[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 29, Volume 3]
[Revised as of July 1, 2005]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 29CFR776.11]

[Page 325-327]
 
                             TITLE 29--LABOR
 
         CHAPTER V--WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
 
PART 776_INTERPRETATIVE BULLETIN ON THE GENERAL COVERAGE OF THE WAGE 
 
                            Subpart A_General
 
Sec. 776.11  Employees doing work related to instrumentalities of commerce.

    (a) Another large category of employees covered as ``engaged in 
commerce'' is comprised of employees performing the work involved in the 
maintenance, repair, or improvement of existing instrumentalities of 
commerce. (See the cases cited in footnote 28 to Sec. 776.9. See also 
the discussion of coverage of employees engaged in building and 
construction work, in subpart B of this part.) Typical illustrations of 
instrumentalities of commerce include railroads, highways, city streets, 
pipe lines, telephone lines, electrical transmission lines, rivers, 
streams, or other waterways over which interstate or foreign commerce 
more or less regularly moves; airports; railroad, bus, truck, or 
steamship terminals; telephone exchanges, radio and television stations, 
post offices and express offices; bridges and ferries carrying traffic 
moving in interstate or foreign commerce (even though within a single 
State); bays, harbors, piers, wharves and docks used for shipping 
between a State and points outside; dams, dikes, revetments and levees 
which directly facilitate the uninterrupted movement of commerce by 
enhancing or improving the usefulness of waterways, railways, and 
highways through control of water depth, channels or flow in streams or 
through control of flood waters; warehouses or distribution depots 
devoted to the receipt and shipment of goods in interstate or foreign 
commerce; ships, vehicles, and aircraft regularly used in transportation 
of persons or goods in commerce; and similar fixed or movable facilities 
on which the flow of interstate and foreign commerce depends.
    (b) It is well settled that the work of employees involved in the 
maintenance, repair, or improvement of such existing instrumentalities 
of commerce is so closely related to interstate or foreign commerce as 
to be in practice and in legal contemplation a part of it. Included 
among the employees who are thus ``engaged in commerce'' within the 
meaning of the Act are employees of railroads, telephone companies, and 
similar instrumentalities who are engaged in maintenance-of-way work; 
\36\ employees (including office workers, guards, watchmen, etc.) 
engaged in

[[Page 326]]

work on contracts or projects for the maintenance, repair, 
reconstruction or other improvement of such instrumentalities of 
commerce as the transportation facilities of interstate railroads, 
highways, waterways, or other interstate transportation facilities, or 
interstate telegraph, telephone, or electrical transmission facilities 
(see subpart B of this part); and employees engaged in the maintenance 
or alteration and repair of ships \37\ or trucks \38\ used as 
instrumentalities of interstate or foreign commerce. Also, employees 
have been held covered as engaged in commerce where they perform such 
work as watching or guarding ships or vehicles which are regularly used 
in commerce \39\ or maintaining, watching, or guarding warehouses, 
railroad or equipment yards, etc., where goods moving in interstate 
commerce are temporarily held, \40\ or acting as porters, janitors, or 
in other maintenance capacities in bus stations, railroad stations, 
airports, or other transportation terminals. \41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Davis v. Rockton & Rion R.R., 65 F. Supp. 67 affirmed in 159 F. 
2d 291 (C.A. 4); North Shore Corp. v. Barnett, 143 F. 2d 172 (C.A. 5); 
Palmer v. Howard, 12 Lab. Cas. (CCH) par. 63, 756 (W.D. Tenn.); Williams 
v. Atlantic Coast Lines R.R. Co., 1 W.M. Cases 289 (E.D. N.C. 1940), 2 
Labor Cases (CCH) par. 18, 564.
    \37\ Slover v. Wathen, 140 F. 2d 258 (C.A. 4); Walling v. Keansburg 
Steamboat Co., 162 F. 2d 405 (C.A. 3).
    \38\ Boutell v. Walling, 327 U.S. 463; Morris v. McComb, 332 U.S. 
422; Skidmore v. John J. Casale, Inc., 160 F. 2d 527 (C.A. 2), 
certiorari denied 331 U.S. 812; Hertz Drivurself Stations v. United 
States, 150 F. 2d 923 (C.A. 8); Walling v. Sturm & Sons, Inc., 6 W.H. 
Cases 131 (D.N.J.) 10 Labor Cases (CCH) par. 62, 980.
    As to exemptions from the overtime requirements for mechanics 
employed by motor carriers, see part 782 of this chapter. For exemptions 
applicable to retail or service establishments, see part 779 of this 
chapter.
    \39\ Slover v. Wathen, 140 F. 2d 258 (C.A. 4); Agosto v. Rocafort, 5 
W.H. Cases 176 (D.P.R.), 9 Labor Cases (CCH) par. 62, 610; Cannon v. 
Miller, 155 F. 2d 500 (S. Ct. Wash.).
    \40\ Engebretson v. E. J. Albrecht Co., 150 F. 2d 602 (C.A. 7); Mid-
Continent Petroleum Corp. v. Keen, 157 F. 2d 310 (C.A. 8); Walling v. 
Mutual Wholesale Food & Supply Co., 141 F. 2d 331 (C.A. 8); Walling v. 
Sondock, 132 F. 2d 77 (C.A. 5); certiorari denied 318 U.S. 772; Reliance 
Storage & Insp. Co. v. Hubbard, 50 F. Supp. 1012 (W.D. Va.); Walling v. 
Fox-Pelletier Detective Agency, 4 W.H. Cases 452 (W.D. Tenn. 1944); 8 
Labor Cases (CCH) par. 62, 219; McComb v. Russell Co., 9 W.H. Cases 258 
(D. Miss. 1949), 17 Labor Cases (CCH) par. 65, 519.
    \41\ Mornford v. Andrews, 151 F. 2d 511 (C.A. 5); Hargis v. Wabash 
R. Co. 163 F. 2d 607 (C.A. 7); Walling v. Atlantic Greyhound Corp., 61 
F. Supp. 992 (E.D. S.C.); Rouch v. Continental Oil Co., 55 F. Supp. 315 
(D. Kans.); see also Williams v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 315 U.S. 
386.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (c) On the other hand, work which is less immediately related to the 
functioning of instrumentalities of commerce than is the case in the 
foregoing examples may be too remote from interstate or foreign commerce 
to establish coverage on the ground that the employee performing it is 
``engaged in commerce.'' This has been held true, for example, of a cook 
preparing meals for workmen who are repairing tracks over which 
interstate trains operate, \42\ and of a porter caring for washrooms and 
lockers in a garage which is not an instrumentality of commerce, where 
trucks used both in intrastate and interstate commerce are serviced. 
\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ McLeod v. Threlkeld, 319 U.S. 491.
    \43\ Skidmore v. John J. Casale, Inc., 160 F. 2d 527, certiorari 
denied 331 U.S. 812 (use in interstate commerce of trucks serviced was 
from 10 to 25 percent of total use).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (d) There are other situations in which employees are engaged ``in 
commerce'' and therefore within the coverage of the Act because they 
contribute directly to the movement of commerce by providing goods or 
facilities to be used or consumed by instrumentalities of commerce in 
the direct furtherance of their activities of transportation, 
communication, transmission, or other movement in interstate or foreign 
commerce. Thus, for example, employees are considered engaged ``in 
commerce'' where they provide to railroads, radio stations, airports, 
telephone exchanges, or other similar instrumentalities of commerce such 
things as electric energy, \44\ steam, fuel, or water, which are 
required for the movement of the commerce carried by such 
instrumentalities. \45\ Such work is ``so related to the actual movement 
of commerce as to be considered an essential and indispensable part 
thereof,

[[Page 327]]

and without which it would be impeded or impaired.'' \46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ New Mexico Public Service Co. v. Engel, 145 F. 2d 636 (C.A. 
10); Walling v. Connecticut Co., 154 F. 2d 552 (C.A. 2).
    \45\ Such employees would also be covered as engaged in the 
production of goods for commerce. See Lewis v. Florida Power & Light 
Co., 154 F. 2d 751 (C.A. 5); Walling v. Connecticut Co., 154 F. 2d 552 
(C.A. 2); also Sec. 776.21(b).
    \46\ New Mexico Public Service Co. v. Engel, 145 F. 2d 636, 640 
(C.A. 10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------