## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 09

- 1181 A NTH O NY C OLL I NS, e tal ., P laint if fs -App el lants , v. H ER IT AGE W INE C ELLA RS, L TD . an d S T EV EN H I R S CH, D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 07 C1246

—Rob ert M. Dow, Jr., Judge

.
A RG UE D S EP TE MBE R 24, 2009

— D ECI DE D D ECE MBE R 21, 2009

Befo re P OSNER, M A NI ON, a nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges . P O S NER, Cir cu i tJudg e . C o l l i n s a n d h i s fe l l o w p l a i ntiffs

— tr uck dri vers em plo yed byH er i tag e W i ne Cel l ar s, a whol esal e i m po r te ra nd di st r ibut o ro fwi ne

— sued H e rit ag e a n d its ch ief e x ec u tiv e o ffice r u n d er th e F air LaborS tandards Act, 29 U
. S. C. §§ 201 et seq
. The A ct re quir es em plo yer s to pay o ver ti m e ( one- and-a- hal fti m es the ho url y wage) to em p loy ee s w ho workm or e than 40 ho ur s a wee k, 2 9 U. S

. C. § 2 07 ( a) ( 1) , whi chthe pl ain-2 N o. 09

- 1181 tiffs so m et im es d id ; yetu n til 20 07th ey w er e n otp aid ove rt i m e. The pl aint i ff s tr an spo r t wi ne fr o m a war eh o us e i n the C h ica go are a, ow n ed by H er ita ge , to re ta il s t o r es in Chi ca g o a nd e l se wher e i n I l l i no i s. To get t he wi ne t o the w ar eh ou se from th e s ta te s a n d fore ign co u n tr ies in w hich i t’s p rod uc ed ( non e of it i s p rod uc ed i n Il linois), H er i tag e hi re s t ruck com panie s a nd o thercar ri er s. They a r e i n d e p e nd e n tc o n t r a c t o r s . N e i th e rth e y n o rth e i re mplo yee s a re em plo yed byH er i tag e, unl i ke the pl ai nti ff s. Bu t Heri tage contr ol s the wine and dir ects i ts m ove m ents on the ent i re j ourne y fro m the sta te orcountry of or i gi n ofthe w i ne to the re tai lst or es i n I l l i noi s t o w hi ch th e p lain tiffs tra n sp or t t h e w in e fro m th e w ar eh ou se . The princi palque st i o n i s whethe rthe po r ti o n o fthe tran sp ortation th at is entirel y w ithin Il linois is neverth el es s i nt er state c o m m er ce wi th i n the mean i ngo fthe M oto r Carr i er A ct, 49 U
. S. C. §§ 502- 07, 52 2- 23, 52 5- 26, 31 50 2-0 4. T h e d ist ric t c ou rtru led th at it w a s . T h e s ign ificance ofth e ru l i ng i s that the Fa i r LaborS tandards Act exem pts from i ts ove rt i m e pr ovi si ons “any em plo yee w i th r espectto wh om the Se cre tar y o fTra nsport ati on ha s po wert o e st ab l i shqua l i fi ca tions a nd maxi m um hours ofse rv ice p ursuant to the pr ovi si ons ofse cti on 31 50 2 o f tit le 4 9 .” 29 U .S.C . § 21 3(b )(1) . Th e re fer en c e is to a se ct i o n o fthe M o to rCa r r i erActtha t au th o r i ze s th e S ec r et ary to e st ab l i shqua l i fi ca ti o ns a nd maxi m um ho ur s o f s e r v i c e f o re mpl o y e e s o fa mo t o rc a r r i e ri f“ pr o per ty
. . . [ i s] tr anspor ted by[ the] m oto r car ri erbet w een a p l a c e i n a St a t e a nd a p l a c e i n a no the rS t a t e , ” 4 9 U. S

. C.N o. 09

- 1181 3 §§ 1350 1( 1) ( A ) , 31 502(b) , pro vi ded thatthe em plo yee s “e ng ag e i n a ct i vi ti es o fa c ha r ac te rdi r ec tly a ffec ting the s afetyof o p erati on o fm oto r vehi cl es i n the tr ansport ati on o n the pu bl i c hi ghw ays ofpasse nger s o r pr o per tyin int er st at e o rf o r ei g n c o m m er ce wi th i n the m ean in g of the M otor C arrier A ct.” 29 C.F.R. §§ 782
. 2(a); Levins on v. Spect or M otor Se rvic e, 330 U
. S. 649, 670 -72 (1947); Walte rs v. Am er ican Coa ch Line s of M iam i, Inc. , 5 75 F. 3d 1221 , 1227-28 (11th Cir. 2009) (per cu riam ). A n em plo yer subj ect to the Se cre tar y’ s j uri sdic ti on is r equi r ed tor egister w ith the De p artm en t of T ran sp or ta ti o n. 49 C.F

. R. § 385. 301. H er i tag e, f orr eas ons unexp l ai ned

— f or i t cl ai m s t o be s ubj ect to that j u ris dict i on, as o ther w i se it c ou ld n otcla im th e e x em p ti o n fo r tr u c ke rs en ga ge d in i nter sta te com m er ce

— has no t re gist er ed. But i t points ou t tha t the ex e m p t ion d ep en d s on th e Secretary’s

“ po w erto establish qu ali fi cation s and m ax im um hou rs o fs er vi ce ” ( emphas i s adde d) and noto n whe th erthe pow erhas been exer c i sed. S ee B ily o u v . D utc hess B eer D is tr ibut ors, Inc. , 3 00 F
. 3d 21 7, 2 29 ( 2d Ci r . 2 00 2) , a nd case s ci ted the re . I fH er i tag e bo ught wine fro m a vi neyar d in Ind i ana, m ade a contr act to sel li t t o a r eta i lst or e in Chicag o, shi pp ed the w i ne byr ai l t o a fre i ght y ar d i n Chicag o, and fr om the re truck dri ver s e m plo yed byi t j ust t o tr ansp or t w in e f r om th e fre igh t y ar d to th e s to re d id so , i t woul d b e su bj ec t to th e e xe m pti o n e ve n tho ug h the d riv er s h ad n otcr os se d a st at e lin e t h em se lve s. E .g., id

. at 22 4-2 5; K litzkev. St e i ne rCorp. , 11 0 F
. 3d 1465 , 14 69- 70 (9t h C ir. 19 97 ); Foxwor t hy v. H i l and D ai ry Co. , 99 7 F
. 2d 6704 N o. 09

- 1181 (10 th C ir. 19 93 ); Galb r e at h v

. Gul f O i l Corp. , 413 F
. 2d 941 ( 5th Cir

. 19 69) ; se e a l so Wal l i ng v. Jacks onvi l l ePape rCo. , 31 7 U
. S. 56 4, 56 7- 69 ( 194 3). The enti re shi pm ent woul d be dee m ed a sing l e i nt er st at e sh i pm en t. The f ac t th ati n the cour se ofi ts j ourne y the wine had been unl oaded fro m o ne c ar r i era nd l o ade d o nto an o th erwoul d b e as i nc o nse que nti ala s th e f ac t th ate n r o ut e to the s to r e th e tr uck had st opped fo r a r ed l i ght. Bu t s up pose i nstea d that Heri tag e s hi pp ed i ts w i n e to a wh olesal e di str ibutori n a Chi cago suburb , ti tl e pass ed to the di str ibu to r w hen the w i ne ar ri ved atthe distr ibutor ’ s wareho use, and the dist ributorco ntra cted t o se ll th e w in e t o re ta il sto re s a n d d e l i ve re d it to th em in h is o w n tr ucks. The car ri age o fthe w i ne fro m the w ar ehouse to the s tor es w oul d be cl ass i fi ed as an int rastat e sh i pm en t unde rthe M o to rCa r r i erAct e ve n tho ug h the proper ty shi pp ed had or i gi nated o utsid e the st ate
. S ee M cLeod v. Th rel keld, 319 U .S. 49 1, 49 4 (1 94 3); H iggi ns v. CarrBr os . Co. , 317U .S. 5 7 2 , 5 7 3 -74 (19 43 ); A tla ntic C o a st Li neR. R. v. St anda r d Oil Co. , 275 U.S . 2 57 , 26 2- 63, 26 7- 70 (1927); M i s s our i ex r e l

. Barre t t v. Kans as Nat ural G a s Co. , 26 5 U .S. 29 8, 30 6, 30 8 (1 92 4); Chi c ag o, M i l wau ke e & St. Pau l Ry
. v . Iowa , 233 U .S. 33 4, 34 2-4 3 ( 1 9 1 4); Sc hul tz v. Nat i onal Ele ct r i c Co. , 4 14 F.2d 1225 , 1 226-28 (10th C ir. 1969). C on gr es s c ou ld st ill reg u l a t e su c ha sh ip m en t if it w an te d to. S uch i ntra sta te shi pm ents have a cum ula

tiv ely su b st an tia l effe c t o n int er st at e c om m er c e. N orth A la b ama Expre s s , In c . v . I CC, 97 1 F
. 2d 661, 66 6- 67 ( 11th Ci r . 1 9 9 2 ) ; s e e al so G o n z ales v. Ra ich , 54 5 U.S

. 1, 15

- 22 ( 2 00 5); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Blu m , 5 34 F
. 3d 60 8, 6 10

- 12 ( 7th Cir.N o. 09

- 1181 5 2 0 0 8 )
. T he y s ub s t i t ut e f o ru nint e r r up t e d inter st a t e s hi pm ent s to the de st i na ti o n o fthe int r as ta te s hi pm en ts , a nd they use the sa m e hi ghw ays an d o thertr anspor tat i on f aci l i ti es. But the l anguage o fthe M oto r Carr i er A ct

— “ t r a n s p o r t e d

. . . b e t we e n a p l a c e i n a S t a t e a nd a pla ce i n anothe r St at e”

— do es no t i ndi ca te a c o ngr ess i onal i ntenti on of re gul ating a pu re l y in trast ate s h i p me n tme r e l y b e c a u s e o fi t s e ffe c to n i n t e r s t a t e c o mm er ce. The shi pm ent its elf m ust be i n so m e s ense i nter sta te com m er ce ( tr anspor tat i on between a pla ce i n a state and a place in an oth er state). This case f al l s in bet w een o ur tw o ex am ple s but cl ose r to th e fi rs t. A bout a fourth ofthe w i ne thatH er i tag e sh ip s t o its w ar eh ou se in Illin ois h as be en ord er ed in adva nc e b y the r e t a i l s t o r e s . Th a t wi ne s t a y s i n the wareh ou se on ly b rie fly b e c a u s e H er ita ge h as an ord er in ha nd. The f ac t th atthe wi ne pa us es i n i ts Her i ta g e- co ntr ol l ed j ourne y t o the r eta i lo utl et i s o fno gr eat erco nsequence than the unl oadi ng and r el oadi ng o fthe shi pp ed g ood s in o urfi r ste xa m pl e. The o th erthr ee - f o ur th s o fthe wi ne si ts i n the wa r e ho us e u nt i lHe r i t a g e h a s f o un d a buyer

. But i t a pp ear s that m osto fthat w in e turns ove r appr o x i ma t e l y e v e r y mo n th, h a v i n gb e e n p u r c h a s e d a nd shi pp ed by H er i tag e o n the basi s o fi ts est i m ate s o fcusto m erde m an d. And no ne o fthe wi ne unde r g o es a ny alteration on its trip from the vine yard to a retai l store i n I l l i noi s. S o f aras appears , there is no pro cess i ng ( or even any d eliberat e aging of the w ine in the w areh ou se), no a dd itio n ofaddit i ves, no i ncor pora ti on into anothe r product, notev en r el abeli n g a s a pri vate
- l abel( housebra nd ) product. W hen the w i ne ar ri ves at the w ar ehouse ,6 N o. 09

- 1181 it is t ak en off th e s h rin k -w ra p p ed p alle ts on w h ich it i s de l i v e r e d a nd s he l v e d in the wa r e ho us e , p e r i o d. It s ee m s t o u s t h at w h en a sh ip p er tra n sp or ts h is p ro d u c t a c ro ss st at e lin es f or sa le b y h im to cu st om er s in th e des tina ti o n s ta te , a nd the p r o ductunde r g o es no alt e r ation d uring i ts j ou rney to the sh ipp er’s cust om er, and i nter rupti ons i n the j ourne y that o ccur i n the desti nati on sta te are no m or e than the nor m alst ops o r sta ges th at are com m on in interst a te sales, su ch as tem p orary w ar ehousi ng, the enti re j ourne y s houl d be r ega rded as ha vingt ak en p lac e i n int er st at e co m m er ce wi th i n the m ea ni ngo fthe M o to rCa r r i erAct ’ s ex empti o n fr o m the F ai rLabo rS ta nda r ds Act. W e’ l ld efend thi s co nc l us i o n, but w e fi r stno te tha t al th o ug h i t i s co ns i st en t wi ththe re sul ts i n m ostcas es, se e M e r ch ants Fas tM ot orLi ne s , Inc . v. I CC, 5 F .3 d 91 1, 91 6-1 9 (5 th C ir. 19 93 ); Cen t r al Fre ight L ine s v. I CC, 899 F.2d 41 3, 42 0-2 3 (5 th C ir. 19 90 ); R ober ts v. Le vi ne, 92 1 F
. 2d 804, 81 0- 14 ( 8th Ci r. 19 90); Wa llin g v. A m eri ca n S t ore s Co. , 133 F.2d 840 , 845-46 (3d Cir. 1943); but se e Bair d v

. Wagon e rTr ans por t at i on Co. , 4 25 F. 2d 407, 410- 12 ( 6th Ci r. 19 70) , m any c ourt s, influenced by a r egul at i o n pr o m ul g at ed bythe De par tmen t o f Lab o ra nd pol i cy sta te m en ts and decis i ons ofthe Dep ar tm ent o f Tr an spo r ta ti o n ( an d i ts pr ede cess or a s en f o r ce ro fthe Mo t o rC a r r i e rA c t, th e n o w- d e fu n c tInt e r s t a t e C o mm erce Co m m i ss i o n) , woul d r ea chthe r es ul t bya m ore com pli cate d anal ysi s than w e. The re gul ati on, wh i ch codifi es a rul i ng tha t the Inter sta te Com m er ce Com m i ssi on had m ade i n 1957, s tat es that i ntra sta te tr anspor tat i on fr om a sto ra ge ter m i nali s no tN o. 09

- 1181 7 i nt er st at e co m m er ce “ i f th e sh i pperha s no fi xe d a nd persi sting tr anspor tat i on intent beyo nd the ter m in al st o r a g e p o i n ta tth e t i me o fs h i p me n t, ” 2 9 C

. F
. R. § 782.7(b)( 2) ( 1971 ), and that the r e i s n o “fi xe d and persi st i ngi nt en t” i f“ ( i ) a t th e ti m e o fs hi pm en t th er e i s no sp ecifi c o r d e r b eing fi ll ed f or a spec ific qu an tity ofa gi ven pro du ct t o be m ove d t hro ugh to a speci fi c dest i nat i o n b e y o nd the t e r mi na ls t o r a g e , a nd ( i i ) the t e r minal st o r ag e i s a di st r ibut i o n po i nto rl o ca lmar k et i ng f aci l i ty fro m wh i ch speci fi c am ounts ofthe product ar e so l d o ra l l o ca te d, a nd ( i i i ) t r an spo r ta ti o n in the further ance of thi s dist ributi on w i thi n the si ngl e St ate is speci fi cal l y a rra nged onl y a ftersa l e o r al l oca ti on fro m st or ag e.” T h e a p p l ica b ility of cla u se s (i) an d (iii) to th is case i s uncl ear . S om e intra sta te shi pm ents w er e arra nged aftera sale w as m ade, wh i l e o ther s o ccurr ed pursuant t o or ders re c eived by Heri tag e be f or e the wine had been sh ip p ed from its p lac e o f orig infar fro m Illin ois . B u t it woul d be o dd t o c o nc l ude tha t H er i ta g e ha d “ no fi xe d a nd persi sting tr anspor tat i on inten t beyo nd the ter m i nal sto ra ge poi nt atthe ti m e o fshi pm ent” even w i th r espect to th o se wi ne s f o rwhi chi t ha d no o r deri n h an d. I t i nte n d ed t h a t t h ey w ou ld rem ain in it s w ar eh ou se on ly as l ong as i t t oo k t o fi nd a custom er, and i t co m press ed the t i m e t o fi nd o ne bybas i ng del i ver i es to the w ar ehouse on proj ecti ons ofdem and cal culate d fr om custom er s’ purchase hi sto ri es. The I nter sta te Com m er ce Com m i ssi on had offer ed an alt ernati ve el abor ati on o f“fi xed and p er si sting i ntent” ina 19 92 p olic y s ta te m en t, I C C P olic y St at em en t, M ot or Carr i e rInt e rs t at eTr ans por t at i on

— From O ut

- of

- St at eThr ough8 N o. 09

- 1181 Ware ho u s e s t o Poi n t s i n S am e State, 57Fe d. Reg. 19 812 ( M ay 8, 1992 )
. The sta tem ent l i sts seve n cri ter ia t h at the Com m i ssi on th ought f avo re d charac ter i zi ng an i ntra
st a t e j o urne y a s pa r t o f i nt e r s t a t e c o mm e r c e a nd t en m or e cr i ter i a that i t be l i eve d did not detra ct fro m that chara cter i zati on. S o f orexam ple the f act that the warehou se w a s ow ne d by the ship p er w as said to sup p ort chara cter i zi ng the i ntra sta te j ourne y a s par t o fi nter sta te com m er ce b ut the f act th at the w ar ehouse was not own ed by the s hi pp erw as sai d not t o detra ct fro m that chara cter i zati on. A re tho se tw o cri teria oro ne? W e don’ t know ; and w e can ’t see the re l evance o f w hetherth e w ar ehouse i s o w ned, l eas ed, shar ed, o r f or th at m atter stolen, gi ven that the object of th e s t a t ut ory ex e mpt i o n i s t o s hi ft r e g ul a t i o n o f t r uc k e r s ’ ho ur s f ro m the Labo r De p artm ent t o the Depart m ent o fTra nsport ati on i fthe tr ucker s par ticipate i n i nter sta te tr ansport atio n, and w hat has thatto do with w here ti tl e t o th e w ar eh ou se res id es ? A n d n o w eig h tin g of t h e c rit er ia i s s ug g e s t e d. A t l ea st f our ofthe cri ter i a l i ste d, how eve r, m ake sense , and th ey ar e s uffi ci ent t o enabl e us to dispos e o f th i s ca se wi th ou t ge tt i ngde epe ri nt o the r egul at i o n a nd th e po li cy stat em en t. T he f ou r a r e th at (1) th e ship p er, al though i t doesn’ t have to have l i ned up its u l ti m ate custo m er s when the pro du c t ar ri ves at the wareho use, “bas es i ts deter m i nati on o fthe total vol um e t o be shi pp ed thr ough the warehouse o n proj ecti ons of cus to m erde m an d thatha ve s o m e f ac tu alb as i s” ; ( 2) “ no proce ssing o r substa nti alpro du ct m odificati on o fsubsta nce o ccurs atthe w ar ehouse ”; ( 3) “whil e in the w ar e-N o. 09

- 1181 9 ho us e , the me r c ha nd i s e i s s ubj e c tt o the s hi pp e r ’ s c ontr ol an d di r ec ti o n as to th e su bs eque nt tr an spo r ta ti on” ; and ( 4) “the shi pp ero r c on sig nee m ust be arthe ult i m ate paym ent f or tr anspor tat i on charg es eve n i f the w arehouse or dist ributi on cente r dir ectly pays the tra nsport ation ch a r g e s to the carrier” (this goes to the sh ipp er’s re sp on sib ility for th e o rig in al i n te rs ta te j ou rn ey ). I f th es e co ndi ti o ns a r e sa ti sfi ed, the i nt r as ta te l ega t th e en d of th e ship m en t shou ld be d eem ed pa rt of an i nt ersta te shi pm ent. A nti quari ans wil lnot e a t l eas t a f ai nt r ese m bl ance between oursugg est ed approach and t h e “o ri gi nalpackage” doc trine of Low v. Austin , 80 U
. S. ( 13 W all

. ) 29 (1872), ove rr ule d by M ich elin Tire C o rp. v. Wages , 42 3 U.S

. 27 6 ( 1976 )
. A rt i cl e I, § 1 0, c l. 2 o fthe Consti tuti on f orbi ds a state to tax im p o r t s or ex p orts, an d the Su p rem e C ou rt h a d h e l d i n Low that unti lan i m port ed go od w as re m ove d fro m the packag e i n w hi ch i t had b een sh ipp ed to the U ni ted S tat es i t co uld notbe taxed. Rem ova l fr o m the o r i g i na lpa ck ag e, whi chthe C our t th o ug ht ended the i m port ati on phase ofthe goo d’s j ourne y fro m f or ei gn o ri gi n to u lti m ate U
. S. destinati on, would cor re spond i n the prese nt ca se to proce ssing wine at H er i ta g e’ s war eh o us e. Bo the ve nt s ar e inter r upt i o ns us ab l e t o d e ma r c a t e f o r e i g n ( o r i n th i s c a s e f o r e i g n a nd i nter sta te) co m m er ce fro m dom est i c ( i n thi s ca se i ntra
st at e) c o m m er ce . The pa r ti cul arde m arcat i o n in Low was r ej ec te d i n M iche li n , wh i ch hel d that a st ate ad va l or em pr o pe r t y t ax (a ta x b a s e d o n the a s s e s s e d v a l ue o fp r o per ty) th at did notdi scr i m i nate aga i nst i m port ed g o o ds

— th e ta x appl i ed to g o o ds i nv en to r i ed i n the10 N o. 09

- 1181 sta te re gar dle ss ofthei r or igin

— d i d not o ffend against the pol i cy ofthe i m port
- exportcl ause. The Cou rt h ad earl i err ej ecte d the use o fthe “or i gi nal p ac ka ge ” d oc tr in e t o d ec id e w h et h er sh ip m en ts are in in te rs ta te co m m er c e, So nn ebo rn B ros. v. C u r e t o n, 262 U
. S. 506 ( 19 23 ) , b ec au se , a s i n M iche li n , the chal l enged s tat e tax di d not di scr i m i nate aga i nst g oo ds fro m o ut o fst ate
. Bu t in ourcas e, as i n other case s in w h ich t h e qu est i on i s no t whether a t ra nsacti on bur dens oro th er w ise affec ts i nt er st at e co m m er ce but whethe r i t is “in” i nt er st at e co m m er ce , the r e i s no a lternati ve t o de ci di ng at w hat poin t a go od shoul d no l onge r be s ai d to have b ee n tra n sp or t e d fr om a p oin t in on e s ta te to a p oin t in anothe r. A poi nt m ust be chos en atwh i ch the goo d m ay be s ai d to “co m e t o re st”

— to h av e c ea se d t o b e “ inp ra c ticalco nti nuity with a l ar gerint ersta te j ourne y, ” Pac kar d v

. P ittsburgh Tran s por t at i on Co. , 4 18 F
. 3d 24 6, 2 58 ( 3d Ci r. 2005 )

— to ha ve left the “ st r ea m o fi nt er st at e [ o rf o r ei g n] com m er ce, ” U nited Sta tes v. Yel l o w C a b C o ., 33 2 U.S

. 21 8, 228- 29 ( 1947 ) , o ver rul ed on o thergr ounds by Co pperweld Corp
. v. Indepe nde nc eTub eCo rp., 467 U.S

. 75 2 ( 1984 ) ; se e al so We s t e r n Oi l R e

f i n i n gC o . v . L ips c omb , 24 4 U.S

. 34 6, 34 9 ( 1917 )

— s o tha ti t s fur the rj o urne y i s o ut s i de the s c o pe o fth e Mo t o rC a r r i e rAc t
. T h e p o i n tmu s tb e c h o s en, h o w e v er ine sc ap ab ly a rb itr ar y t h e p ro c es s o f ch oic e, in or d er to d ec id e t h e c a s e, be c au se be for e t h at p oin t is re ached the j ourne y i s s ubj ect to the M ot orCarr i erA ct and afteri t i s no t. A tte m pti ng to bas e deci si on o n sevente en unw ei ghted te chni ca lc r i te r i a to b e a p p l i ed byg en er al i stj udg es whoN o. 09

- 1181 11

ar e n otto ld w h at th e re lev an c e o f an y of t h e c rit er ia is but have to fi gure i t o ut f orthem sel ves i s unl ike l y t o i m prove the p ro sp ects f oro bj ecti vel y deci ding w hether a par ti cul ari ntra sta te shi pm en t sh ou l d be deem ed to be “in co m m er ce. ” The m ult i cri ter i a a pp ro ach i s l i kel y t o co nd em n th e j udg es t o wande rf o r l o r nl y i n the u n t r a c k e d w i l d e r n e s s n a me d “ th e t o t a l i t y o fth e c i r c u mst an ce s, ” a phr as e f o und in manyo fthe c as es i nv o l vi ng th e M otor C arrier A ct’s ex em p tion for intersta te tran sp ort a t i o n. T he p r e s e ntc a s e c a n b e de ci ded b y u s i nga n a pproa ch thati s s i m ple r to apply than the m ult i cri ter i a t est y etmai nt ains c o ns i st en cywi thmos t o f th e ca se s an d offi ci al te x ts. Othercas es m ay re quir e a m or e co m ple x approach, and i fso , fi ne; thi s ca se does not. W e end w ith th e plaintiff s’ back-u p argum en t for reversal

. Between 2 00 5 and 20 08 the M oto r Carr i erA ct l i m i ted the defini ti on of “m oto r car ri er s” to car ri er s that p rovide trans p ortation by (so far a s b ears on this case) a tr ucktha twe i g hs a tl e a s t1 0 , 0 0 1 p o un ds

. 4 9 U. S

. C. § 3 1132 ( 1) ( A )
. Som e o fthe pla i nti ff s o ccasi onal l y dro ve li gh ter truc ks, an d they argue that w he n th ey w ere doi ng tha t they we re co ver ed by the F ai r Labor St andards A ct. But to di vi de j uri sdic ti on in thi s way w ou ld be co n tr a ry to th e Su p re m e C ou rt ’s s en sib le dec i si o n in Mo r r i s v . Mc C o mb , 332 U
. S. 422 (1947), w hi ch hel d t h at the em plo yero fa dri verwh o m ay som et i me s b e r e q u i r e d t o d e l i v e rg o o d s i n i nt e r s t a t e c o mm er ce i s s ubj ect to the M oto r Carr i erA ct e ven if m osto f h is d ri v i n g i s in tr as ta te . C f. Le vi ns on v. Sp e ct orM ot or Service, sup ra ; 29 C. F. R. § 782. 2( b) ( 3)
. Div i ding j uri sd ict ion ov er th e s am e d riv er s, w ith th e r es u lt th at th eir12 N o. 09

- 1181

em plo yerwould be re gul ated un der the M oto r Carr i er A c t w hen theywere dri vi ng the bi g t rucks and und er th e F ai rLabo rS ta nda r ds Act when th eywer e dr i ving tru cks th at m ight w eigh only a p ou nd less, w ou ld req uire burdensom e re cor d-ke epi ng, cr eat e co nfusi on, and gi ve ri se to m i sta kes and dis putes. A FFI RMED .

12- 21- 09