The Department of Labor issued an interpretive rule (opinion letter) in 2001 about how mortgage-loan officers were to be treated with respect to overtime pay. The rule was reversed in 2006 then reversed again in 2010. The Mortgage Bankers Association objected to the change, contending the 2010 ruling was invalid because there was no notice-and-comment period for the change. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that notice-and-comment:
A) did not apply to an interpretive rule when the rule was changed, only when it is first enacted.
B) did not apply to an interpretive rule, so the changes were valid.
C) applied to a "substantive" interpretive rule that affected wage payments.
D) applied to an interpretive rule when a change could "impact compensation."
E) none of the other choices are correct.

Question

The Department of Labor issued an interpretive rule (opinion letter) in 2001 about how mortgage-loan officers were to be treated with respect to overtime pay. The rule was reversed in 2006 then reversed again in 2010. The Mortgage Bankers Association objected to the change, contending the 2010 ruling was invalid because there was no notice-and-comment period for the change. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that notice-and-comment:
A) ​did not apply to an interpretive rule when the rule was changed, only when it is first enacted.
B) ​did not apply to an interpretive rule, so the changes were valid.
C) ​applied to a "substantive" interpretive rule that affected wage payments.
D) ​applied to an interpretive rule when a change could "impact compensation."
E) ​none of the other choices are correct.

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The Supreme Court held that the notice-and-comment period did not apply to interpretive rules, meaning changes to such rules could be made without undergoing this process.

The Department of Labor Issued an Interpretive Rule (Opinion Letter)