Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 337, 338 (9th Cir.1986) (“If the district court finds that more than 20 percent of the plaintiffs’ work was not rendered to aid the operation of the vessel as a means of transportation, then plaintiffs were not ‘seamen’ and are entitled to overtime compensation under the FLSA.”). And, perhaps most importantly, Alabama Pilot’s argument glosses over the fact that the DOL announced its 20% rule in the context of the seaman exemption back in 1948. Congress has had 59 years to correct any misreading of its intent by the DOL’s implementing regulations. As defendant itself recognizes, Congress has taken full advantage of that opportunity to revise the FLSA in other respects, but has left this aspect of the seaman exemption untouched and undespoiled. See Petroleum Treaters, 876 F.2d at 522 (<HOLDING>). This omission is presumed to be the product 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that in 1961 congress revised the seaman exemption in certain respects but did not change dols interpretive definition as to who qualifies as seamen (B) holding that rule 6e qualifies as a statute for purposes of exemption 3 (C) holding act qualifies as exemption statute under exemption 3 (D) holding that  6103 qualifies as an exemption statute (E) holding that the statute qualifies as an exemption 3 statute
Output (English): holding that rule 6e qualifies as a statute for purposes of exemption 3