interpretation of the part by fifty one regulations is accepted wouldn't that reasoning permit federal employees to bargain for compensation for any amount of home to commuting time not just be extra commute time for the temporary station that was involved in this case yes your honor and i desire to be consistent with what within the private sector with the allows regulations which that we don't we the government don't pay for commute time that is within forty miles of federal employees still duty station we do pay per vie was that we ought to be compensated for post war wait time at the security gate and the d c circuit said no there is a federal policy that says we don't compensate for i correct that your interpretation would allow federal employees to park and to be paid for time that is not hours of work life sitting at home in other words could cook federal employees i'm having a hard time understanding why you didn't join o p m as a party to the lawsuit because you really are challenging the meaning of that regulation and the extent to which it may or may not apply to the treasury employees in this case wrote the regulation as to what it means i mean i've got your interpretation i assume i'm going to hear from counsel for the for the secretary that it means something quite different but i don't have befor note here that opium is regulation must be read in a manner that's consistent with the private sector and as we point out in that i mean what do you base that argument that the opium regulation must be consistent with the private sector what  or if there is one that we just don't or commute time within forty miles of one's official in the states in the matter how much time it takes you to get to where you're supposed to be at work thought no you are now we're talking that within that regular that forty mile radius within for any any temporary station that takes longer than  would you like me on which i need a prime example or i think yeah yeah that would help i assume that for example we might be dealing with auditors who are going out to give it to a corporate taxpayers work so i and then they're going to be there for days or employees can you go she to be paid for something that is not hours of work if that's when this winter taishan of the question i i apologize that's kinda what i was asked that the union has never argued and in fact has has maintained before the authority no one has argued that employees can negotiate to be paid for something other than hours of work and that's why the language and unfortunately too is categorical is planking when o p m said that homework travel could not be hours of work opium allows for law enforcement and fire fighting employees to through negotiated agreements determine whether or not their meal periods are hours of work o p m doesn't some circumstances allow for negotiated agreements however will confuse the issue further but with that also for example cover a law enforcement officer who is essentially on standby at home and can be called out at any hour of the day or night in my life or they go on the clock as soon as they get in their car or get the call to activate them through an emergency i don't remember five fifty one point four eleven in that level of detail your honor i believe that it's set up and for employees  uncontrollable overtime eighty euros so they got an extra twenty five percent of their base salary and that was intended to cover examples like the one i just gave where i'm to put in involuntary overtime i thought the normal do you work prebble isn't hours of work but five five one point four zero one b as i understand it says time that is considered hours of work under this part shall be used only t argument and so i understand unions argument from from opening remarks from mainstay that the reason this proposal can be negotiated over is because home to work travel can be made hours  occurred here in the seattle area but i'm the specific government why contractor are we talking about a union loan goal negotiating with the just group complement of the department of the treasury that our ruling would only affect a small group of it is not nationwide and nationwide bargaining unit your honor although i mention that any ruling that were made would have those sorts of numbers you know local pardoning units but if understood from department of air force that this sort of thing was non negotiable and that you couldn't enlarge the definition of hours of work beyond opium regs i would think that a contrary finding from this court which would lead to the opposite reaction but i also assume there must be some to change the law to change the regs to make it clear that simply saying something is not hours of work does not mean that you can't negotiate above and beyond that neither opium nor congress have taken that opportunity and and while i understand that is not as persuasive as actual as affirmative action there is some value to that finally on the union's point that o p m was required to to regulate consistent with the department of labor's regulations and has a role in creating substantive regulations they're not required merely to follow in lockstep the department of labor's language as long as they are consistent with the n f l let's say there is no problem in opium regulation and we have that consistency here case the head of the administrators the sort of agency that controls federal sector employment practices pay policies the policies has decided that the discretion to negotiate over that port of the portal act doesn't contain a right to negotiate over that and that's what the department of air force court said the d c circuit in the one thousand nine hundred one department of the air force decision it pointed out in an explicit language federal employees have no right under fo effective however it doesn't say that even private sector employees have the right to bargain over pay for home work travel it's an expense that when the planets align and an employer and employee make that agreement presumably are dealing with so president of the meaning of this o p m regulations which i think both parties acknowledge is a government wide regulation whatever it m ok we will proceed with united states versus rosemary macdonald houston and for the