Executive Order 12828: Delegation of Certain Personnel Management Authorities
Summary
EO 12828 delegated three specified personnel-management functions near the end of George H. W. Bush’s presidency. It assigned two to the Office of Personnel Management and one to OMB. A later order revoked the OMB section and assigned pay-related functions to OPM. It was a delegation of statutory authority, not a general pay increase or an instruction to carry out a particular reduction in force.
Status: Partly revoked. Partly. EO 13415 revoked section 2 and reassigned pay-related functions to OPM; the remaining personnel delegation text must be read with that change.
Key facts at a glance
| Signed | January 5, 1993 |
|---|---|
| President | George H. W. Bush |
| Federal Register | 58 FR 2965; published January 7, 1993 |
| Current label | Partly revoked |
| Amended by | No amendment listed in the reviewed disposition; see later-law qualifications below |
| Related orders | EO 13415 |
| Checked | October 25, 2026 |
What it requires today
The original section 1 assigned OPM authority under 5 U.S.C. 3502(e) to shorten a reduction-in-force notice period in the circumstances authorized by that statute. It also assigned a function concerning performance-based cash awards under section 4505a(e). Each delegation remains bounded by the underlying law.
Original section 2 assigned OMB a function under section 5377(i)(2) concerning categories of critical positions. EO 13415 revoked that section in 2006 and assigned presidential functions under sections 4505a, 5305 and 5377 to the OPM Director. A present-day account should not send an agency to OMB solely on the strength of the superseded 1993 section.
A delegation identifies who may exercise a function without further presidential action. It does not establish that the official has exercised it for a particular employee or agency. A shortened notice period, special rate or critical-position decision needs the actual statutory prerequisites and implementing action.
Who it affects
OPM, OMB historically, employing agencies and affected federal employees are the relevant subjects. An employee cannot infer a cash award or a specific salary merely from the order’s existence. Personnel actions require the current statute, regulations, agency decision and any applicable procedural protections.
How it came about
The order was signed January 5, 1993 and published January 7. It implemented functions added or adjusted by 1992 personnel legislation. Its placement in a 1993 publication does not make it a Clinton order: signature occurred during George H. W. Bush’s term, before January 20.
What agencies did under it
The current statutory notes for sections 3502 and 4505a preserve the original delegation and identify the later EO 13415 change. The 2006 instrument’s exact assignment matters more than a generic label saying that personnel management remains delegated.
The retained reduction-in-force provision concerns a notice-period function; it does not itself authorize eliminating every procedural protection or establish that every proposed reduction qualifies. Agencies must identify the relevant statutory conditions and the actual approval rather than treating a delegation as a standing approval for all future cases.
The distinction between a function and a decision is particularly important for notice periods. Congress specified a personnel process, and the order identified who could exercise a particular presidential exception within that process. It did not declare that every agency’s operational urgency satisfies the statute. Employees and agency officials need the actual decision and its legal basis when asking whether a shortened notice was authorized.
Performance-based awards likewise require more than a delegation. The category of employee, the statutory award authority, agency limits and the responsible official’s action can all matter. A statement that OPM has a presidential function should not be converted into a claim that all employees outside the ordinary categories have already been approved for awards.
The 2006 reassignment is also narrower than a transfer of all executive budgeting or personnel authority. EO 13415 enumerates functions under three title 5 sections. Those citations define its scope. Other OMB responsibilities do not disappear merely because the specific section 2 assignment in EO 12828 was revoked.
For historical research, preserve the original version and the amended result separately. The 1993 order explains why a function was originally placed with an office; the 2006 order explains the later allocation. A current legal summary can state the resulting official without pretending that the original publication contained the subsequent change. This guide links both sides of that relationship so the reader can reconstruct the transition.
The order’s immediate effective date tells readers when the delegation began. It does not establish when every resulting personnel action occurred, and publication two days later should not be substituted for signature. That distinction matters when researching an approval from the transition period. The official’s title, the date of the action and the version of the statute can all affect the analysis. This guide does not attribute a later OPM decision to Bush personally merely because he signed a delegation, nor does it attribute the 1993 order to Clinton because the personnel framework continued during the next administration. A presidential assignment can continue across administrations while individual exercises of the assigned power require their own dated records.
Implementation records: Official signed 1993 delegation; Current statutory delegation and EO 13415 notes.
Amendments and family tree
EO 13415 expressly revoked section 2. Its reassignment of pay-related functions should be described alongside the partial revocation. The remaining sections were not thereby transformed into a wholly new general personnel code. The related EO 13415 guide explains the later assignment in its own context.
Related guides: EO 13415.
Court cases
No court ruling specifically on EO 12828 was found in the official presidential, disposition and agency sources examined as of October 25, 2026. The status assessment for this instrument is: Partly. EO 13415 revoked section 2 and reassigned pay-related functions to OPM; the remaining personnel delegation text must be read with that change.
Common questions
Did this give everyone a raise?
No. It assigned specified statutory functions to officials. Any award or pay decision needs the applicable authority and an actual implementing action.
Is OMB still the official under section 2?
That section was revoked by EO 13415 in 2006. The later order assigns the identified pay-related functions to the OPM Director.
Does it automatically shorten all RIF notices?
No. A delegation is not an approval for every reduction in force. The statute’s conditions and an actual exercise of authority matter.
Why is it in the Bush collection?
George H. W. Bush signed it January 5, 1993. The year alone is insufficient to attribute it to the administration that began later that month.
Legal basis
The original instrument cites 3 U.S.C. 301 and specified title 5 provisions. Those laws define the delegated functions. Presidential delegation changes the official exercising a power; it cannot expand the substantive power Congress provided or create an employee entitlement absent from the statute.
Further reading
Sources
Cite this page
EO Explained, “Executive Order 12828: Delegation of Certain Personnel Management Authorities”, checked October 25, 2026. https://eoexplained.com/historic-orders/historic-12828-delegation-of-certain-personnel-management-authorities. Include an access date when citing this dated account. For the presidential instrument itself, cite 58 FR 2965 and the official text.
Last checked
. EO 12828 was checked against its signed record, current disposition and cited implementation sources for the status and scope described above. Report an error or a later official source.