[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 29, Volume 3]
[Revised as of July 1, 2004]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 29CFR776.10]

[Page 369-370]
 
                             TITLE 29--LABOR
 
         CHAPTER V--WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
 
PART 776_INTERPRETATIVE BULLETIN ON THE GENERAL COVERAGE OF THE WAGE AND 
HOURS PROVISIONS OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938--Table of Contents
 
                            Subpart A_General
 
Sec. 776.10  Employees participating in the actual movement of commerce.

    (a) Under the principles stated in Sec. 776.9, the wage and hours 
provisions of the Act apply typically, but not exclusively, to employees 
such, as those in the telephone, \29\ telegraph, \30\ television, radio, 
\31\ transportation and shipping \32\ industries, since these industries 
serve as the actual instrumentalities and channels of interstate and

[[Page 370]]

foreign commerce. Similarly, employees of such businesses as banking, 
insurance, newspaper publishing, \33\ and others which regularly utilize 
the channels of interstate and foreign commerce in the course of their 
operations, are generally covered by the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Schmidt v. Peoples Telephone Union of Maryville, Mo., 138 F. 2d 
13 (C.A. 8); North Shore Corp. v. Barnett, 143 F. 2d 172 (C.A. 5); 
Strand v. Garden Valley Telephone Co., 51 F. Supp. 898 (D. Minn.).
    \30\ Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Lenroot, 323 U.S. 490; Western 
Union Telegraph Co. v. McComb, 165 F. 2d 65 (C.A. 6), certiorari denied 
333 U.S. 862; Moss v. Postal Telegraph Cable Co., 42 F. Supp. 807 (M.D. 
Ga.).
    \31\ Wilson v. Shuman, 140 F. 2d 644 (C.A. 8); Wabash Radio Corp. v. 
Walling, 162 F. 2d 391 (C.A. 6).
    \32\ Overnight Motor Co. v. Missel, 316 U.S. 572; Hargis v. Wabash 
R. Co., 163 F. 2d 607 (C.A. 7); Rockton & Rion R.R. v. Walling 146 F. 2d 
111 (C.A. 4), certiorari denied 334 U.S. 880; Walling v. Keansburg 
Steamboat Co., 162 F. 2d 405 (C.A. 3); Knudsen v. Lee & Simmons, 163 F. 
2d 95 (C.A. 2); Walling v. Southwestern Greyhound Lines, 65 F. Supp. 52 
(W.D. Mo.); Walling v. Atlantic Greyhound Corp., 61 F. Supp. 992 (E.D. 
S.C.).
    \33\ Sun Pub. Co. v. Walling, 140 F. 2d 445 (C.A. 6), certiorari 
denied 322 U.S. 728. See also Oklahoma Press Pub. Co. v. Walling, 327 
U.S. 186, and McComb v. Dessau, 9 W.H. Cases 332 (S.D. Calif.) 17 Labor 
Cases, 65, 643.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Employees whose work is an essential part of the stream of 
interstate or foreign commerce, in whatever type of business they are 
employed, are likewise engaged in commerce and within the Act's 
coverage. This would include, for example, employees of a warehouse 
whose activities are connected with the receipt or distribution of goods 
across State lines. \34\ Also, since ``commerce'' as used in the Act 
includes not only ``transmission'' of communications but 
``communication'' itself, employees whose work involves the continued 
use of the interstate mails, telegraph, telephone or similar 
instrumentalities for communication across State lines are covered by 
the Act. \35\ This does not mean that any use by an employee of the 
mails and other channels of communication is sufficient to establish 
coverage. But if the employee, as a regular and recurrent part of his 
duties, uses such instrumentalities in obtaining or communicating 
information or in sending or receiving written reports or messages, or 
orders for goods or services, or plans or other documents across State 
lines, he comes within the scope of the Act as an employee directly 
engaged in the work of ``communication'' between the State and places 
outside the State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Phillips Co. v. Walling, 324 U.S. 490; Clyde v. Broderick, 144 
F. 2d 348 (C.A. 10).
    \35\ McComb v. Weller, 9 W.H. Cases 53 (W.D. Tenn.); Yunker v. Abbye 
Employment Agency, 32 N.Y.S. 2d 715; (Munic. Ct. N.Y.C.); Phillips v. 
Meeker Coop. Light & Power Asso., 63 F. Supp. 733 (D. Minn.); Anderson 
Bros. Corp. v. Flynn, 218 S.W. 2d 653 (C.A. Ky.).

[15 FR 2925, May 17, 1950, as amended at 22 FR 5684, July 18, 1957]