A-92769, MARCH 8, 1938, 17 COMP. GEN. 711

A-92769, MARCH 8, 1938, 17 COMP. GEN. 711

TRAVELING EXPENSES - TRAVEL BETWEEN TEMPORARY PLACE OF ABODE AND PLACE OF TEMPORARY DUTY - SUBSISTENCE V. TRANSPORTATION EXPENSE WHETHER THE TRAVEL OF EMPLOYEES OF THE BUREAU OF AIR COMMERCE BETWEEN TEMPORARY PLACES OF ABODE AND AIRPORTS AT WHICH ENGAGED IN THE PERFORMANCE OF TEMPORARY DUTY INVOLVES AN EXPENSE INCIDENT TO SUBSISTENCE OR TO TRANSPORTATION IS FOR DETERMINATION UPON THE FACTS IN EACH CASE, BUT, GENERALLY, IF AN AIRPORT IS SO SITUATED WITH RELATION TO THE CITY IT SERVES AS TO BE REACHED WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME ONLY BY A SPECIAL CONVEYANCE, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM A PUBLIC CONVEYANCE, AND THERE ARE NO LIVING ACCOMMODATIONS FOR TRANSIENTS REASONABLY NEAR THE AIRPORT THE COSTS OF DAILY TRAVEL TO AND FROM THE AIRPORT WHILE ON TEMPORARY DUTY MAY BE REGARDED AS TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES AND REIMBURSED AS SUCH. 16 COMP. GEN. 562, AMPLIFIED.

ACTING COMPTROLLER GENERAL ELLIOTT TO THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE, MARCH 8, 1938:

YOUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 18, 1938, IS AS FOLLOWS:

I WISH TO MENTION THE MATTER OF YOUR DECISION APPEARING IN 16-CG 562, WHICH HAS TO DO WITH THE PAYMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CHARGES BETWEEN TEMPORARY DOMICILE OF AN EMPLOYEE OF THE GOVERNMENT AND TEMPORARY POST OF DUTY AT AIRPORTS, ETC., WHEREIN YOU HAVE HELD THAT, IF THE REGULAR EMPLOYEES OF THE AIRPORT BEAR THE EXPENSE OF TRANSPORTING THEMSELVES FROM THEIR HOMES TO THEIR REGULAR POSTS OF DUTY, THEN THE EMPLOYEES OF THE GOVERNMENT ON TEMPORARY DUTY AT SUCH AIRPORT SHALL PAY FROM THEIR PER DIEM ALLOWANCES THE COST OF TRANSPORTATION BETWEEN TEMPORARY DOMICILE AND TEMPORARY POST OF DUTY.

IT MIGHT PROPERLY BE ASSUMED THAT THE PROVISION OF THE STANDARDIZED TRAVEL REGULATIONS CITED BY YOU AS FOLLOWS:

"WHERE THE NATURE AND LOCATION OF THE WORK WHERE TEMPORARILY STATIONED ARE SUCH THAT MEALS AND LODGING CANNOT BE PROCURED THERE, AND THE DAILY TRAVEL REQUIRED TO PROCURE SUBSISTENCE AT THE NEAREST AVAILABLE PLACE IS NOT SUCH AS MADE BY THE PUBLIC GENERALLY FOR THAT PURPOSE, NOR PERFORMED FOR THE PERSONAL CONVENIENCE OF THE TRAVELER, THE EXPENSE THEREOF WILL BE CONSIDERED AS NECESSARY TRANSPORTATION NOT INCIDENTAL TO SUBSISTENCE. FULL STATEMENT OF THE NECESSITY FOR SUCH DAILY TRAVEL SHOULD ACCOMPANY THE EXPENSE ACCOUNT.'

IN ITS REFERENCE TO "THE PUBLIC GENERALLY" IT IS TO BE TAKEN AS HAVING APPLICATION TO THE ,TRAVELING" PUBLIC RATHER THAN TO THAT PART OF THE PUBLIC REPRESENTED BY THOSE WHO ARE GOING ABOUT THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR DAILY ROUTINE IN THE REGULAR AND PERMANENT LOCALITY OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT AND OF THEIR ABODE, SUCH AS THE "REGULAR EMPLOYEES OF AIRPORT AND AIRLINE OPERATORS.'

SUPPORT FOR THIS ASSUMPTION MAY BE FOUND IN THE FACT THAT THE TRAVEL REGULATIONS WERE PREPARED SOLELY FOR THE GUIDANCE OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES IN TRAVEL STATUS AND FOR THE CONTROL OF THE EXPENSE OF TRAVEL; AND IT IS NOT TO BE THOUGHT THAT IN POINTING TO PARALLELS USING, AS IN THIS CASE, THE "PUBLIC GENERALLY" FOR COMPARISON WITH THE GOVERNMENT-EMPLOYED TRAVELER, THEY WOULD HAVE IN MIND COMPARISON OF THE "STATIC" GENERAL PUBLIC WITH THE MOVING (TRAVELING) GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE, WHOSE RESPECTIVE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE IN NO SENSE PARALLEL. A COMPARISON OF THE REGULAR EMPLOYEES OF THE AIRPORT, MOVING IN THEIR RESPECTIVE LOCALITIES BETWEEN PLACE OF PERMANENT ABODE AND PLACE OF REGULAR EMPLOYMENT, WITH THE EMPLOYEES OF THE GOVERNMENT WHO, DAILY, AT THEIR HEADQUARTERS, GO FROM THEIR HOMES TO THE OFFICE WHERE REGULARLY EMPLOYED WOULD BE ENTIRELY PROPER, BUT USING THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THESE DAILY MOVEMENTS OF THE FORMER GROUP AS A YARD STICK WITH WHICH TO MEASURE THE MOVEMENTS OF ITINERANTS BETWEEN PLACE OF TEMPORARY DUTY AND PLACE OF TEMPORARY ABODE SEEMS TO INVOLVE SOME DEPARTURE FROM THE USUAL BASES FOR COMPARISONS. IN OTHER WORDS, THERE SEEMS TO BE HERE A BASIS NOT FOR COMPARISON BUT RATHER FOR CONTRAST, SINCE THE TWO CASES ARE NOT SIMILAR BUT CLEARLY DISSIMILAR. THOSE PERSONS WHOSE PLACE OF REGULAR EMPLOYMENT IS THE AIRPORT MAY ELECT TO TAKE UP RESIDENCE WITHIN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY OF THE PORT, OR THEY MAY PREFER TO LIVE AT A DISTANCE THEREFROM AND USE THEIR PERSONAL AUTOMOBILES IN GETTING TO AND FROM THE PLACE WHERE THEY ARE EMPLOYED. THE TRAVELER WHOSE DUTY REQUIRES THAT HE BE AT THE AIRPORT FOR A FEW DAYS AT A TIME HAS OPEN TO HIM NO SUCH ALTERNATIVE BUT MUST QUARTER HIMSELF WHERE SUITABLE QUARTERS FOR TRANSIENTS ARE AVAILABLE AND MAKE USE OF SUCH ADEQUATE TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES AS ARE AT HAND.

I WOULD REQUEST THAT, AFTER GIVING CONSIDERATION TO THE THEORY ADVANCED IN THE FOREGOING, YOU CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING RECITATION OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE TRAVEL DUTY OF CERTAIN EMPLOYEES OF THIS DEPARTMENT.

WE HAVE WORKING UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE BUREAU OF AIR COMMERCE A CONSIDERABLE NUMBER OF AERONAUTICAL INSPECTORS, ENGINEERING INSPECTORS, AIRLINE INSPECTORS, FACTORY INSPECTORS, AND PATROL PILOTS, WHOSE DUTY IS LARGELY PERFORMED AT AIRPORTS AND AIRPLANE FACTORIES AND REQUIRES THAT THEY BE AT ONE AIRPORT OR FACTORY FOR PERIODS OF FROM ONE DAY TO ONE WEEK OR MORE, FOLLOWED BY A MOVE ON TO ANOTHER AIRPORT OR FACTORY, THUS IN A CYCLE WORKING THEIR RESPECTIVE ITINERARIES PERIODICALLY THROUGHOUT EACH YEAR.

THESE AIRPORTS AND FACTORIES ARE WITH FEW EXCEPTIONS LOCATED IN THE OUTLYING DISTRICTS OF LARGE CITIES. AT NOT MORE THAN A HALF DOZEN OF THE SEVERAL HUNDRED AIRPORTS AND FACTORIES REGULARLY VISITED FOR SHORT PERIODS BY THESE EMPLOYEES ARE THERE CONVENIENTLY LOCATED ADEQUATE AND REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS FOR LODGING. IT IS, THEREFORE, NECESSARY THAT THESE EMPLOYEES DURING THE PERIOD OF THEIR TEMPORARY DUTY AT A GIVEN AIRPORT OR FACTORY LODGE THEMSELVES AT A HOTEL IN THE ADJACENT CITY AND TRANSPORT THEMSELVES BETWEEN SUCH LODGINGS AND AIRPORT OR FACTORY. FOR REASONS WHICH APPEAR BELOW, IN MOST INSTANCES TAXICABS MUST BE CONSIDERED AS THE ONLY AVAILABLE MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION. EVEN WITH THE EXERCISE OF PROPER ECONOMIES, IT IS SCARCELY POSSIBLE FOR AN ITINERANT TO PROVIDE FOR HIMSELF DECENT LODGING AND MEALS IN THESE LARGE CENTERS OF POPULATION AT A SUM WELL WITHIN THE MAXIMUM PER DIEM ALLOWANCE OF $5.00, SO THAT WHEN, AS IN THE CASE OF THESE EMPLOYEES, IT IS NECESSARY THAT THE PER DIEM ALLOWANCE COVER ALSO THE EXPENSE OF TRANSPORTATION BETWEEN TEMPORARY DOMICILE AND TEMPORARY POST OF DUTY, WHICH EXPENSE RUNS ANYWHERE FROM ONE DOLLAR TO TWO DOLLARS PER ONE-WAY TRIP, THE EMPLOYEE IS FORCED TO THE NECESSITY OF MAKING A CHOICE BETWEEN RELINQUISHING HIS RIGHT TO DECENT LIVING OR ACCEPTING A LOSS EQUIVALENT TO A SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION IN HIS SALARY.

THESE MEN ARE TRAINED TO EXPERTNESS IN A HIGHLY SPECIALIZED FIELD, AND IT IS NOT EASY TO REPLACE ONE, WHEN FOR ANY REASON HIS SERVICES ARE LOST TO THE GOVERNMENT. BECAUSE OF THEIR KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE AND THE FACT THAT THE AVAILABLE NUMBER OF MEN SO EQUIPPED IS QUITE LIMITED, THEIR SERVICES ARE SOMEWHAT IN DEMAND IN THE INDUSTRY AND UNLESS WE CAN MAKE THEIR POSITIONS SUFFICIENTLY ATTRACTIVE TO THEM, WE WILL SUFFER LOSSES THROUGH RESIGNATION TO AN EXTENT WHICH WILL BEYOND QUESTION CRIPPLE THE SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC WHICH IS DEMANDED OF US. THE LOSSES TO THESE MEN AS A RESULT OF YOUR DECISION CITED HEREIN ARE QUITE HEAVY; IN FACT, MORE THAN WE MAY EXPECT SOME OF THEM TO BEAR AND STILL RETAIN THEIR POSITIONS. THESE EXPENSIVE TRIPS BY TAXICAB BETWEEN POSTS OF DUTY AND DOMICILE ARE NOT MADE BECAUSE ON THE ONE HAND THE EMPLOYEE HAS A PREFERENCE FOR LODGING HIMSELF IN HOTELS LOCATED IN THE HEART OF THE CITY, OR ON THE OTHER HAND BECAUSE HE HAS A PREFERENCE FOR TAXICABS OVER BUSSES OR STREETCARS, BUT BECAUSE ON THE ONE HAND, AS SHOWN ABOVE, THERE ARE NO ADEQUATE LODGING FACILITIES LOCATED IN THE VICINITY OF THE AIRPORT AND, ON THE OTHER HAND, BECAUSE THERE ARE AVAILABLE NO ADEQUATE MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION OTHER THAN TAXICAB. DURING THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS, THE PRESSURE OF WORK ON THESE MEN HAS BEEN SO GREAT THAT THEY HAVE BEEN CALLED UPON TO PUT IN A LARGE AMOUNT OF OVERTIME IN AN EFFORT TO KEEP ABREAST OF THE DEMANDS ON THEM AND THEY HAVE CHEERFULLY RESPONDED TO THIS CALL. YOU MAY BE ASSURED OF THIS, THAT IT MAY BE TAKEN AS THE RULE AND NOT THE EXCEPTION THAT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO CHOOSE BETWEEN COMFORTABLE LODGING WITHIN STEPPING DISTANCE OF THE POINT OF COMPLETION OF THEIR DAILY WORK AND FINDING SUCH LODGING IN THE CITY AT THE END OF A LONG TRIP BY TAXICAB, BUS, TROLLEY, OR ANY MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION, THEY WOULD, ALMOST WITHOUT EXCEPTION, CHOOSE THE FORMER. THEY HAVE GIVEN AND STILL DO GIVE VERY LIBERALLY OF THEIR OWN TIME IN THEIR SINCERE EFFORT TO UPHOLD THE INTERESTS OF THE GOVERNMENT, BUT UNLESS THEY CAN BE RELIEVED OF THIS LOSS IMPOSED UPON THEM THROUGH THE NECESSITY FOR BEARING THE COST OF THEIR TRANSPORTATION BETWEEN TEMPORARY DOMICILE AND TEMPORARY POST OF DUTY, WE WILL LOSE THE SERVICES OF MORE OF THEM THAN WE CAN WELL AFFORD TO LOSE.

AT CERTAIN POINTS THERE ARE AVAILABLE TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES IN THE FORM OF BUS AND TROLLEY LINES WHICH USUALLY, BY DEVIOUS AND WINDING ROUTES, EVENTUALLY FIND THEIR WAY EITHER TO THE AIRPORT OF TO A POINT SOMEWHERE IN ITS GENERAL NEIGHBORHOOD. EVEN WHERE SUCH FACILITIES ARE AVAILABLE, IT IS FELT THAT THESE EMPLOYEES SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO MAKE USE OF THEM FOR THE REASONS THAT THEY REPRESENT A LOSS OF CONSIDERABLE TIME TO THE MEN IN GETTING TO AND FROM THEIR DUTY POST, AND FURTHER, BECAUSE IN PRACTICALLY ALL CASES THE MEN ARE REQUIRED TO CARRY A PORTABLE TYPEWRITER AND A HEAVY CASE CONTAINING SPECIFICATIONS, REGULATIONS, BLANK FORMS, ETC., AND THE CASE AVERAGES IN WEIGHT ABOUT TWENTY-TWO POUNDS AND IT IS DEEMED UNREASONABLE TO EXPECT THEM TO CARRY THIS LOAD FOR A DISTANCE WHICH MAY VARY FROM A CITY BLOCK TO A COUNTRY MILE AT EACH END OF THE TRIP AT BOTH ENDS OF THE DAY. IN ADDITION TO THE ITEMS OF LUGGAGE NAMED IT FREQUENTLY IS NECESSARY FOR THEM ALSO TO CARRY WITH THEM FLYING CLOTHES AND PARACHUTE.

FURTHERMORE, WITH RESPECT TO MANY OF THESE TRIPS BETWEEN DOMICILE AND POST OF DUTY, IT MAY BE STATED THAT THEY BEGIN AS "DEPARTURE" TRIPS ENTITLING THE TRAVELER WITHOUT QUESTION TO TAXI FARE TO POINT OF ANTICIPATED DEPARTURE; THE EMPLOYEE'S PLANS IN THE MORNING CONTEMPLATE HIS LEAVING THE POINT FOR THE NEXT POINT ON HIS ITINERARY; HE ACCORDINGLY CHECKS OUT OF HIS HOTEL, CARRIES WITH HIM ALL OF HIS PERSONAL BAGGAGE AS WELL AS HIS TYPEWRITER, BRIEF CASE, FLYING CLOTHES, PARACHUTE, AND OTHER OFFICIAL IMPEDIMENTA AND PROCEEDS BY TAXICAB TO THE AIRPORT, BUT ON ARRIVING THERE, HE LEARNS THAT WEATHER CONDITIONS HAVE ARISEN WHICH MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM TO DEPART; OR THROUGH SOME UNPREDICTABLE DIFFICULTY ENCOUNTERED DURING THE DAY, HE IS UNABLE TO DO THAT WHICH PRIOR TO DEPARTING FROM THE HOTEL IN THE MORNING HE HAD EXPECTED TO DO BEFORE MOVING ON TO HIS NEXT POST OF DUTY, AND AS A RESULT OF ONE OR THE OTHER OF THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, HE IS REQUIRED TO REMAIN OVER ANOTHER DAY AND THUS IS OBLIGED TO RETURN TO THE HOTEL WITH ALL OF HIS LUGGAGE, SO THAT WHAT BEGAN AS A "DEPARTURE" TRIP ENDED, THROUGH NO FAULT OF THE TRAVELER, IN A "DUTY" TRIP. WITH RESPECT, PARTICULARLY, TO PATROL PILOTS, THIS SITUATION MAY REPEAT ITSELF DAILY OVER A PERIOD OF SEVERAL DAYS.

THE FARES BY TAXI BETWEEN AIRPORTS AND HOTELS AT THE POINTS WHERE SITUATIONS SUCH AS OUTLINED HEREIN MAY BE EXPECTED TO ARISE RANGE FROM $1,00 TO $2.50 OR MORE PER ONE-WAY TRIP, WHICH IS INDICATIVE OF THE EXTENT OF THE FINANCIAL BURDEN WHICH THESE EMPLOYEES HAVE HAD TO ASSUME UNDER THE RULING NOW IN EFFECT.

REALIZING AS I DO, YOUR PURPOSE TO BASE YOUR DECISIONS ON REASON, EQUITY, AND THE TRUE INTENT OF CONGRESS, I CANNOT BUT FEEL THAT FACTS SUCH AS THOSE SET FORTH HEREIN WERE NOT BEFORE YOU WHEN YOU REACHED YOUR DECISION ABOVE CITED, AND I MOST EARNESTLY REQUEST THAT YOU REVIEW THE SUBJECT IN THE LIGHT OF THIS PRESENTATION AND ADVISE ME WHETHER THE EMPLOYEES OF THE BUREAU OF AIR COMMERCE MENTIONED HEREIN ARE SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT THEY PAY FROM THEIR SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE THE COST OF TRANSPORTING THEMSELVES FROM POINTS OF TEMPORARY DOMICILE TO POINTS OF TEMPORARY DUTY.

I WILL GREATLY APPRECIATE YOUR EARLY RESPONSE TO THIS INQUIRY.

THE DECISION TO WHICH YOU REFER, TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, HELD IN PART AS FOLLOWS:

WHILE IT IS STATED IN THE PORTION OF THE MEMORANDUM ABOVE QUOTED THAT EMPLOYEES OF AIRPORT AND AIRLINE OPERATORS ARE USUALLY FURNISHED WITH TRANSPORTATION TO AND FROM THEIR PLACES OF LODGING BY PRIVATE TRANSPORTATION FACILITES OF THEIR EMPLOYERS IT IS APPARENT FROM SUCH STATEMENT THAT TRANSPORTATION IS NOT FURNISHED IN ALL CASES. UNDER PARAGRAPH 8 (B) OF THE TRAVEL REGULATIONS, SUPRA, IT IS REQUIRED THAT A FULL STATEMENT OF THE NECESSITY FOR SUCH DAILY TRAVEL SHOULD ACCOMPANY THE EXPENSE ACCOUNT IN EACH INSTANCE. FROM THAT REQUIREMENT IT WILL BE APPRECIATED THAT NO GENERAL RULE CAN BE ESTABLISHED FOR APPLICATION TO ALL TRAVEL BETWEEN AIRPORTS AND PLACES IN WHICH LIVING ACCOMMODATIONS CAN BE SECURED. EACH CASE MUST BE CONTROLLED BY THE PARTICULAR FACTS THEREIN INVOLVED. A REASONABLE APPLICATION OF THE TRAVEL REGULATIONS, SUPRA, TO THE CLASS OF CASES HERE INVOLVED, WOULD REQUIRE THAT THE TRAVEL OF THE EMPLOYEES BE CONSIDERED AS INCIDENTAL TO SUBSISTENCE WHERE THE REGULAR EMPLOYEES OF AIRPORT AND AIRLINE OPERATORS WHO LIVE IN THE NEAREST CITY USUALLY PROVIDE FOR THEIR OWN TRANSPORTATION BETWEEN THEIR PLACE OF DUTY AND THE PLACE OF ABODE; OTHERWISE, AS INCIDENTAL TO TRANSPORTATION, AND, THEREFORE, REIMBURSABLE AS SUCH. HENCE, IN ALL CLAIMS OF THIS CHARACTER, WHEN TRAVEL EXPENSE IS CLAIMED AS INCIDENTAL TO TRANSPORTATION AS DISTINGUISHED FROM SUBSISTENCE, THE VOUCHER MUST CONTAIN A FULL STATEMENT OF THE FACTS INVOLVED SO AS TO SHOW BEYOND DOUBT THAT THE CLAIMED EXPENSES ARE WITHIN PARAGRAPH 8 (B) OF THE TRAVEL REGULATIONS AND THE RULE STATED IN 3 COMP. GEN. 284, SUPRA. COMPARE A-56885, DATED AUGUST 25, 1934, * * * THE DECISION WAS RECONSIDERED BY THIS OFFICE UNDER DATE OF MAY 29, 1937, BASED ON A SUBMISSION FROM THE CHAIRMAN OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION DATED APRIL 2, 1937, IN WHICH HE PRESENTED THE CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT OF THE EMPLOYEES IN QUESTION IN A SOMEWHAT SIMILAR LIGHT AS THAT PRESENTED IN YOUR INSTANT LETTER. HE MENTIONS A NUMBER OF CITES WHERE LIVING ACCOMMODATIONS CAN BE SECURED NEAR THE AIRPORT OR AT A PLACE FROM WHICH THE WORK CAN BE REACHED BY A LOCAL TRANSIT COMPANY, VIZ, BOSTON, MASS.; KANSAS CITY, MO.; NEW YORK, N.Y.; OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLA.; SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH; AND ST. PETERSBURG, FLA.; ALSO A NUMBER OF CITIES WHERE LIVING ACCOMMODATIONS MAY NOT BE SECURED NEAR THE AIRPORTS WHICH ARE ACCESSIBLE ONLY BY MEANS OF SPECIAL CONVEYANCE, VIZ, ST. PAUL, MINN.; BURBANK, CALIF.; CASPER, WYO.; EL PASO, TEX.; ST. LOUIS, MO.; MONROE, LA.; PITTSBURGH, PA.; AND MIAMI, FLA. HE ALSO MENTIONS THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS AT CHICAGO. ALL OF THIS IS MENTIONED TO SHOW PRIMARILY, AS STATED IN THE DECISION OF DECEMBER 8, 1936, THAT NO GENERAL RULE CAN BE ESTABLISHED FOR APPLICATION TO ALL TRAVEL BETWEEN AIRPORTS AND PLACES AT WHICH LIVING ACCOMMODATIONS CAN BE SECURED, BUT EACH CASE MUST BE CONTROLLED BY THE PARTICULAR FACTS THEREIN INVOLVED.

YOUR PROTEST AGAINST THE DECISION OF THIS OFFICE APPEARS TO BE DIRECTED PRIMARILY TO THE FOLLOWING PORTION:

* * * A REASONABLE APPLICATION OF THE TRAVEL REGULATIONS, SUPRA TO THE CLASS OF CASES HERE INVOLVED, WOULD REQUIRE THAT THE TRAVEL OF THE EMPLOYEES BE CONSIDERED AS INCIDENTAL TO SUBSISTENCE WHERE THE REGULAR EMPLOYEES OF AIRPORT AND AIRLINE OPERATORS WHO LIVE IN THE NEAREST CITY USUALLY PROVIDE FOR THEIR OWN TRANSPORTATION BETWEEN THEIR PLACE OF DUTY AND PLACE OF ABODE; OTHERWISE, AS INCIDENTAL TO TRANSPORTATION, AND, THEREFORE, REIMBURSABLE AS SUCH. * * *

THIS OFFICE IS IN AGREEMENT THAT THE EMPLOYEES REFERRED TO IN YOUR LETTER SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO BEAR THE EXPENSE OF ACTUAL TRANSPORTATION IN GOING TO AND FROM AIRPORTS WHICH ARE SO SITUATED WITH RELATION TO THE CITIES THEY SERVE AS NOT TO BE REASONABLY ACCESSIBLE BY PUBLIC CONVEYANCE. THERE IS NOTHING IN THE LAW OR THE REGULATIONS CONTROLLING REIMBURSEMENT OF TRAVEL EXPENSES TO FEDERAL EMPLOYEES REQUIRING EMPLOYEES TO PAY OUT OF THEIR SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE LARGE TAXICAB FARES TO ENABLE THEM TO ARRIVE DAILY AT AIRPORTS FOR TEMPORARY DUTY PARTICULARLY IF SUCH FARES PROPERLY MAY BE CONSIDERED AS TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES, AND THE DECISIONS OF THIS OFFICE SHOULD NOT BE UNDERSTOOD AS SO INTENDING.

THE LOCATION OF AIRPORTS AT MANY PLACES AND THE ABSENCE OF PUBLIC CONVEYANCES TO AND FROM THE CITIES THEY SERVE ARE TOO WELL KNOWN NOT TO JUSTIFY THE CONCLUSION THAT IN SOME INSTANCES THE COST OF GOING TO AND FROM THE AIRPORTS SHOULD BE REGARDED AS ITEMS OF TRANSPORTATION, AND NOT ITEMS OF SUBSISTENCE. BUT AS PREVIOUSLY STATED IT SEEMS IMPRACTICABLE TO STATE A GENERAL RULE APPLICABLE IN ALL CASES. IT IS BELIEVED, HOWEVER, AS A HELP IN DETERMINING WHETHER A PARTICULAR ITEM IN A TRAVEL EXPENSE ACCOUNT IS TRANSPORTATION OR SUBSISTENCE, THE GENERAL RULE MAY BE STATED THAT IF THE AIRPORT IS SO SITUATED WITH RELATION TO THE CITY OR COMMUNITY IT SERVES AS TO BE REACHED WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME ONLY BY A SPECIAL CONVEYANCE AS DISTINGUISHED FROM A PUBLIC CONVEYANCE, AND THERE ARE NO LIVING ACCOMMODATIONS FOR TRANSIENTS REASONABLY NEAR THE AIRPORTS, THAT THE COSTS OF DAILY TRAVEL TO AND FROM THE AIRPORTS WHILE ON TEMPORARY DUTY MAY BE REGARDED AS TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES AND REIMBURSED AS SUCH.

IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO THIS OFFICE IN THE AUDIT AND PAYMENT OF CLAIMS OF THIS CHARACTER IF THERE WERE FURNISHED A JOINT COMPREHENSIVE STATEMENT OF THE SEVERAL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES CONCERNED SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE AIRPORTS WITH RELATION TO THE CITIES OR COMMUNITIES THEY SERVE, THE CONDITIONS AS TO LIVING ACCOMMODATIONS FOR TRANSIENTS IN THE VICINITY OF THE AIRPORTS AND THE FACTS RELATIVE TO THE AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION. OTHERWISE THE FACTS IN EACH CASE MUST APPEAR IN CONNECTION WITH THE VOUCHER IN WHICH CLAIM IS MADE FOR TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES WHICH ARE PRESENTED FOR AUDIT OR PAYMENT.

THE QUESTION YOU PRESENT IS ANSWERED ACCORDINGLY, AND THE DECISION 16 COMP. GEN. 562, IS AMPLIFIED AS HEREIN INDICATED.