B-175082, APR 20, 1972

B-175082, APR 20, 1972

CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES - TIME IN TRANSIT - OVERTIME COMPENSATION - ENTITLEMENT CONCERNING WHETHER TRAVEL TIME WOULD REQUIRE THE PAYMENT OF OVERTIME COMPENSATION ON SEVERAL CLAIMS ARISING IN CONNECTION WITH TEMPORARY DUTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PERFORMING EMERGENCY MAINTENANCE ASSISTANCE ON AUTODIN DRUMS. IN SITUATIONS INVOLVING EQUIPMENT FAILURE, THE DETERMINATION OF THE URGENCY PRESENTED INVOLVES A TECHNICAL JUDGMENT WHICH SHOULD ORDINARILY BE MADE BY THE AGENCY CONCERNED. SUCH DETERMINATION SHOULD BE BASED BOTH ON THE URGENCY OF THE EVENT AND THE AVAILABILITY OF TRANSPORTATION. 170683, NOVEMBER 16, 1970. IF NOTICE OF THE REQUIRED TRAVEL DOES NOT PERMIT ITS BEING SCHEDULED WITHIN THE EMPLOYEE'S REGULAR DUTY HOURS THE PAYMENT OF OVERTIME COMPENSATION MAY BE AUTHORIZED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF 5 U.S.C. 5542. WITH REGARD TO TRAVEL TIME BETWEEN AN EMPLOYEE'S RESIDENCE AND THE COMMON CARRIER TERMINAL, OVERTIME MAY BE ALLOWED SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL PERSONNEL MANUAL SUPPLEMENT 990-2, BOOK 550, SUBCHAPTER S1-3, SUBSECTION (B)(2)(C)(III), SUBPARAGRAPH 4. OVERTIME IS ALSO AUTHORIZED FOR PERIODS OF "USUAL WAITING TIME" AT THE TERMINAL BUT MAY NOT BE ALLOWED FOR TIME SPENT IN TRANSIT BETWEEN THE EMPLOYEE'S RESIDENCE AND PLACE OF BUSINESS OR FOR TIME SPENT AT A RESIDENCE FOR PURPOSES OF PACKING CLOTHING. PAYMENT OF THE SUBJECT CLAIMS IS LEFT FOR ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOREGOING.

TO CAPTAIN ROMAN S. GUZIK:

WE REFER TO YOUR LETTER OF NOVEMBER 5, 1971, REFERENCE AMXTO-PF, AND ENCLOSURES, REQUESTING OUR ADVANCE DECISION WHETHER THE TRAVEL TIME OF THE ELEVEN CLAIMANTS WHOSE CLAIMS ARE FORWARDED WITH YOUR LETTER MAY BE VIEWED AS "HOURS OF WORK" ENTITLING THEM TO COMPENSATION AT OVERTIME RATES. SHOULD OUR RESPONSE BE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, YOU POSE THE FOLLOWING FOUR QUESTIONS:

"A. IS PAYMENT PROPER FOR TRAVEL TIME FROM RESIDENCE TO COMMON CARRIER TERMINAL WHEN NORMAL TRAVEL TIME FROM THE PERMANENT DUTY STATION TO THE COMMON CARRIER TERMINAL IS LESS THAN ONE HOUR? WHEN NORMAL TRAVEL TIME FROM RESIDENCE TO COMMON CARRIER TERMINAL IS LESS THAN ONE HOUR?

"B. IS PAYMENT PROPER FOR PERIODS AWAITING ONWARD TRANSPORTATION AT COMMON CARRIER TERMINALS? IF SO, IS THERE ANY LIMIT ON THE HOURS THAT CAN BE PAID?

"C. IS PAYMENT PROPER FOR PERIODS WHEN AN EMPLOYEE DEPARTS FROM HIS PERMANENT DUTY STATION TO HIS RESIDENCE AND FOR THE PERIOD AT HIS RESIDENCE WHEN THE TRAVEL TO RESIDENCE WAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PACKING CLOTHES?

"D.IS PAYMENT PROPER FOR THE TRAVEL TIME FROM THE COMMON CARRIER TERMINAL SERVING THE TEMPORARY DUTY STATION TO A TDY RESIDENCE OR A TDY STATION?"

THE CLAIMANTS ARE EMPLOYEES OF THE AUTODIN DIVISION, MAINTENANCE DIRECTORATE, HEADQUARTERS TOBYHANNA ARMY DEPOT, AND THEIR CLAIMS ARISE IN CONNECTION WITH FOUR SEPARATE ASSIGNMENTS TO TEMPORARY DUTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PERFORMING EMERGENCY MAINTENANCE ASSISTANCE ON AUTODIN DRUMS. THE MISSION DOCUMENT OF THE AUTODIN DIVISION PROVIDES IN THE CASE OF REQUESTS FOR EMERGENCY MAINTENANCE ASSISTANCE AS FOLLOWS:

"(3) REQUESTS FOR CORRECTIVE MAINTENANCE ASSISTANCE (MILITARY OSM SITES)

"(A) THE OIC OF AN ADMSC SITE REQUIRING EMERGENCY MAINTENANCE FOR THE CORRECTION OF A SERIOUS MAINTENANCE PROBLEM WITH THE DRUM UNIT WILL NOTIFY THE TOBYHANNA ARMY DEPOT, ATTENTION CHIEF, AUTODIN DIVISION, AMXTO-MU, BY PRIORITY MESSAGE OR TELEPHONE ***

"(B) UPON RECEIPT OF REQUEST, THE CHIEF, AUTODIN DIVISION TOAD WILL ARRANGE TO DISPATCH A DRUM MAINTENANCE EXPERT TO THE SITE WITHIN 48 HOURS TO ANALYZE THE DRUM UNIT PROBLEM AND DETERMINE THE CORRECTIVE MAINTENANCE ACTION REQUIRED. HE WILL REPORT HIS FINDINGS TO THE TOBYHANNA ARMY DEPOT; DCA-500; USACSA, SCCM-DN-ED; AND DCA-PAC (IF REQUIRED) AND REQUEST ANY ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE NECESSARY (SEE FIGURE 4 2)."

IN EACH OF THE FOUR TRAVEL SITUATIONS, THE CLAIMANTS HAVE ALLEGED THAT THEIR TRAVEL RESULTED FROM AN EVENT WHICH COULD NOT BE ADMINISTRATIVELY SCHEDULED OR CONTROLLED ENTITLING THEM TO OVERTIME COMPENSATION UNDER 5 U.S.C. 5542 WHICH PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS:

"(A) HOURS OF WORK OFFICIALLY ORDERED OR APPROVED IN EXCESS OF 40 HOURS IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE WORKWEEK OR *** IN EXCESS OF 8 HOURS IN A DAY, PERFORMED BY AN EMPLOYEE ARE OVERTIME WORK AND SHALL BE PAID FOR, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY THIS SUBCHAPTER, AT THE FOLLOWING RATES:

"(B) FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS SUBCHAPTER -

"(2) TIME SPENT IN A TRAVEL STATUS AWAY FROM THE OFFICIAL-DUTY STATION OF AN EMPLOYEE IS NOT HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT UNLESS -

"(B) THE TRAVEL *** (IV) RESULTS FROM AN EVENT WHICH COULD NOT BE SCHEDULED OR CONTROLLED ADMINISTRATIVELY."

THE FIRST CLAIM IS SUBMITTED BY MR. EUGENE J. MASLAR IN CONNECTION WITH TRAVEL TO PROVIDE MAINTENANCE ASSISTANCE AT WILDWOOD AIR FORCE STATION, ALASKA. THE MESSAGE RECEIVED AUGUST 3, 1970, INDICATED THAT LOCAL PERSONNEL WERE UNABLE TO EFFECT REPAIRS. YOU STATE THAT ON AUGUST 6, 1970, MR. MASLAR WAS DIRECTED TO PROCEED ON AUGUST 7 TO WILDWOOD AIR FORCE STATION. HE ARRIVED AT WILDWOOD AFS ON AUGUST 8.

THE SECOND SET OF CLAIMS, SUBMITTED BY MESSRS. RAYMOND J. CAREY, ROBERT E. FORD, JOHN E. KEIPER, EUGENE J. MASLAR, RICHARD E. RUDESYLE, AND JOSEPH P. TWERDI, ARISES IN CONNECTION WITH TRAVEL TO PROVIDE MAINTENANCE ASSISTANCE IN SAIGON. A MESSAGE WAS RECEIVED JUNE 16, 1970, ADVISING THAT A DRUM TEAM WAS REQUIRED IMMEDIATELY AND REQUESTING THEIR EXPEDITIOUS DEPLOYMENT. THE DRUM TEAM DEPARTED JUNE 18 AND ARRIVED AT NHA TRANG, RVN, ON JUNE 20.

THE THIRD SET OF CLAIMS, SUBMITTED BY MESSRS. JOHN W. SABIA AND EUGENE OWENS, ARISES IN CONNECTION WITH TRAVEL TO PROVIDE MAINTENANCE ASSISTANCE TO PHU LAM, RVN. A MESSAGE WAS RECEIVED ON MAY 5, 1971, REQUESTING EMERGENCY MAINTENANCE. MESSRS. SABIA AND OWENS DEPARTED THAT DAY AND ARRIVED AT PHU LAM, RVN, ON MAY 7.

THE FOURTH SET OF CLAIMS, SUBMITTED BY MESSRS. JOSEPH P. TWERDI AND MICHAEL HOMANKO, ARISES IN CONNECTION WITH TRAVEL TO PROVIDE MAINTENANCE ASSISTANCE IN PIRMASENS, GERMANY, IN RESPONSE TO A MESSAGE RECEIVED MAY 12, 1971, URGENTLY REQUESTING ASSISTANCE. THE EMPLOYEES DEPARTED THE NEXT DAY, TRAVELING TO THE PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT FROM WHICH POINT THEY TRAVELED TO FRANKFURT, ARRIVING MAY 15.

YOU INDICATE THAT THE CLAIMS WERE CONSIDERED QUESTIONABLE BECAUSE OF OUR DECISION B-167614, SEPTEMBER 30, 1969, 49 COMP. GEN. 209. THAT CASE INVOLVED TRAVEL OUTSIDE OF REGULAR DUTY HOURS BY A TEAM OF EMPLOYEES TO PERFORM REPAIR WORK ON GUN PORT SHIELDS WHICH HAD BEEN GRADUALLY DETERIORATED BY THE SUN. A REQUEST WAS RECEIVED JANUARY 13, 1969, FOR THE REPAIR WORK WHICH, BECAUSE THE SHIP WAS SCHEDULED TO SAIL ON JANUARY 24, 1969, HAD TO BEGIN BY JANUARY 19, 1969. WE THERE REITERATED THE RULE THAT THERE MUST HAVE EXISTED AN OFFICIAL NECESSITY OCCASIONED BY THE UNSCHEDULED AND ADMINISTRATIVELY UNCONTROLLABLE EVENT FOR TRAVEL BY THE EMPLOYEE OUTSIDE HIS SCHEDULED WORKWEEK BEFORE SUCH TRAVEL TIME CONSTITUTES HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ABOVE-QUOTED EXCEPTION. WE STATED IN PART AS FOLLOWS:

"THE DAMAGE REQUIRING REPAIR CONSISTED OF DETERIORATION DUE TO THE EXPOSURE OF THE GUN MOUNTS TO THE RAYS OF THE SUN AND OCCURRED GRADUALLY OVER A PERIOD OF TIME RATHER THAN FROM ANY PARTICULAR EVENT. THUS, IT MAY NOT REASONABLE BE CONSIDERED TO HAVE RESULTED FROM A SUDDEN EMERGENCY OR CATASTROPHE, OR AN EVENT WHICH COULD NOT BE SCHEDULED OR CONTROLLED ADMINISTRATIVELY. THE TIME FOR SCHEDULING OF THE REPAIR WAS COMPLETELY WITHIN THE ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY *** ."

IT WAS IN EFFECT HELD THAT SINCE THE DETERIORATION WAS OF A GRADUAL NATURE THE AGENCY KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN OF THE NECESSITY FOR MAINTENANCE WORK IN SUFFICIENT TIME TO FACILITATE SCHEDULING OF THE REQUIRED REPAIR WORK SO AS TO PERMIT PROPER SCHEDULING OF THE EMPLOYEE'S TRAVEL.

IN THIS LATTER REGARD WE STATED IN B-169078, APRIL 22, 1970, COPY ENCLOSED, THAT THERE MUST NOT BE SUCH NOTICE OF THE TIME TRAVEL IS REQUIRED AS TO PERMIT THE SCHEDULING OF TRAVEL WITHIN THE EMPLOYEE'S REGULAR DUTY HOURS. THE DETERMINATION OF WHETHER THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE TRAVEL IS SO IMMEDIATE AS TO PRECLUDE ADMINISTRATIVE SCHEDULING OF THE TRAVEL TIME MUST BE MADE WITH REGARD TO BOTH THE NECESSITIES CREATED BY THE EVENT AND THE AVAILABILITY OF TRANSPORTATION. SEE B 170683, NOVEMBER 16, 1970, COPY ENCLOSED. WE POINT OUT THAT PAYMENT OF OVERTIME COMPENSATION IS NOT RESTRICTED TO EMERGENCY SITUATIONS. SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, B-163654, JANUARY 26, 1971 (50 COMP. GEN. 519).

IN EACH OF THE INSTANCES CITED BY YOU THE RECORD INDICATES THAT THE FAILURE OF EQUIPMENT WAS THE EVENT WHICH NECESSITATED THE TRAVEL. FURTHER, IN VIEW OF THE EXPRESS MISSION OF THE AUTODIN DIVISION, TOBYHANNA, THERE WOULD APPEAR TO BE NO QUESTION THAT UPON RECEIPT OF REQUESTS FOR EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE AN OFFICIAL NECESSITY AROSE FOR RESPONSE INITIATED WITHIN 48 HOURS BY THE DIVISION.

THE ISSUE RAISED IS WHETHER THE NECESSITY FOR THAT OFFICIAL RESPONSE WAS OF SUCH IMMEDIACY AS TO PRECLUDE SCHEDULING THE EMPLOYEES' TRAVEL WITHIN THEIR REGULARLY SCHEDULED DUTY HOURS. AS INDICATED ABOVE, THIS DETERMINATION DEPENDS IN PART UPON THE AVAILABILITY OF TRANSPORTATION. BECAUSE WE PRESUME THE AUTODIN DIVISION HAD ACCESS TO MILITARY TRANSPORTATION, THE AVAILABILITY OF WHICH IS NOT INDICATED IN THE RECORD, WE HAVE NOT UNDERTAKEN TO DETERMINE IN EACH INSTANCE WHETHER AVAILABLE TRANSPORTATION WOULD HAVE PERMITTED THE SCHEDULING OF TRAVEL IN ACCORDANCE WITH 5 U.S.C. 6101(B)(2), BUT LEAVE THIS DETERMINATION TO ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS.

IN THE FIRST SITUATION, THE AUGUST 3 MESSAGE IS NOT A REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE, BUT RATHER MERELY REQUESTS "DEPOT LEVEL MAINTENANCE ASSISTANCE." FURTHER, THE 4-DAY INTERVAL BETWEEN RECEIPT OF THE MESSAGE AND MR. MASLAR'S DEPARTURE SUGGESTS THAT THE NECESSITY FOR MR. MASLAR'S TRAVEL WAS NOT IN FACT CONSIDERED TO BE A MATTER OF IMMEDIACY. THIS IS INDICATED BY THE APPARENT DISREGARD OF THE DIVISION'S INSTRUCTION FOR EMERGENCIES REQUIRING THAT A DRUM MAINTENANCE EXPERT BE DISPATCHED WITHIN 48 HOURS.

IN THE SECOND SITUATION, THE JUNE 16 MESSAGE STATES THAT THE DIVISION HAD BEEN REQUESTED AS EARLY AS MAY 27 TO DISPATCH A TEAM TO PROVIDE MAINTENANCE ASSISTANCE FOR DRUM NO. 2. THE TEAM WAS ORIGINALLY SCHEDULED TO REPORT JUNE 10, BUT HAD BEEN DELAYED UNTIL JUNE 17. ON JUNE 11, THE DIVISION WAS TOLD THAT THE 1-WEEK DELAY WAS UNACCEPTABLE AND THAT THE TEAM WAS REQUIRED IMMEDIATELY. ON JUNE 16, A SYSTEM FAILURE WAS EXPERIENCED AND THE MESSAGE OF THAT DATE WAS DISPATCHED REQUESTING THAT IMMEDIATE ACTION BE TAKEN TO DEPLOY A DRUM MAINTENANCE TEAM STATING IN ADDITION THAT FURTHER DELAY COULD HAVE SERIOUS IMPACT ON RECORD COMMUNICATIONS SUPPORT. IT THEREFORE APPEARS THAT THE DIVISION HAD NOTICE AS OF JUNE 11 OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR IMMEDIATE ASSISTANCE, YET DELAYED UNTIL THE 18TH TO DISPATCH THE DRUM TEAM. IT APPEARS FURTHER THAT THE DIVISION HAD SCHEDULED THE EMPLOYEES TO ARRIVE ON JUNE 17. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THE NECESSITY FOR ASSISTANCE WAS OF SUCH IMMEDIACY NOR THE NOTICE OF THAT NECESSITY SUCH AS WOULD HAVE PRECLUDED SCHEDULING OF THE TRAVEL.

IN THE THIRD SITUATION, THE MAY 5 MESSAGE REQUESTING EMERGENCY MAINTENANCE ASSISTANCE APPEARS TO HAVE RELATED FOR THE FIRST TIME THE EMERGENT NECESSITY FOR ASSISTANCE. THIS, TOGETHER WITH THE PROMPTNESS BY WHICH MESSRS. SABIA AND OWENS WERE DISPATCHED THAT SAME DAY, STRONGLY INDICATES THAT THE REQUIREMENT WAS CONSIDERED TO BE ONE OF IMMEDIACY. IN FACT IT IS ADMINISTRATIVELY DETERMINED THAT TRANSPORTATION WAS NOT OTHERWISE AVAILABLE WHICH WOULD HAVE PERMITTED SCHEDULING TRAVEL WITHIN THE EMPLOYEES' REGULAR DUTY HOURS TO ARRIVE WITHIN AN ACCEPTABLE TIME FRAME, GIVEN THE URGENCY OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR ASSISTANCE, WE WOULD NOT OBJECT TO THE PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION AT OVERTIME RATES FOR THE TIME IN TRAVEL OUTSIDE THE EMPLOYEES' REGULAR DUTY HOURS.

SIMILARLY, IN THE FOURTH SITUATION PRESENTED, THE MAY 12 MESSAGE URGENTLY REQUESTING MAINTENANCE ASSISTANCE INDICATES THAT THE HAZARDOUS CONDITION HAD JUST ARISEN AND APPEARS TO BE THE FIRST INDICATION GIVEN THE DIVISION OF THE URGENCY OF THE NEED FOR ASSISTANCE. THIS, TOGETHER WITH THE PROMPT MANNER IN WHICH THE TEAM WAS DISPATCHED THE FOLLOWING DAY STRONGLY SUGGESTS THE IMMEDIACY WITH WHICH THE SITUATION WAS VIEWED BY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS. IF SUCH TRANSPORTATION WAS NOT OTHERWISE AVAILABLE AS WOULD HAVE PERMITTED TRAVEL TO BE SCHEDULED WITHIN THE EMPLOYEES' REGULAR DUTY HOURS AND TO ARRIVE WITHIN AN ACCEPTABLE TIME FRAME, GIVEN THE URGENCY OF THE REQUIREMENT, THE EMPLOYEES' TRAVEL TIME OUTSIDE OF REGULAR DUTY HOURS MAY BE COMPENSATED AT OVERTIME RATES.

IN GENERAL, WE WOULD ADD THAT IN SITUATIONS SUCH AS YOU HAVE RELATED INVOLVING THE FAILURE OF EQUIPMENT, THE DETERMINATION OF THE URGENCY PRESENTED INVOLVES A TECHNICAL JUDGMENT WHICH SHOULD ORDINARILY BE MADE BY THE AGENCY CONCERNED.

REGARDING YOUR FIRST AND FOURTH QUESTIONS AS TO OVERTIME COMPENSATION FOR TIME IN TRAVEL FROM AN EMPLOYEE'S RESIDENCE TO THE COMMON CARRIER TERMINAL, AND FROM THE COMMON CARRIER TERMINAL SERVING THE TEMPORARY DUTY STATION TO THE TEMPORARY DUTY RESIDENCE OR STATION, SUPPOSING THAT THE ABOVE REQUIREMENTS TO QUALIFY IN TRAVEL AS "HOURS OF WORK" HAVE BEEN MET, WE REFER YOU TO FEDERAL PERSONNEL MANUAL SUPPLEMENT 990-2, BOOK 550, SUBCHAPTER S1-3, SUBSECTION (B)(2)(C)(III), SUBPARAGRAPH 4, WHICH PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS:

"GENERALLY, WHEN TRAVELING BY MEANS OF A COMMON CARRIER, TIME IN TRAVEL STATUS BEGINS WITH THE SCHEDULED TIME OF DEPARTURE FROM THE COMMON CARRIER TERMINAL, AND ENDS UPON ARRIVAL AT THE COMMON CARRIER TERMINAL LOCATED AT THE POINT OF DESTINATION. THUS, TRAVEL FROM STATION, WHARF, OR OTHER COMMON CARRIER TERMINAL TO EITHER PLACE OF BUSINESS OR RESIDENCE (INCLUDING TEMPORARY PLACE OF BUSINESS OR RESIDENCE) AND FROM EITHER PLACE OF BUSINESS OR RESIDENCE TO STATION, WHARF, OR OTHER COMMON TERMINAL IS NOT CONSIDERED TIME IN TRAVEL STATUS. AN EXCEPTION TO THIS RULE IS WHEN THE EMPLOYEE MUST SPEND ONE HOUR OR MORE IN TRAVEL BETWEEN THE COMMON CARRIER TERMINAL AND PLACE OF BUSINESS OR RESIDENCE; THEN THE ENTIRE TIME SPENT TRAVELING BETWEEN THE CARRIER TERMINAL AND PLACE OF BUSINESS OR RESIDENCE (I.E., ACTUAL TIME SPENT TRAVELING, EXCLUSIVE OF WAITING TIME AT TERMINAL PRIOR TO SCHEDULED DEPARTURE TIME) IS CONSIDERED HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT." THIS SUBSECTION COVERS BOTH TRAVEL SITUATIONS YOU PRESENT. THUS, WHERE AN EMPLOYEE SPENDS MORE THAN ONE HOUR TRAVELING (1) FROM HIS PLACE OF BUSINESS OR RESIDENCE TO THE COMMON CARRIER TERMINAL AND/OR (2) FROM THE COMMON CARRIER TERMINAL SERVING THE TEMPORARY DUTY LOCATION TO EITHER THE TEMPORARY DUTY STATION OR HIS TEMPORARY DUTY RESIDENCE, AND/OR (3) FROM THE COMMON CARRIER TERMINAL AT HIS PERMANENT DUTY STATION TO EITHER HIS RESIDENCE OR HIS PLACE OF BUSINESS, THAT TIME MAY BE COMPENSATED FOR AT OVERTIME RATES.

WE REFER YOU IN REGARD TO YOUR SECOND QUESTION AS TO TIME AWAITING ONWARD TRANSPORTATION AT COMMON CARRIER TERMINALS TO FEDERAL PERSONNEL MANUAL SUPPLEMENT 990-2, BOOK 550, SUBCHAPTER S1-3, SUBSECTION (B)(2)(C)(III), SUBPARAGRAPH 3, WHICH STATES:

"IN DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF TIME IN A TRAVEL STATUS WHICH WOULD BE INCLUDED AS HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT, AN EMPLOYEE IS CONSIDERED TO BE IN A TRAVEL STATUS ONLY FOR THOSE HOURS ACTUALLY SPENT TRAVELING BETWEEN HIS OFFICIAL DUTY STATION AND HIS POINT OF DESTINATION, OR BETWEEN TWO TEMPORARY DUTY POINTS, AND FOR USUAL WAITING TIME WHICH INTERRUPTS THE TRAVEL."

WE HELD IN 50 COMP. GEN. 519, 523, THAT THE TERM "USUAL WAITING TIME" REFERS TO THE TIME NECESSARY TO MAKE CONNECTIONS IN THE ORDINARY TRAVEL SITUATION, CONSISTENT WITH THE OVERRIDING MANDATE THAT TRAVEL SHOULD BE PERFORMED AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS PRACTICABLE. WE INDICATED THERE, IN CONSIDERING A WAITING PERIOD WHICH HAD BEEN EXTENDED BECAUSE OF HEAVY HOLIDAY TRAFFIC AND INCLEMENT WEATHER, THAT IT WOULD NOT BE UNREASONABLE TO ALLOW UP TO 3 HOURS BEYOND AN EMPLOYEE'S REGULAR TOUR OF DUTY AS USUAL WAITING TIME. IN RESPONSE TO YOUR QUESTION, THEREFORE, WE WOULD VIEW 3 HOURS AS A REASONABLE LIMITATION. AS INDICATED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPH, SUCH "USUAL WAITING TIME" WOULD NOT INCLUDE TIME AT THE COMMON CARRIER TERMINAL PRIOR TO THE SCHEDULED DEPARTURE TIME.

YOUR THIRD QUESTION RELATES TO TIME SPENT BY AN EMPLOYEE IN GOING FROM HIS PERMANENT DUTY STATION TO HIS RESIDENCE AND TIME SPENT AT HIS RESIDENCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PACKING CLOTHING. FEDERAL PERSONNEL MANUAL SUPPLEMENT 990-2, BOOK 550, SUBCHAPTER S1-3, SUBSECTION (B)(2)(C)(III), SUBPARAGRAPH 5, SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT TIME IN TRANSIT BETWEEN AN EMPLOYEE'S RESIDENCE AND PLACE OF BUSINESS MAY NOT BE REGARDED AS TIME SPENT IN TRAVEL STATUS AWAY FROM THE OFFICIAL DUTY STATION. WE KNOW OF NO BASIS UPON WHICH TIME SPENT AT ONE'S HOME PACKING MAY BE CONSIDERED WORK SO AS TO PROVIDE A BASIS FOR OVERTIME COMPENSATION. THUS, THE ANSWER TO BOTH PARTS OF YOUR THIRD QUESTION IS IN THE NEGATIVE.

THE FILE SUBMITTED WITH YOUR REQUEST IS RETURNED HEREWITH.