for example of rock cardboard is turned into finished boxes and that's not continuous for purposes of interstate transport but if you've got finished boxes why would you unload them and then reload them on to a different trailer commercial motor vehicles in interstate commerce and the nd way is it whether they were subject to transporting a product that moves in and their state congress or the district court appropriately found on the nd prong that these individuals were subject to transporting product in interstate commerce based on the fact the contract transport service is an interstate motor carrier with authority issued by the federal motor carrier safety administration fact that there are over five thousand movements that were demonstrated at the green bay packaging facilities where these individuals were that moved from within wisconsin to either outside wisconsin or from another state into wisconsin and also the fact that there were these individuals were commercial motor vehicle drivers the plaintiffs has been focusing on this terminology distinction between of a spotter and a driver in this is an illegal issue that's got a legal definition to look to in the federal regulations at forty nine c f r three hundred and ninety dollars and the definition of driver in that section states that it's an individual who is operating a commercial motor vehicle these trailers were emptied into warehouses before being moved again the only evidence that the plaintiffs a profit on that point is the declaration that council had mentioned in the deposition that was taken of both  dropped a few miles away at a different location and then moved within twenty four hours to the end destination out of state is not a reason what for is that these trailers fifty three dollars foot graders are being unloaded warehouse to be loaded back up again with product that's moved outside of the state and regardless the fact is that these plaintiffs were subject to transporting the product in interstate commerce and well that's right so that's that's not going anywhere so the the through the we're relying on here is that these individuals would transport product on public streets as a page eighty nine provide the graphics for our brief to show what the public streets are moving loaded facilities there's only one way to get the product that was moving out of state from the manufacturing facility for the st leg to the warehouse where it was picked up and then brought out of state if these drivers who are performing spotter of interpretation and i did want that the secretary of transportation put out describing its jurisdiction started that statements from the carrier about the interstate nature of its operation would be sufficient to and also demonstrating that there's contract transport services did the entire movement on so this idea that you need to show a product of the intent of the shipper there's no need for attention we're the ones who move the entire product we know for certain that that product was taken out of transportation has jurisdiction over here is because they want the incentive to be different and for safety they don't necessarily want stragglers working overtime because of the risks that those kinds of long overtime hours pose when drivers are out on the road but the play t with the trucking industry if in fact the individuals that were ninety hours in the department of transportation had audited with the records there were any number of remedies that the department of transportation could have people to work longer hours is a greater humanitarian need or are certainly up there with what overtime might be as well and it's the given that it's the character of the activities not the amount of time spent performing them that's the important aspect of the motor carry out exemption the reality is that nurses and levinson decision or ten minutes of driving from an unqualified driver could be just as harmful as thirty days of driving by a qualified driver you want to insure in congress intended for this to have to happen and that these drivers are qualified and have an agency overlooking the hours that they're working and that's why it's unloaded before they were transported in interstate commerce i don't believe that there is conclusive evidence or statements from erin cunningham in his declaration that the trailers would be loaded and then tak n from either the warehouses or at the drop lot to locations either within wisconsin or outside of wisconsin the fact that there's the one statement from the plaintiff in his you think the standard to be with respect to continuous movement to these local lakes which you want to treat as continuous move which of the standard be so in this case we don't need to look at the fixed and persistent intent of the shipper at all because the evidence that we've provided is of a motor carrier who can demonstrate they transport of the product from start to finish from one state to another where you run into the fixed and persistent intent issue final locations so from from your perspective product remains unchanged same carrier all the way through those are the critical factors