C.F.R. » Title 29 » CHAPTER V—WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR › SUBCHAPTER B—STATEMENTS OF GENERAL POLICY OR INTERPRETATION NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO REGULATIONS › PART 782—EXEMPTION FROM MAXIMUM HOURS PROVISIONS FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYEES OF MOTOR CARRIERS

29 C.F.R. § 782.3

Drivers

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) A “driver,” as defined for Motor Carrier Act jurisdiction (49 CFR parts 390-395; Ex parte No. MC-2, 3 M.C.C. 665; Ex parte No. MC-3, 23 M.C.C.1; Ex parte No. MC-4, 1 M.C.C. 1), is an individual who drives a motor vehicle in transporation which is, within the meaning of the Motor Carrier Act, in interstate or foreign commerce. (As to what is considered transportation in interstate or foreign commerce within the meaning of the Motor Carrier Act, see § 782.7). This definition does not require that the individual be engaged in such work at all times; it is recognized that even full-duty drivers devote some of their working time to activities other than such driving. “Drivers,” as thus officially defined, include, for example, such partial-duty drivers as the following, who drive in interstate or foreign commerce as part of a job in which they are required also to engage in other types of driving or nondriving work: Individuals whose driving duties are concerned with transportation some of which is in intrastate commerce and some of which is in interstate or foreign commerce within the meaning of the Motor Carrier Act; individuals who ride on motor vehicles engaged in transportation in interstate or foreign commerce and act as assistant or relief drivers of the vehicles in addition to helping with loading, unloading, and similar work; drivers of chartered buses or of farm trucks who have many duties unrelated to driving or safety of operation of their vehicles in interstate transportation on the highways; and so-called “driver-salesmen” who devote much of their time to selling goods rather than to activities affecting such safety of operation. (Levinson v. Spector Motor Service, 300 U.S. 649; Morris v. McComb, 332 U.S. 422; Richardson v. James Gibbons Co., 132 F. (2d) 627 (C.A. 4), affirmed 319 U.S. 44; Gavril v. Kraft Cheese Co., 42 F. Supp. 702 (N.D. Ill.); Walling v. Craig, 53 F. Supp. 479 (D. Minn.); Vannoy v. Swift & Co. (Mo. S. Ct.), 201 S.W. (2d) 350; Ex parte No. MC-2, 3 M.C.C. 665; Ex parte No. MC-3, 23 M.C.C. 1; Ex parte Nos. MC-2 and MC-3, 28 M.C.C. 125; Ex parte No. MC-4, 1 M.C.C. 1. Cf. Colbeck v. Dairyland Creamery Co. (S.D. Supp. Ct.), 17 N.W. (2d) 262, in which the court held that the exemption did not apply to a refrigeration mechanic by reason solely of the fact that he crossed State lines in a truck in which he transported himself to and from the various places at which he serviced equipment belonging to his employer.)

(b) The work of an employee who is a full-duty or partial-duty “driver,” as the term “driver” is above defined, directly affects “safety of operation” within the meaning of section 204 of the Motor Carrier Act whenever he drives a motor vehicle in interstate or foreign commerce within the meaning of that act. (Levinson v. Spector Motor Service, 330 U.S. 649, citing Richardson v. James Gibbons Co., 132 F. (2d) 627 (C.A. 4), affirmed 319 U.S. 44; Morris v. McComb, 332 U.S. 422; Ex parte No. MC-28, 13 M.C.C. 481, 482, 488; Ex parte Nos. MC-2 and MC-3, 28 M.C.C. 125, 139 (Conclusion of Law No. 2). See also Ex parte No. MC-2, 3 M.C.C. 665; Ex parte No. MC-3, 23 M.C.C. 1; Ex parte No. MC-4, 1 M.C.C. 1.) The Secretary has power to establish, and has established, qualifications and maximum hours of service for such drivers employed by common and contract carriers or passengers or property and by private carriers of property pursuant to section 204, of the Motor Carrier Act. (See Ex parte No. MC-4, 1 M.C.C. 1; Ex parte No. MC-2, 3 M.C.C. 665; Ex parte No. MC-3, 23 M.C.C. 1; Ex parte No. MC-28, 13 M.C.C. 481; Levinson v. Spector Motor Service, 330 U.S. 649; Southland Gasoline Co. v. Bayley, 319 U.S. 44; Morris v. McComb, 332 U.S. 422; Safety Regulations (Carriers by Motor Vehicle), 49 CFR parts 390, 391, 395) In accordance with principles previously stated (see § 782.2), such drivers to whom this regulatory power extends are, accordingly, employees exempted from the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act by section 13(b)(1). (Southland Gasoline Co. v. Bayley, 319 U.S. 44; Levinson v. Spector Motor Service, 330 U.S. 649; Morris v. McComb, 332 U.S. 422; Rogers Cartage Co. v. Reynolds, 166 F. (2d) 317 (C.A. 6). This does not mean that an employee of a carrier who drives a motor vehicle is exempted as a “driver” by virtue of that fact alone. He is not exempt if his job never involves transportation in interstate or foreign commerce within the meaning of the Motor Carrier Act (see §§ 782.2 (d) and (e), 782.7, and 782.8, or if he is employed by a private carrier and the only such transportation called for by his job is not transportation of property. (See § 782.2. See also Ex parte No. MC-28, 13 M.C.C. 481, Cf. Colbeck v. Dairyland Creamery Co. (S. Ct. S.D.), 17 N.W. (2d) 262 (driver of truck used only to transport himself to jobsites, as an incident of his work in servicing his employer's refrigeration equipment, held non exempt).) It has been held that so-called “hostlers” who “spot” trucks and trailers at a terminal dock for loading and unloading are not exempt as drivers merely because as an incident of such duties they drive the trucks and tractors in and about the premises of the trucking terminal. (Keegan v. Ruppert (S.D. N.Y.), 7 Labor Cases, par. 61,726 6 Wage Hour Rept. 676, cf. Walling v. Silver Fleet Motor Express, 67 F. Supp. 846)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1988–2026 · leading case: Roberts v. Cowan Distrib. Servs., LLC, 58 F. Supp. 3d 593 (E.D. Va. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Roberts v. Cowan Distrib. Servs., LLC, 58 F. Supp. 3d 593 (E.D. Va. 2014). · cites it 10× “” 29 C.F.R. § 782.3 (a). Interstate commerce under the Motor Carrier Act includes transporting goods from one state to another.”
Songer v. Dillon Resources, Inc., 618 F.3d 467 (5th Cir. 2010). · cites it 2× “” 29 C.F.R. § 782.3 (b). Plaintiffs’ argument, however, ignores the general MCA exemption requirements of section 782.”
Allen v. Coil Tubing Servs., L.L.C., 846 F. Supp. 2d 678 (S.D. Tex. 2012). · cites it 2× “” 29 C.F.R. § 782.3 (a). “This definition does not require that the individual be engaged in such work at all times; it is recognized that even full-duty drivers devote some of their working time to activities other than such driving.”
Vidinliev v. Carey Int'l, Inc., 581 F. Supp. 2d 1281 (N.D. Ga. 2008). “See 29 C.F.R. § 782.3 (b); Garcia v. Fleetwood Limousine, Inc.”
Garcia v. W. Waste Servs., Inc., 969 F. Supp. 2d 1252 (D. Idaho 2013). “The MCA requires an employee to actually transport property interstate or provide services to customers after crossing state lines in order to qualify as a driver for purposes of the exemption.”
Walters v. Am. Coach Lines of Miami, Inc., 569 F. Supp. 2d 1270 (S.D. Fla. 2008). “” 29 C.F.R. § 782.3 (b). 13 . Plaintiffs urge the Court to follow the concurring opinion in Packard v.”
Sleeper v. URS Midwest, Inc., 347 F. Supp. 3d 408 (D. Alaska 2018). · cites it 2× “Sleeper was exempt from the FLSA overtime wage provision under the MCA exemption pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 782.3 because he drove a motor vehicle in interstate or foreign commerce.”
Peraro Ex Rel. Castro v. Chemlawn Servs. Corp., 692 F. Supp. 109 (D. Conn. 1988). “See 29 C.F.R. Section 782.3(b). In assessing whether a specialist’s interstate driving constitutes a substantial part of his or her *114 employment activities, emphasis is not placed on what percentage of an employee’s time or activities is devoted to safety of operation work:…”
Smith v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 890 F. Supp. 523 (S.D.W. Va 1995). “§ 782 defines four types of motor carrier employment activity exempted from the FLSA’s overtime protection: (1) “Drivers” ( 29 C.F.R. § 782.3 ); (2) “Drivers’ helpers” ( 29 C.”
Alvarado v. I.G.W.T. Delivery Sys., Inc., 410 F. Supp. 2d 1272 (S.D. Fla. 2006). “” Furthermore, “[t]he work of an employee who is a full-duty or partial duty ‘driver,’ as the term ‘driver’ is above defined, directly affects ‘safety of operation’ within the meaning of section 204 of the Motor Carrier Act whenever he drives a motor vehicle in interstate or…”
Richard Alexander v. Tutle & Tutle Trucking, 834 F.3d 866 (8th Cir. 2016). “The drivers contend that because they were designated to drive Schlumberger trucks in Arkansas and drove primarily within that State, they were not called upon in the ordinary course of their duties to make interstate trips.”
Billingslea v. S. Freight, Inc., 699 F. Supp. 2d 1369 (N.D. Ga. 2010). “” 29 C.F.R. § 782.3 (a). The regulations give numerous examples of what specific individuals this definition encompasses, including “[^Individuals whose driving duties are concerned with transportation some of which is in intrastate commerce and some of which is in inter *1377…”
Show all 24 citing cases →
— 29 C.F.R. § 782.3(b) — 3 cases
Peraro Ex Rel. Castro v. Chemlawn Servs. Corp., 692 F. Supp. 109 (D. Conn. 1988). “See 29 C.F.R. Section 782.3(b). In assessing whether a specialist’s interstate driving constitutes a substantial part of his or her *114 employment activities, emphasis is not placed on what percentage of an employee’s time or activities is devoted to safety of operation work:…”
Tomlin v. JCS Enter., Inc., 13 F. Supp. 3d 1330 (N.D. Ga. 2014).
Mazzarella v. Fast Rig Support, LLC, 115 F. Supp. 3d 500 (M.D. Penn. 2015).
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.