FirstAlerts

DOL Opinion Letters Clarify When Commuting Time Is Not Compensable

The U.S. Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division issued final opinion letters FLSA2026-9 and FLSA2026-10 addressing commuting time.

2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 21, 2026, 3:44 a.m. ET

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 21, 2026, 3:52 a.m. ET
The has issued two , , clarifying when commuting time is not compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act, according to a report by natlawreview.com. The letters, which are final rules, address circumstances in which time spent commuting is not considered work time for which employees must be paid. The Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division issued the guidance as , which provide official interpretations of the law.

Earlier reports

  1. Aug 21, 2026, 3:44 a.m. ETFirst report

    DOL Opinion Letters Clarify When Commuting Time Is Not Compensable

    The U.S. Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division has issued two opinion letters, FLSA2026-9 and FLSA2026-10, clarifying when commuting time is not compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act, according to a report by natlawreview.com.

    The letters, which are final rules, address specific scenarios regarding employee travel time. The National Law Review reported that the guidance provides clarity on when commuting time does not count as compensable work hours.

    Further details of the opinion letters were not provided in the report.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 121 Aug 2026, 07:52current

    First published.

  2. Version 121 Aug 2026, 07:44current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.