29 C.F.R. § 780.118 : Labor — REGULATIONS RELATING TO LABOR — WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR — STATEMENTS OF GENERAL POLICY OR INTERPRETATION NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO REGULATIONS — EXEMPTIONS APPLICABLE TO AGRICULTURE, PROCESSING OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES, AND RELATED SUBJECTS UNDER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT — GENERAL SCOPE OF AGRICULTURE —"PRODUCTION, CULTIVATION, GROWING, AND HARVESTING" OF COMMODITIES — ''Harvesting.''

(a) The term "Harvesting" as used in section 3(f) includes all operations customarily performed in connection with the removal of the crops by the farmer from their growing position ( Holtville Alfalfa Mills v. Wyatt, 230 F. 2d 398; NLRB v. Olaa Sugar Co., 242 F. 2d 714). Examples include the cutting of grain, the picking of fruit, the stripping of bluegrass seed, and the digging up of shrubs and trees grown in a nursery. Employees engaged on a plantation in gathering sugarcane as soon as it has been cut, loading it, and transporting the cane to a concentration point on the farm are engaged in "Harvesting" ( Vives v. Serralles, 145 F. 2d 552).
(b) The combining of grain is exempt either as harvesting or as a practice performed on a farm in conjunction with or as an incident to farming operations. (See in this connection Holtville Alfalfa Mills v. Wyatt, 230 F. 2d 398.) "Harvesting" does not extend to operations subsequent to and unconnected with the actual process whereby agricultural or horticultural commodities are severed from their attachment to the soil or otherwise reduced to possession. For example, the processing of sugarcane into raw sugar ( Bowie v. Gonzalez, 117 F. 2d 11, and see Maneja v. Waialua,349 U.S. 254 ), or the vining of peas are not included. For a further discussion on vining employees, see §780.139. While transportation to a concentration point on the farm may be included, "harvesting" never extends to transportation or other operations off the farm. Off-the-farm transportation can only be "agriculture" when performed by the farmer as an incident to his farming operations ( Chapman v. Durkin, 214 F. 2d 360 cert. denied 348 U.S. 897; Fort Mason Fruit Co. v. Durkin, 214 F. 2d 363 cert. denied 348 U.S. 897 ). For further discussion of this point, see §§780.144 through 780.147; §§780.152 through 780.157.

29 C.F.R. §780.118