretion to offer administrative leave for this purpose. Two of the 
commenters (comments 0002 and 0003) proposed regulatory text 
authorizing administrative leave for an employee's own relocation to a 
new appointment or assignment.
    OPM does not support adding an example that allows general use of 
administrative leave for activities related to an employee's move to a 
different permanent duty station. Adding such an example would indicate 
a Governmentwide policy that such use is acceptable. OPM prefers to let 
agencies adopt their own policies in this area. The example in Sec.  
630.1403(c)(7)--allowing use of administrative leave for an employee 
whose spouse, a member of the uniformed services or a Federal civilian 
employee, must relocate as a result of military orders or agency 
direction, as applicable--does reflect an established Governmentwide 
policy in section D.1.c of the Agency Policy Template (CPM 2025-12, 
July 30, 2025). That policy implements a specific Presidential 
directive--E.O. 14100 of June 9, 2023--and OPM's related memorandum of 
November 9, 2023, to agency heads. There is no comparable 
Governmentwide directive addressing an employee's own change of 
residence to accept a new appointment or assignment, and OPM does not 
view the absence of such an example as an inconsistency in the proposed 
list.
    We note that, if an employee has been approved to receive a house 
hunting allowance under 41 CFR part 302-5 (which an agency may choose 
to apply to employees under certain specified conditions), time spent 
on house hunting activities during regular work hours is treated as 
official duty time. Also, time spent on activities to accomplish tasks 
that are directly required in connection with an approved move to a new 
permanent duty station determined to be in the Government's interest 
(resulting in payment of relocation expenses)--such as obtaining 
passports and vaccinations, adhering to government housing authority 
requirements (if applicable), or being present for packing and 
receiving of household goods--is considered official duty time. 
Finally, the list in Sec.  630.1403(c) is noncomprehensive. An agency 
may adopt its own written policy to allow limited use of administrative 
leave for move-related activities that are not duty time, if such use 
is determined to be in the Government's interest and the use satisfies 
the guiding principles in Sec.  630.1403(a)(1), the authorized agency 
official considers the decision factors in Sec.  630.1403(a)(6), and 
the use is approved consistent with Sec.  630.1403(a)(5) and section 
D.2.h of the Agency Policy Template.
    OPM declines to add the suggested example.

K. Reliance Interests

    Comment 0025 argued that OPM failed to consider reliance interests, 
citing Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of 
California, 591 U.S. 1 (2020), including agencies' investments in 
implementing the 2024 rule and operational reliance on employees 
remaining in duty status through reorganizations and RIF notice 
periods.
    OPM has considered the reliance interests the commenter identifies 
and concludes they do not counsel against finalizing the rule. First, 
because the rule largely codifies policies already in effect under the 
Agency Policy Template since July 2025, agencies, payroll providers, 
and employees have been operating under substantially these policies 
for approximately a year; codification reduces, rather than disrupts, 
transition burdens by confirming the framework agencies have already 
implemented. The changes required--principally conforming terminology, 
incorporating the new binding prohibitions, and providing specific 
examples of acceptable uses--are modest.
    Second, as to operational reliance, the rule is permissive, not 
mandatory. It does not require any agency to place any employee on 
administrative leave during a workforce realignment or RIF notice 
period. Agencies retain full discretion to keep employees in duty 
status--and under revised Sec.  351.806, duty status remains the rule 
under ordinary circumstances--precisely so that agencies can weigh 
mission needs, knowledge transfer, records preservation, and service 
continuity in each case. The judgment about whether an employee's 
continued presence serves the Government's interests during a 
particular realignment is one the agency, not OPM, is best positioned 
to make.

L. Comment Period Length

    An individual commenter and a labor organization argued that the 
30-day comment period, which included the Independence Day Federal 
holiday, did not afford a ``meaningful opportunity'' to comment as 
contemplated by the APA. The labor organization cited North Carolina 
Growers' Association, Inc. v. United Farm Workers, 702 F.3d 755, 770 
(4th Cir. 2012), in support of that asserted requirement. The 
commenters also stated that Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 
contemplate a 60-day comment period. Comment 0004 requested a minimum 
60-day public comment window to review any revised economic analysis. 
The labor

[[Page 65933]]

organization (comment 0030) requested that OPM reopen the comment 
period for an additional 60 days.
    OPM provided a 30-day comment period. The Administrative Procedure 
Act prescribes no minimum period. Courts have upheld comment periods 
considerably shorter than the period provided here (see, e.g., 
Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Goldschmidt, 645 F.2d 1309 (8th Cir. 1981) 
(upholding a 7-day comment period)), and North Carolina Growers' 
Association is not to the contrary: that case involved a 10-day comment 
period on the suspension of recently promulgated regulations, in which 
the agency declined to consider comments addressing the merits of the 
underlying rules.
    Here, OPM provided three times that period, placed no limits on the 
subjects commenters could address, and has considered and responded to 
the comments received in this preamble. The 60-day period referenced in 
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 is not a hard requirement that applies 
in all cases (see E.O. 12866, section 6(a), 58 FR 51735, 51740 (October 
4, 1993); E.O. 13563, section 2(b), 76 FR 3821, 3822 (January 21, 
2011)). E.O. 12866 states that the 60-day period should be used in 
``most cases.'' In any event, these Executive orders are management 
directives to agencies that do not create privately enforceable rights 
(E.O. 12866, section 10; E.O. 13563, section 7(d)).
    OPM received 30 comments, including detailed legal and economic 
submissions from labor organizations and public-interest groups, 
indicating that interested parties had an adequate opportunity to 
comment. Moreover, because the rule largely codifies Governmentwide 
policies that have been publicly available since July 2025, interested 
parties were already familiar with the substance of the proposals. OPM 
declines to reopen or extend the comment period.

M. Duty Status Presumption During RIF Notice Periods (Sec.  351.806)

    Comment 0025 urged OPM to preserve the existing duty-status 
presumption during RIF notice periods, arguing that RIF notices are not 
disciplinary, that employees perform valuable transition work during 
notice periods, that existing authorities already address unusual 
cases, and that OPM has not identified a gap warranting a RIF-specific 
administrative-leave authorization.
    The final rule preserves the duty-status presumption with a minor 
change in terminology. Revised Sec.  351.806(a) provides that ``[u]nder 
ordinary circumstances, an employee will remain in a duty status during 
the notice period.'' The change from ``when possible'' to ``under 
ordinary circumstances'' conforms the RIF regulation to the parallel 
standard in 5 CFR 752.404(b)(3) governing notice periods for proposed 
removals and suspensions, and more accurately reflects that the 
determination involves an assessment of circumstances rather than 
literal possibility. Paragraph (b) then confirms--consistent with the 
Agency Policy Template--that an agency may place a RIF-affected 
employee on administrative leave for all or part of the notice period 
when the agency determines that such leave is appropriate and 
consistent with part 630, subpart N.
    OPM agrees that RIF notice periods are not inherently disciplinary 
and that employees frequently perform valuable work during them; that 
is why duty status remains the default. But circumstances vary: an 
agency may determine, for example, that continued systems access during 
a large-scale reorganization presents security or records-integrity 
risks, that available work has genuinely ceased for the affected 
positions, or that other Government interests warrant non-duty status. 
The rule leaves that judgment to the agency familiar with the facts, 
rather than requiring agencies to rely on a patchwork of assignment, 
telework, and leave authorities that may not fit the circumstances of a 
RIF. Nothing in the revision permits use of administrative leave 
inconsistent with subpart N of part 630.

N. Nomenclature Change (``Grant'' To ``Provide'') (Part 630, Subpart N)

    Comment 0025 objected to replacing ``grant/granted/granting'' with 
``provide/provided/providing'' throughout subpart N, arguing that the 
change extends agency-directed administrative leave beyond the limits 
of the Act and the 2024 rule by encompassing leave imposed without 
employee consent.
    OPM disagrees that the nomenclature change effects any substantive 
expansion of authority. As explained in the proposed rule, ``grant'' 
inaccurately implies that administrative leave is furnished only at an 
employee's request, which has never been the case--for example, 
employees have long been placed on administrative leave for 
investigative purposes without their consent, a practice Congress 
itself recognized and regulated in sections 6329a and 6329b. 
``Provide'' is a neutral term that accurately describes the provision 
of administrative leave with or without the employee's consent. The 
statutory 10-workday limit continues to apply to employees ``placed'' 
on administrative leave for investigative purposes, as provided in 
Sec.  630.1404(a). For other uses of administrative leave, which may be 
voluntarily accepted or imposed without the employee's consent, we are 
using the term ``provide.'' The terminology change harmonizes the 
regulatory text with existing practice and with the structure of the 
statute; it does not authorize any use of administrative leave that 
would otherwise be impermissible.

O. Prohibition on Administrative Leave for Poll Workers (Sec.  
630.1403(b)(5))

    Several comments, including 0016, 0022, 0030, and 0031, objected to 
the prohibition of administrative leave for service as a poll worker or 
poll observer found in proposed Sec.  630.1403(b)(5). The commenters 
argued that the prohibition is unrelated to workforce realignment, 
discourages civic participation amid documented poll-worker shortages, 
saves little, and reverses OPM's prior guidance that agencies allow up 
to 4 hours of administrative leave for nonpartisan poll service. A 
labor organization (comment 0022) characterized limited administrative 
leave for nonpartisan poll service as an important, pro-democracy 
policy choice. Another labor organization (comment 0030) argued that 
OPM offered no reasoned explanation or evidence for the prohibition and 
characterized it as an attempt to stifle Federal employees' exercise of 
their constitutional rights.
    OPM notes that the changes in the administrative leave regulations 
are not limited to changes related to workforce realignment. OPM 
acknowledges that this provision changes OPM's prior policies that 
agencies could allow limited administrative leave for nonpartisan poll 
service. However, those prior policies were a departure from 
longstanding Governmentwide policies that existed before 2020, which 
focused on administrative leave for voting, not for poll workers. Based 
on its authority to regulate acceptable uses of administrative leave, 
OPM has determined that administrative leave should be limited to the 
purpose of ensuring employees a reasonable opportunity to vote (see 
Sec.  630.1403(c)(2)). OPM policy (section E.1.d of the Agency Policy 
Template) already provided that administrative leave may not be used to 
cover service by poll workers or poll observers in connection with 
elections, whether that service is partisan or nonpartisan and whether 
paid or unpaid. Limiting administrative leave to voting itself also 
avoids placing agencies in the position

[[Page 65934]]

of assessing whether particular election-related service is partisan or 
nonpartisan.
    The prohibition does not restrict any employee's ability to serve 
as a poll worker or poll observer; it addresses only whether that 
service will be subsidized with paid leave from Federal duty, and a 
decision not to subsidize an activity does not infringe the right to 
engage in it (see Regan v. Taxation With Representation of Washington, 
461 U.S. 540, 549 (1983)). Employees who wish to serve as poll workers 
or poll observers may use other available workforce flexibilities, 
including annual leave, compensatory time off earned via overtime work, 
compensatory time off for travel, credit hours under a flexible work 
schedule, an adjustment of working hours under a flexible work 
schedule, or leave without pay. OPM makes no change in response to 
these comments.

P. Administrative Leave Prior to a Holiday (Sec.  630.1403(c)(5))

    Regarding Sec.  630.1403(c)(5), comment 0024 stated that early 
dismissal before a Federal holiday should not be subject to a hard 2-
hour cap and that longer dismissals should be available for particular 
occasions, including days of national observance.
    OPM notes that Sec.  630.1403(c)(5) does not establish a hard cap 
since it states that the administrative leave should ``generally'' be 
no more than 2 hours. This regulation should be read with sections 
D.2.d and E.2.a of the Agency Policy Template (CPM 2025-12, July 30, 
2025), which provide that such leave may not exceed 2 hours unless 
specifically approved by the agency head. The flexibility the commenter 
seeks for longer periods of dismissal for particular occasions is 
therefore already available through agency head approval. 
Presidentially directed closures and days of national observance 
provided by the President using his or her constitutional authority as 
head of the Executive branch are not administrative leave under 5 
U.S.C. 6329a and are not governed by subpart N or by an agency's 
administrative leave policy (Agency Policy Template, section A.2.b and 
Appendix 1). Such occasions are therefore outside this rulemaking. OPM 
notes separately that proposed Sec.  630.1403(b)(1) continues to 
prohibit use of administrative leave to mark the memory of a deceased 
former Federal official (see also 5 U.S.C. 6105).

Q. Settlement Agreement (Sec.  630.1403(c)(11))

    Comment 0025 argued that authorizing extended administrative leave 
to facilitate the voluntary resignation of employees with documented 
poor performance or misconduct under a settlement agreement recreates 
the pre-Act practices Congress sought to control, and that the 
provision lacks meaningful time limits, approval procedures, or 
reporting requirements.
    Comment 0026 recommended that the settlement agreement example at 
proposed Sec.  630.1403(c)(10) (redesignated as Sec.  630.1403(c)(11) 
in this final rule) be removed or relocated to the investigative leave 
framework so the leave is tracked with specificity and that OPM not 
conflate administrative leave with the performance and conduct action 
procedures in 5 U.S.C. chapters 43 and 75.
    OPM disagrees. Section 630.1403(c)(11) is a narrow provision 
subject to multiple conditions: there must be documented allegations of 
poor performance or misconduct by the employee (see discussion later in 
this section); the leave must be provided under a settlement agreement; 
the agency must determine that the settlement is in the Government's 
best interests; and the agency must first consider all other reasonable 
alternatives. The leave is also subject to Governmentwide limits 
established by OPM and any agency-specific limits.
    These conditions distinguish the provision from the pre-Act 
practice GAO documented, in which employees remained in indefinite paid 
non-duty status during unresolved investigations and adverse actions 
with no resolution in sight. By contrast, leave under paragraph (c)(11) 
is tied to a negotiated resolution--a definite separation date--and 
serves to conclude, not prolong, the personnel matter. Settlement of 
disputed personnel actions can avoid protracted litigation costs and 
expedite the removal of employees whose performance or conduct has been 
identified as unsatisfactory--outcomes consistent with efficient and 
prudent management of the workforce. Where an agency instead pursues an 
adverse action, the notice-leave framework of section 6329b continues 
to apply according to its terms; nothing in this rule alters it.
    Accordingly, OPM declines to remove Sec.  630.1403(c)(11) or to 
relocate this use to investigative leave. Investigative leave under 5 
U.S.C. 6329b is available only in connection with an ongoing 
investigation and only after the 10-workday administrative leave period 
has been exhausted, and notice leave is available only after an agency 
has proposed an adverse action. As the commenter recognizes, a 
settlement may be reached after an investigation has concluded, and it 
may also be reached where no investigation was opened; in those 
circumstances neither section 6329b category is available. If an 
employee is being excused from duty for investigative purposes after 
reaching the 10-workday limit, Sec.  630.1403(b)(3) forecloses the pre-
2016 practice, since it requires that section 6329b be applied. OPM 
notes that, if administrative leave is used in connection with a 
settlement agreement, that usage will be documented in the settlement 
agreement and will be tracked as administrative leave in agency 
timekeeping and payroll systems. OPM has revised the language in Sec.  
630.1403(c)(11) to make clear that, while no final determination of 
poor performance or misconduct need be found, an agency may apply this 
provision only where the allegations of poor performance or misconduct 
are documented.

R. Resignation Withdrawal (Sec.  715.202(b))

    Many commenters opposed treating an employee's acceptance of 
deferred-resignation benefits as a valid reason to deny a resignation 
withdrawal. Two individual commenters (comments 0014 and 0016) opposed 
any proposal that would categorically prohibit employees from 
withdrawing a resignation before its effective date because they 
believed an employee who may have decided under duress/short deadlines 
may feel trapped. Comment 0016 urged OPM to withdraw provisions 
proposed in Sec.  715.202(b) arguing that an employee's acceptance of 
deferred-resignation benefits should not by itself justify denying 
withdrawal of the resignation. The commenter stated that prior practice 
permitted withdrawal before the effective date absent a concrete agency 
reason such as a committed replacement hire or administrative 
disruption and that OPM had offered no principled basis for foreclosing 
reconsideration before the resignation takes effect. The commenter 
further argued that recharacterizing the receipt of leave benefits--
benefits the employee did not design and the commenter asserted were 
often accepted under duress and compressed deadlines--as itself a valid 
reason to deny withdrawal ``inverts the protective purpose of the 
rule,'' and that resignation should remain a decision an employee can 
reconsider until it takes effect.
    Comment 0014 believes OPM should adopt a policy that balances the 
interest of both employees and agencies and that an agency be permitted 
to decline a withdrawal request before its effective

[[Page 65935]]

date only where granting it would cause the agency substantial hardship 
or prejudice. A labor organization (comment 0022) objected to this 
provision stating it is unfair to employees who frequently make these 
decisions under needlessly short deadlines, without complete or 
accurate information. The labor organization suggested that, if OPM 
insists on making resignation decisions irrevocable, it should at a 
minimum give employees more time to make these difficult and important 
choices. In addition, comments 0026 and 0031 argued the change is 
unnecessary because Sec.  715.202 already says ``may'' and that whether 
to accept a withdrawal or seek repayment should be left to individual 
agencies and to collective bargaining, and that OPM failed to consider 
less-restrictive alternatives and offered two: (1) retaining the 
traditional operational-disruption standard (committed replacement hire 
or position abolition, per Luecht), and (2) permitting withdrawal 
conditioned on retroactively reclassifying the administrative leave to 
annual leave, compensatory time, or leave without pay (LWOP) 
(recoupment). Comment 0026 stated that changing the resignation 
regulations is unnecessary because Sec.  715.202(b) is already 
permissive, with a recommendation that a time component be added within 
which an employee may withdraw a deferred resignation.
    This final rule does not categorically prohibit the withdrawal of a 
resignation. Revised Sec.  715.202(b) retains the requirement that an 
agency may decline a request to withdraw a resignation before its 
effective date only when the agency has a valid reason and explains 
that reason to the employee, and it retains the rule that avoidance of 
adverse action proceedings is not a valid reason.
    OPM notes that the revision to Sec.  715.202(b) makes two changes. 
It states that the decision to accept or decline a withdrawal request 
is made in the agency's sole and exclusive discretion, and it adds one 
further example to the nonexclusive list of valid reasons--the 
employee's acceptance of benefits provided under a deferred resignation 
agreement. The list continues to read ``includes, but is not limited 
to,'' and continues to identify administrative disruption and the 
hiring or commitment to hire a replacement, which are the agency-
reliance circumstances the commenter describes. Nothing in the final 
rule requires an agency to decline a withdrawal request in any case, 
and an agency remains free to accept one where it determines that 
retaining the employee serves its interests.
    OPM identified the need for this example because, when an employee 
has agreed to resign on a future date and has received paid 
administrative leave in connection with that agreement, there is no 
authority to require or permit repayment of the administrative leave 
benefits after they have been provided. Identifying acceptance of such 
benefits as a valid reason gives agencies a clear and specific 
regulatory basis for a determination they may already make under the 
existing regulation. OPM declines to adopt the additional balancing 
standard the commenter proposes, which would constrain discretion the 
existing regulation affords agencies.
    In response to comments 0026 and 0031, OPM acknowledges that Sec.  
715.202(b) already uses permissive language, and the final rule retains 
it: an agency may, in its sole and exclusive discretion, accept or 
decline an employee's request to withdraw a resignation, and may 
decline only when it has a valid reason and explains that reason to the 
employee. OPM has also considered the less-restrictive alternatives 
commenters offered and declines to adopt them. Retaining only the 
traditional operational-disruption standard is unnecessary because the 
regulation continues to identify administrative disruption and the 
hiring or commitment to hire a replacement as valid reasons; the 
revision adds one further nonexclusive example rather than displacing 
those reasons. OPM likewise declines to condition withdrawal on 
retroactive reclassification of administrative leave to annual leave, 
compensatory time, or leave without pay because, as explained above, 
there is no authority to require or permit repayment or 
reclassification of administrative leave benefits after they have been 
provided. OPM does not agree that a separate statutory authority for 
deferred resignation is needed to support the provision: the 
resignation is effected under Sec.  715.202(a), and the paid leave 
provided before its effective date is administrative leave under 5 
U.S.C. 6329a. As to the recommendation to add a time component within 
which an employee may withdraw a deferred resignation, OPM declines to 
add a fixed period to Sec.  715.202. That section applies at any time 
before the resignation becomes effective, and the timing terms of a 
particular deferred resignation offer, including the length of any 
decision window, are a matter of program design rather than of this 
regulation. As to concerns that employees accept deferred resignation 
offers under compressed deadlines or duress, nothing in this rule 
prevents an agency from granting a withdrawal request, and an employee 
who contends that a resignation was involuntary or the product of 
duress, coercion, or agency misrepresentation retains the right to 
appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board; this rule does not affect 
that review. To the extent comments 0030 and 0031 suggest that these 
matters be left to case-by-case collective bargaining, Sec.  715.202 is 
a longstanding Governmentwide regulation, and under 5 U.S.C. 7117(a)(1) 
the duty to bargain does not extend to matters that are the subject of 
a Governmentwide rule or regulation. OPM makes no changes in response 
to these comments.

S. Miscellaneous Comments

    Comment 0027 asked how agency limits on workforce realignment leave 
interact with the Governmentwide limit and whether the regulatory text 
should state that a longer agency limit requires OPM approval; whether 
the regulations will address employees in Schedule Policy/Career 
positions and agency grievance procedures; and whether extended 
administrative leave is cost-effective relative to reduction-in-force 
procedures, with a recommendation that deferred resignation leave be 
limited to 10 days unless the employee is retirement eligible.
    Agency limits must operate within the Governmentwide limit; an 
agency may adopt a more restrictive limit but may not exceed the 
Governmentwide limit on its own authority. The current Governmentwide 
limit, stated in section D.1.b of the Agency Policy Template (CPM 2025-
12, July 30, 2025), is that beginning in calendar year 2026, use of 
administrative leave by an employee in connection with a workforce 
realignment initiative is limited to 12 weeks in any individual 
instance unless a higher threshold has been jointly approved by OPM and 
the Office of Management and Budget in a specified set of 
circumstances. A higher threshold of 6 months was later approved for 
workforce-restructuring-related DRP agreements that took effect in FY 
2026. OPM notes that the phrase ``subject to Governmentwide limits 
established by OPM or agency limits'' in Sec.  630.1403(c)(9) and 
(c)(11) specifically incorporates any Governmentwide limit. To clarify 
that agency limits cannot supersede Governmentwide limits, we are 
revising the phrase in those two paragraphs by substituting ``and'' for 
``or''.
    Employees in Schedule Policy/Career positions who have an 
established work schedule are covered on the same basis

[[Page 65936]]

as other covered employees. As the comment notes, agencies retain the 
sole and exclusive discretion to determine whether to provide 
administrative leave to any employee or category of employees based on 
their consideration of agency mission requirements, and an agency may 
address specific categories or scenarios in its own written policy 
under Sec.  630.1403(a)(5).
    Agency grievance procedures are governed by 5 CFR part 771 and any 
applicable negotiated grievance procedure and are outside the scope of 
these leave regulations.
    OPM acknowledged in the proposed rule that there is a temporary 
cost to providing administrative leave and stated its judgment that 
these programs can generate long-term savings by reducing Federal 
staffing levels and can reduce the need to apply administratively 
burdensome and disruptive reduction-in-force procedures. OPM declines 
to limit administrative leave for deferred resignation participants to 
10 days. Agencies need the flexibility to provide longer periods of 
administrative leave (within the bounds of Governmentwide limits) if 
they determine a longer period is necessary to incentivize more 
employees to agree to voluntarily separate and to achieve workforce 
reduction goals.
    On continuity of institutional knowledge, Sec.  630.1403(a)(6) 
requires an authorized agency official to consider the effect on 
productivity and the agency's ability to meet mission needs before 
providing administrative leave, and an agency retains discretion to 
structure an agency-specific initiative, including the amount of leave 
provided and any transition or knowledge-transfer expectations, 
accordingly.
    Comment 0017 objected to the provision in subpart H of part 351 
under which, in an emergency, an agency that lacks work or funds may 
place a RIF-affected employee on annual leave during the notice period 
without the employee's consent, and argued that the employee should be 
able to choose between annual leave and leave without pay in those 
circumstances.
    This comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking. OPM did not 
propose any substantive change to that longstanding provision, which 
appears in this final rule at Sec.  351.806(c) only because Sec.  
351.806 is being restructured and republished in full. OPM notes that, 
under Sec.  351.806(c), an employee may not be placed on leave without 
pay without the employee's consent, and the emergency annual leave 
provision applies only when, in an emergency, the agency lacks work or 
funds for all or part of the notice period.
    OPM makes no changes in response to these comments.

IV. Section-By-Section Analysis

    In this section IV, we provide descriptions of the regulatory 
changes by section and paragraph. More detailed explanations and 
justifications for the regulatory changes may be found in the 
Supplementary Information for the June 29, 2026, notice of proposed 
rulemaking (91 FR 39032) and in the responses to comments in this 
preamble.

Section 351.806 (RIF and Administrative Leave)

    OPM is revising Sec.  351.806 to clarify that use of administrative 
leave during a RIF notice period is permissible, if an agency 
determines that there is justification for putting the RIF-affected 
employee in non-duty status. OPM is also revising Sec.  351.806 to 
state that the general rule of keeping an employee in duty status 
during a RIF notice period applies in ``ordinary circumstances'' 
instead of ``when possible,'' consistent with the language in Sec.  
752.404(b)(3) (dealing with keeping an employee in duty status during 
the notice period for a proposed removal or suspension).

Subpart N of Part 630 (Administrative Leave--Nomenclature Changes)

    OPM is replacing the word ``grant'' (and associated variations of 
``granted'' and ``granting'') with the word ``provide'' (or applicable 
variations ``provided'' and ``providing'') throughout subpart N. These 
changes occur in Sec. Sec.  630.1402, 630.1403, and 630.1405. The word 
``provide'' has a broader meaning that would encompass uses of 
administrative leave with or without the employee's consent.

Section 630.1401 (Administrative Leave--Applicability)

    OPM is revising Sec.  630.1401(b) to add another category of 
employees to which subpart N does not apply--namely, Presidential 
appointees or other employees who are excluded from coverage under the 
title 5 leave laws under 5 U.S.C. 6301(2)(x)-(xiii).

Section 630.1402 (Administrative Leave--Definitions)

    OPM is removing a no-longer-relevant definition of ``head of the 
agency'' from Sec.  630.1402. Changes made in the December 17, 2024, 
final regulations made the definition unnecessary, and it should have 
been deleted at that time.
    OPM is adding a definition of ``sole and exclusive discretion'' to 
make clear that agency discretion is exercised within the bounds of 
applicable law, Presidential directives, and the regulations in subpart 
N, and may not be limited or conditioned by any agreement or 
established as a mandatory entitlement.

Section 630.1403 (Administrative Leave--Principles, Prohibitions, and 
Acceptable Uses)

    In paragraphs (a)(2) and (4) of Sec.  630.1403, OPM is adding the 
words ``sole and exclusive'' before the word ``discretion'' to better 
reflect the decision of Congress to give this new discretionary leave 
authority to agency heads who make final decisions on mission needs and 
use of limited budget resources and the sense of Congress that agency 
heads would be responsible for managing and overseeing the effective 
and prudent use of the leave. This regulatory change reflects OPM's 
judgment that acceptable uses are those uses, within the bounds of law 
and regulation, that an agency determines to be appropriate in its sole 
and exclusive discretion.
    In paragraph (a)(3), OPM is adding a sentence that points to 
examples of when it is appropriate for an agency to approve an 
incidence of administrative leave lasting more than 1 workday, which 
are found in a new paragraph (c).
    In paragraph (b), OPM is revising the regulatory prohibitions on 
use of administrative leave. In paragraph (b)(2), OPM is clarifying 
that the prohibition on using administrative leave to recognize 
employee performance or contributions does not prevent an agency from 
providing administrative leave to the general workforce of the agency 
(or an organization within the agency) as a morale-boosting special 
goodwill gesture, even if that action is broadly linked to the 
accomplishments of the workforce. OPM is also adding three new 
regulatory prohibitions in paragraphs (b)(3) through (b)(5), which are 
already addressed in OPM's Agency Policy Template.
    Paragraph (b)(3) provides that administrative leave may not be used 
for the purpose of placing an employee in a non-duty status during an 
investigation of the employee's conduct or performance once the 
employee has reached the 10-workday calendar year limit in 5 U.S.C. 
6329a(b)(1) and Sec.  630.1404 in connection with a given 
investigation. Once the 10-workday limit is reached, the agency must 
use investigative leave under 5 U.S.C. 6329b if it wishes to continue 
to conduct an investigation and continue to keep the employee in a paid 
non-duty status.

[[Page 65937]]

    The language ``in connection with a given investigation'' is 
intended to cover situations in which an employee was placed on 
administrative leave due to an investigation, reached the 10-workday 
limit in that calendar year, and is then placed on section 6329b 
investigative leave as part of a continuing investigation. Once an 
employee has reached the 10-workday limit in connection with a given 
investigation, that limit is no longer applicable in governing the use 
of section 6329b investigative leave with respect to the same 
investigation. Thus, if the investigation continues into the next 
calendar year, the agency can continue to place the employee on section 
6329b investigative leave even though the employee has not reached the 
10-workday limit on section 6329a administrative leave in the new 
calendar year. (Section 6329b(b)(3)(A) bars use of section 6329b 
investigative leave until expiration of the 10-workday period, but this 
bar applies only in making a decision to start an initial period of 
investigative leave in connection with a given investigation.)
    Paragraph (b)(4) provides that administrative leave may not be used 
for a purpose for which sick leave could be used under OPM regulations 
(5 CFR 630.401(a))--unless such use in a particular scenario is 
specifically approved by Governmentwide policy issued by OPM or the 
President. The exception to the general bar requires OPM or 
Presidential approval, which should be provided only in exceptional 
circumstances.
    Paragraph (b)(5) provides that administrative leave may not be used 
to cover service by poll workers or poll observers in connection with 
elections. OPM's current policies allow administrative leave to give 
employees a reasonable opportunity to vote on an election day (see 
Sec.  630.1403(c)(2)); however, OPM does not believe it is appropriate 
to use administrative leave for other election-related matters beyond 
facilitating an opportunity for an employee to vote.
    OPM is adding a new paragraph (c) that provides a noncomprehensive 
list of examples of acceptable uses of administrative leave. This list 
signals that an agency can provide administrative leave in the covered 
scenarios without having to be concerned that it may be contrary to 
Governmentwide policies. At the same time, agencies are not required to 
provide administrative leave in the listed scenarios. Agencies retain 
the sole and exclusive discretion to determine whether to provide 
administrative leave to any employee or category of employees based on 
their consideration of agency mission requirements--within the bounds 
of law and regulation. The listed examples are generally consistent 
with current OPM policies in its Agency Policy Template. Of particular 
note, the list includes examples of using administrative leave in 
connection with deferred resignation programs and other workforce 
restructuring initiatives. Paragraph (c)(8), added in this final rule 
in response to comments, addresses the limited use of administrative 
leave for physical fitness activities; the examples proposed as 
paragraphs (c)(8) through (c)(10) are redesignated as paragraphs (c)(9) 
through (c)(11). See the discussion of this topic earlier in the 
preamble.

Technical Corrections

    OPM is also making three technical corrections in this final rule 
that do not alter the substance of the rule as proposed. First, OPM is 
revising the authority citation for part 630 to restore the authority 
for subpart Q (Paid Parental Leave), which was added to the citation by 
the August 10, 2020, final rule implementing the Federal Employee Paid 
Leave Act (85 FR 48075) as ``subpart Q issued under 5 U.S.C. 6387,'' 
but was inadvertently omitted when the authority citation was revised 
in the December 17, 2024, final rule (89 FR 102256). Second, OPM is 
correcting an internal cross-reference in Sec.  630.1403(a)(5)(ii), 
which refers to ``paragraph (i) of this paragraph (a)(5)'' rather than 
to ``paragraph (a)(5)(i) of this section''; the text of paragraph 
(a)(5)(ii) is otherwise unchanged. Third, OPM is conforming the cross-
reference to 5 CFR 610.102 in Sec.  630.1405(b) to the citation style 
used elsewhere in part 630.

Section 715.202 (Resignations)

    OPM is revising Sec.  715.202(b), which deals with employees' 
requests to withdraw a resignation before its effective date. OPM is 
making clear that the decision to accept or decline a resignation 
withdrawal request is made at the agency's sole and exclusive 
discretion. Also, OPM is adding another example of a valid reason for 
declining an employee's request--namely, that the employee accepted 
benefits under a deferred resignation agreement. For example, if an 
employee received paid administrative leave in connection with a 
deferred resignation agreement, an agency may determine that it would 
be inappropriate to allow an employee to withdraw the resignation and 
keep the paid leave benefits.

Severability

    OPM intends the provisions of this final rule to be severable. If 
any provision, or its application to any person or circumstance, is 
held invalid or unenforceable, OPM intends that the remaining 
provisions and their applications remain operative to the fullest 
extent permitted by law. OPM would have adopted those remaining 
provisions independent of the provision or application held invalid.
    The rule addresses distinct matters, including coverage and agency 
discretion under the administrative leave regulations, specific 
prohibited and acceptable uses of administrative leave, employee status 
during a reduction-in-force notice period, and withdrawal of 
resignations. Each change serves the purposes explained separately in 
this preamble. For example, the prohibitions and examples of acceptable 
uses in Sec.  630.1403 address different circumstances; removing one 
would not prevent agencies from applying the others under the remaining 
governing requirements. Likewise, the withdrawal of resignation 
provisions in Sec.  715.202 can operate independently of the examples 
authorizing administrative leave because they govern whether an agency 
may decline a withdrawal request when it has a valid reason. Although 
Sec.  351.806(b) references part 630, subpart N, that reference does 
not depend on every provision of subpart N remaining effective. 
Agencies could continue to apply Sec.  351.806(b) subject to the 
surviving administrative leave requirements. Accordingly, the remaining 
provisions would continue to provide useful guidance and function 
sensibly without any provision held invalid, subject to applicable law 
and court rulings.

V. Regulatory Analysis

A. Statement of Need

    After having over 1 year of experience in applying the final 
regulations on administrative leave issued in December 2024, OPM has 
identified the need to clarify certain matters in the regulations. 
While OPM has issued policy guidance (see footnote 2) that largely 
addresses these matters, regulations are needed to achieve greater 
consistency across agencies and a firmer legal foundation for the 
policies. OPM is adding certain prohibited uses of administrative leave 
so that the prohibitions are binding on agencies. OPM is adding 
examples of acceptable uses of administrative leave so that agencies 
can be assured those uses have a regulatory foundation. For example, 
OPM is including the extended use of administrative leave in connection 
with a deferred resignation program as an acceptable use of 
administrative leave. Also, through

[[Page 65938]]

these regulations, OPM is better fulfilling its statutory charge to 
prescribe regulations that address agency uses of administrative leave 
(5 U.S.C. 6329a(c)(1)). OPM also identified the need to clarify that 
agencies have sole and exclusive discretion in making decisions to 
provide or not provide administrative leave, subject to governing law 
and regulations.
    OPM is amending the RIF regulation in 5 CFR 351.806 to clarify when 
administrative leave may be provided during a RIF notice period.
    OPM is also amending the resignation regulation in 5 CFR 715.202 to 
identify the acceptance of benefits, such as administrative leave, as a 
valid reason for an agency to deny an employee's request to withdraw a 
resignation commitment made as part of a deferred resignation 
agreement. This gives agencies a clearer regulatory basis for denying a 
resignation withdrawal request by a participant in a deferred 
resignation program.

B. Regulatory Alternatives

    OPM considered the alternative of not adding additional regulatory 
prohibitions or examples of acceptable uses of administrative leave and 
instead relying on OPM policies. For the reasons given in the Statement 
of Need section, OPM concluded that various policies should be codified 
in regulation. With respect to the revision of the resignation 
regulation, OPM considered the possibility of not making the change but 
determined agencies would be better served by a regulation that gives 
them a clear and specific legal basis for denying a resignation 
withdrawal request by an employee participating in a deferred 
resignation program.

C. Impact

    Since OPM is codifying in regulation existing policies on 
administrative leave, OPM does not expect significant changes in the 
usage of administrative leave. Agencies generally follow OPM policies 
even if they are not legally binding in the way regulations are. 
Codifying policies in regulations provides a firmer legal foundation 
for those policies, promotes consistency across agencies, and avoids 
disputes between employees and agencies. Since this final regulation 
affects only Federal agencies and employees, it will have no 
substantial impact on local economies or labor markets.

D. Costs

    As explained in the Impact section, OPM does not expect the 
regulations to result in significant changes in the usage of 
administrative leave. Governmentwide policies that parallel the final 
regulations are already in place. OPM is simply giving its policies an 
enhanced legal standing by incorporating them in regulation. 
Accordingly, OPM does not project that costs or savings will result 
from the regulations. OPM believes the administrative burdens 
associated with implementing these final regulations will be de 
minimis, since agencies are already operating under parallel OPM 
policies. There could be minor administrative cost savings to the 
extent that codifying policies in regulations reduces disputes. Several 
commenters challenged this assessment, arguing that OPM must account 
for the costs of the 2025 deferred resignation programs and for broader 
economic effects of workforce reductions. As explained in section III.E 
of this preamble, the relevant measure under E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563 
is the incremental effect of this rule against a baseline that includes 
the Governmentwide policies already in effect. Expenditures associated 
with the 2025 programs were incurred under existing authorities and 
policies and are part of that baseline, and decisions to undertake 
particular workforce realignment initiatives are made by agencies under 
separate authorities that this rule neither mandates nor funds.
    Similarly, OPM does not expect the change to the resignation 
regulation to have a significant effect on the number of resignation 
withdrawals. The existing regulation already allows an agency to deny 
an employee's request to withdraw a resignation for a valid reason. The 
regulation simply identifies an employee's acceptance of benefits (such 
as administrative leave) as part of a deferred resignation agreement as 
a specific example of a valid reason. The final regulation could result 
in fewer or less lengthy disputes, but the number of affected cases 
would be very small.

E. Benefits

    This rule has important benefits. The regulations provide more 
transparency and accountability, provide a firmer legal foundation for 
allowing or prohibiting certain uses of administrative leave, promote 
consistency across agencies, clarify the authority of agencies, and 
reduce potential disputes. With respect to the revision of the RIF 
regulation, it clarifies when it is appropriate to provide 
administrative leave during a RIF notice period. With respect to the 
revision of the resignation regulation, it will provide a regulatory 
basis for denying a resignation withdrawal request and set clear 
expectations for employees who enter into a deferred resignation 
agreement.

VI. Regulatory Compliance

A. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Director of OPM certifies that this rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
because it will apply only to Federal agencies and employees.

B. Regulatory Review

    The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of 
Management and Budget has designated this as a significant regulatory 
action under E.O. 12866 section 3(f). Accordingly, 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 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 
in any one year 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. This rule is not considered a regulatory action under E.O. 
14192 because it imposes no more than de minimis costs. This rule has 
been reviewed by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in 
the Office of Management and Budget.

C. Federalism

    This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the National Government and the 
States, or on distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with E.O. 13132, 
the Director of OPM certifies that this final rule does not have 
sufficient federalism implications to warrant preparation of a 
Federalism Assessment.

D. Civil Justice Reform

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

[[Page 65939]]

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    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.

F. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rulemaking does not impose any reporting or recordkeeping 
requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 
35).

G. Congressional Review Act

    Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 
Act of 1996, known as the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et 
seq.), requires that agencies submit final rules to Congress and the 
Comptroller General of the United States for review before the rules 
can take effect. OPM will submit this final rule and other required 
materials to Congress and the Comptroller General. The Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is not 
a ``major rule'' as defined by the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 
804(2)).

List of Subjects

5 CFR Part 351

    Administrative practice and procedure, Government employees.

5 CFR Part 630

    Emergency preparedness, Government employees, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Wages, Weather.

5 CFR Part 715

    Government employees.
Signing Statement
    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.

Office of Personnel Management
Jerson Matias,
Federal Register Liaison.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, OPM amends 5 CFR parts 351, 
630, and 715 as follows:

PART 351--REDUCTION IN FORCE

0
1. The authority citation for part 351 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 1103, 1104, 1302, 2301, 3502, 3503; 38 
U.S.C. 4331; E.O. 14284, 90 FR 17729; 5 CFR 2.2(c). Sec. 351.801 
also issued under E.O. 12828, 58 FR 2965, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p. 569.

Subpart H--Notice to Employee

0
2. Revise Sec.  351.806 to read as follows:


Sec.  351.806  Status during notice period.

    (a) General. Under ordinary circumstances, an employee will remain 
in a duty status during the notice period.
    (b) Administrative leave. Nothing in this section precludes an 
agency from placing an employee on administrative leave for all or part 
of the notice period when the agency determines that such leave is 
appropriate and the use of administrative leave is consistent with part 
630, subpart N, of this chapter.
    (c) Emergency lack of work or funds. When, in an emergency, the 
agency lacks work or funds for all or part of the notice period, it may 
place the employee on annual leave with or without the employee's 
consent, on leave without pay with the employee's consent, or in a 
nonpay status without the employee's consent.

PART 630--ABSENCE AND LEAVE

0
3. The authority citation for 5 CFR Part 630 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: Subparts A through E issued under 5 U.S.C. 6133(a) 
(read with 5 U.S.C. 6129), 6303(e) and (f), 6304(d)(2), 6306(b), 
6308(a) and 6311; subpart F issued under 5 U.S.C. 6305(a) and 6311 
and E.O. 11228, 30 FR 7739, 3 CFR, 1974 Comp., p. 163; subpart G 
issued under 5 U.S.C. 6305(c) and 6311; subpart H issued under 5 
U.S.C. 6133(a) (read with 5 U.S.C. 6129) and 6326(b); subpart I 
issued under 5 U.S.C. 6332, 6334(c), 6336(a)(1) and (d), and 6340; 
subpart J issued under 5 U.S.C. 6340, 6363, 6365(d), 6367(e), 
6373(a); subpart K issued under 5 U.S.C. 6391(g); subpart L issued 
under 5 U.S.C. 6383(f) and 6387; subpart M issued under Sec. 2(d), 
Pub. L. 114-75, 129 Stat. 641 (5 U.S.C. 6329 note); subpart N issued 
under 5 U.S.C. 6329a(c); subpart O issued under 5 U.S.C. 6329b(h); 
subpart P issued under 5 U.S.C. 6329c(d); and subpart Q issued under 
5 U.S.C. 6387.

Subpart N--Administrative Leave

0
4. In subpart N:
0
a. Remove the word ``grant'', wherever it appears, and add, in its 
place, the word ``provide'';
0
b. Remove the word ``granted'', wherever it appears, and add, in its 
place, the word ``provided''; and
0
c. Remove the word ``granting'', wherever it appears, and add, in its 
place, the word ``providing''.

0
5. Amend Sec.  630.1401 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  630.1401  Purpose and applicability.

* * * * *
    (b) This subpart applies to an employee as defined in 5 U.S.C. 2105 
who is employed in an agency, but does not apply to--
    (1) An intermittent employee who, by definition, does not have an 
established regular tour of duty during the administrative workweek; or
    (2) A Presidential appointee or other employee who is excluded from 
coverage under title 5 leave laws (5 U.S.C. 6301(2)(x)-(xiii)) and who 
is entitled to the pay of his or her office solely because of status as 
an officer (5 U.S.C. 5508).
* * * * *

0
6. Amend Sec.  630.1402 by removing the definition of ``Head of the 
agency'' and adding, in alphabetical order, the definition of ``Sole 
and exclusive discretion'' to read as follows:


Sec.  630.1402  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Sole and exclusive discretion means discretion that rests with an 
agency alone; that is exercised within the bounds of 5 U.S.C. 6329a and 
other applicable law, applicable Presidential directives, and the 
regulations in this subpart; and that may not be limited or conditioned 
by any agreement or established as a mandatory entitlement to 
administrative leave.

0
7. Amend Sec.  630.1403 by:
0
a. Revising the section heading;
0
b. In paragraph (a)(2), adding the words ``sole and exclusive'' before 
the word ``discretion'';
0
c. Revising paragraph (a)(3);
0
d. In paragraph (a)(4), adding the words ``sole and exclusive'' before 
the word ``discretion'';
0
e. Revising paragraph (a)(5)(ii);
0
f. Revising paragraph (b); and
0
g. Adding paragraph (c).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec.  630.1403  Principles, prohibitions, and examples of acceptable 
uses.

    (a) * * *

[[Page 65940]]

    (3) Administrative leave is appropriately used for brief or short 
periods of time--usually for not more than 1 workday. An incidence of 
administrative leave lasting more than 1 workday may be approved in 
applicable circumstances described in paragraph (c) of this section or 
when otherwise determined to be appropriate by an agency.
* * * * *
    (5) * * *
    (ii) Reviewed and approved by an official of the agency who is (or 
is acting) at a higher level than the official making the 
determination, if the specific type of use and amount of leave for that 
use has not been authorized under established written policy as 
described in paragraph (a)(5)(i) of this section.
* * * * *
    (b) Specific prohibited uses. An agency may not provide 
administrative leave--
    (1) To mark the memory of a deceased former Federal official (see 
also 5 U.S.C. 6105);
    (2) As a reward to recognize the performance or contributions of an 
employee or group of employees (i.e., in lieu of a cash award or a 
time-off award), except that an agency may provide administrative leave 
to all employees of an organization as a morale-boosting goodwill 
gesture, even if it is broadly linked to the accomplishments of the 
organization;
    (3) For investigative purposes (i.e., involving an 
``investigation'' as defined in Sec.  630.1502) after an employee has 
reached the 10-workday calendar year limit described in Sec.  630.1404 
in connection with a given investigation;
    (4) For a purpose for which sick leave could be used (Sec.  
630.401(a))--unless such use in a particular scenario is specifically 
approved by Governmentwide policy issued by OPM or the President; 
however, an employee who is eligible to use sick leave may be provided 
administrative leave on the same basis it is provided to an employee 
who is not so eligible when the administrative leave is provided for 
some other purpose; or
    (5) To cover service by poll workers or poll observers in 
connection with elections.
    (c) Examples of acceptable uses. An agency may, at its sole and 
exclusive discretion, provide administrative leave in circumstances 
that satisfy the requirements in paragraph (a) of this section, 
including in the following circumstances:
    (1) For investigative purposes until the employee has reached the 
10-workday calendar year limit described in Sec.  630.1404;
    (2) To provide an employee who has not voted early with a 
reasonable opportunity to vote on a regular election day;
    (3) To allow an employee to donate blood during the employee's tour 
of duty;
    (4) To allow an employee to participate in an agency's employee 
assistance program for problem identification and referral to an 
outside resource and for general employee orientation or education 
activities;
    (5) To provide for early dismissal (generally no more than 2 hours) 
on the scheduled workday immediately before a Federal public holiday as 
a morale-boosting goodwill gesture;
    (6) To allow an employee to rest and recover following unusually 
lengthy tours of duty or extended travel for work purposes (for 
example, the U.S. Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture or 
the Department of the Interior may provide 2 to 3 days of 
administrative leave to employees who have completed an extended 
deployment to fight a wildland fire);
    (7) To provide up to 5 days of administrative leave for a civilian 
employee who needs time off to effectuate a change in his or her 
residence to a different geographic area in order to accompany a 
qualifying spouse--that is, a spouse who is a member of one of the 
uniformed services or a civilian Federal Government employee--when the 
qualifying spouse's residence change is the result of military orders 
or agency direction, as applicable;
    (8) To provide limited amounts of administrative leave for approved 
physical fitness activities on a conditional basis (consistent with 
paragraphs (a)(4) and (6) and subject to any Governmentwide policies 
issued by OPM or the President) for employees who do not have job-
related mandatory fitness standards that allow for use of official duty 
time for such activities;
    (9) To provide extended periods of administrative leave (subject to 
Governmentwide limits established by OPM and agency limits) to 
employees who sign a written agreement to voluntarily separate on a 
specified future date as a transition-to-separation tool that supports 
workforce restructuring and realignment initiatives that are based on 
agency and Governmentwide interests, including voluntary deferred 
resignation programs, use of voluntary separation incentive payments, 
or use of voluntary early retirement authorizations;
    (10) To provide administrative leave to employees subject to an 
involuntary separation via a reduction in force (RIF) during the period 
between receipt of the RIF notice and the RIF separation when the 
agency determines it is in the Government's best interests; or
    (11) To provide extended periods of administrative leave (subject 
to Governmentwide limits established by OPM and agency limits) to 
facilitate the voluntary resignation of employees with documented 
allegations of poor performance or misconduct under a settlement 
agreement that the agency determines is in the Government's best 
interests after considering all other reasonable alternatives.


Sec.  630.1405  [Amended]

0
8. Amend Sec.  630.1405 by removing, in paragraph (b), the words ``5 
CFR 610.102'' and adding in their place the words ``Sec.  610.102 of 
this chapter''.

PART 715--NONDISCIPLINARY SEPARATIONS, DEMOTIONS, AND FURLOUGHS

0
9. The authority citation for 5 CFR Part 715 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority:  5 U.S.C. 1302, 3301, 3302, 7301; E.O. 10577, 19 FR 
7521, 3 CFR, 1954-1958 Comp., p. 218.

Subpart B--Voluntary Separations

0
10. Revise Sec.  715.202 to read as follows:


Sec.  715.202  Resignation.

    (a) General. An employee is free to resign at any time, to set the 
effective date of his or her resignation, and to have his or her 
reasons for resigning entered in his or her official records.
    (b) Withdrawal of resignation. An agency may, in its sole and 
exclusive discretion, accept or decline an employee's request to 
withdraw his or her resignation at any time before it has become 
effective. An agency may decline a request to withdraw a resignation 
before its effective date only when the agency has a valid reason and 
explains that reason to the employee. A valid reason includes, but is 
not limited to, administrative disruption, the hiring or commitment to 
hire a replacement, or the employee's acceptance of benefits provided 
under a deferred resignation agreement. Avoidance of adverse action 
proceedings is not a valid reason.

[FR Doc. 2026-21320 Filed 10-16-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-39-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>