(a) Time spent traveling shall be considered hours of work if:
(1) An employee is required to travel during regular working hours;
(2) An employee is required to drive a vehicle or perform other work while traveling;
(3) An employee is required to travel as a passenger on a one-day assignment away from the official duty station; or
(4) An employee is required to travel as a passenger on an overnight assignment away from the official duty station during hours on nonworkdays that correspond to the employee's regular working hours.
(b) An employee who travels from home before the regular workday begins and returns home at the end of the workday is engaged in normal “home to work” travel; such travel is not hours of work. When an employee travels directly from home to a temporary duty location outside the limits of his or her official duty station, the time the employee would have spent in normal home to work travel shall be deducted from hours of work as specified in paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) of this section.
(c) An employee who is offered one mode of transportation, and who is permitted to use an alternative mode of transportation, or an employee who travels at a time other than that selected by the agency, shall be credited with the lesser of:
(1) The actual travel time which is hours of work under this section; or
(2) The estimated travel time which would have been considered hours of work under this section had the employee used the mode of transportation offered by the agency, or traveled at the time selected by the agency.
(d) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, an agency may prescribe a mileage radius of not greater than 50 miles to determine whether an employee's travel is within or outside the limits of the employee's official duty station for determining entitlement to overtime pay for travel under this part. However, an agency's definition of an employee's official duty station for determining overtime pay for travel may not be smaller than the definition of “official station and post of duty” under the Federal Travel Regulation issued by the General Services Administration (41 CFR 300-3.1).
[45 FR 85664, Dec. 30, 1980, as amended at 59 FR 66635, Dec. 28, 1994; 72 FR 12036, Mar. 15, 2007]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
24
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1987–2022 · leading case:
Easter v. United States, 575 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Easter v. United States, 575 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
· cites it 3× “” That regulation, however, leaves unclear the extent to which “traveling,” as the term is used in that regulation, encompasses commuting between home and work.”
Bobo v. United States, 37 Fed. Cl. 690 (Fed. Cl. 1997).
· cites it 5× “See 5 C.F.R. §§ 551.422 (a)(2), 551.401, 550.”
Dep't of the Treasury-Internal Revenue Serv. v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 521 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2008).
· cites it 5× “Before the FLRA, the IRS raised several arguments: (1) the arbitrator’s award was contrary to law because 5 C.F.R. § 551.422 (b) 1 prohibited federal employees from being compensated for commute time; (2) Article 29, Section 3E of the CBA fell short of being the type of “express…”
Crusan v. United States, 86 Fed. Cl. 415 (Fed. Cl. 2009).
· cites it 5× “The plaintiffs also argue that the Adams court erroneously relied on Bobo instead of on “OPM’s longstanding regulations at 5 C.F.R. § 551.422 (2008),” 11 which were promulgated before Bobo and Adams.”
David Kavanagh v. Grand Union Co., Inc., 192 F.3d 269 (2d Cir. 1999).
· cites it 4× “” 5 C.F.R. § 551.422 (b) (1999). Federal Personnel Manual (FPM) letters, which were accepted as the authoritative view of OPM when it adopted the regulation, 45 Fed.”
Nat'l Treasury Employees Union (Nteu) v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 418 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2005).
· cites it 9× “5 C.F.R. § 551.422 (b) (emphasis added). The Secretary determined that NTEU’s proposed contract provision was in conflict with the OPM regulation because the provision would require payment for normal “home to work” travel within an employee’s official duty station, 3 while the…”
Forbes v. United States, 84 Fed. Cl. 319 (Fed. Cl. 2008).
· cites it 3× “” 5 C.F.R. § 551.422 (a)(2). Plaintiff compares this regulation with the requirement in Adams that “plaintiff[ ] must perform additional legally cognizable work while driving .”
Adams v. United States, 65 Fed. Cl. 217 (Fed. Cl. 2005).
· cites it 2× “119 , 2003 WL 22142504 (2003) (Treasury II)- Applying USAF, and noting that Navy and Treasury I did not consider arguments concerning a governing OPM travel regulation, 5 C.F.R. § 551.422 (b), the FLRA found that section 551.”
Easter v. United States, 83 Fed. Cl. 236 (Fed. Cl. 2008).
· cites it 2× “" 5 C.F.R. §§ 551.422 (a). However, plaintiffs do not cite to another, possibly applicable provision, section 551.”
Garner v. United States, 85 Fed. Cl. 756 (Fed. Cl. 2009).
· cites it 2× “422, entitled "Time spent traveling,” provides, "Time spent traveling shall be considered hours of work if: (1) An employee is required to travel during regular working hours; (2) An employee is required to drive a vehicle or perform other work while traveling____” 5 C.F.R. §§…”
Morgan v. United States, 84 Fed. Cl. 391 (Fed. Cl. 2008).
· cites it 2× “” 5 C.F.R. § 551.422 (a) provides; “Time spent traveling shall be considered hours of work if: (1) An employee is required to travel during regular working hours; (2) An employee is required to drive a vehicle or perform other work while traveling; (3) An employee is required to…”
— 5 C.F.R. § 551.422(a)(2) — 1 case
Crusan v. United States, 86 Fed. Cl. 415 (Fed. Cl. 2009).
“The plaintiffs also argue that the Adams court erroneously relied on Bobo instead of on “OPM’s longstanding regulations at 5 C.F.R. § 551.422 (2008),” 11 which were promulgated before Bobo and Adams.”
— 5 C.F.R. § 551.422(b) — 1 case
Adams v. United States, 65 Fed. Cl. 217 (Fed. Cl. 2005).
“119 , 2003 WL 22142504 (2003) (Treasury II)- Applying USAF, and noting that Navy and Treasury I did not consider arguments concerning a governing OPM travel regulation, 5 C.F.R. § 551.422 (b), the FLRA found that section 551.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.