In 2006 the Department of Labor (DOL) stated in an opinion letter that mortgage loan officers were eligible for overtime but then changed its mind in 2010 in an “Administrator’s Interpretation.”  In Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association the Supreme Court held unanimously that federal agencies do not have to engage in notice-and-comment rulemaking pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) before changing an interpretive rule.  It overturned a nearly 20 year-old precedent from the D.C. Circuit, Paralyzed Veterans of America v. D.C. Arena.  The APA requires that “legislative rules” be issued through a notice-and-comment process.  But the APA states that notice-and-comment does not apply to “interpretive rules.”  According to the Court, “[t]his exemption of interpretive rules from the notice-and-comment process is categorical, and it is fatal to the rule announced in Paralyzed Veterans.”  The Court rejected Mortgage Bankers Association’s (MBA) argument that when an agency alters an interpretive rule it is effectively amending the underlying legislative rule.  The Court reasoned that interpreting a legislative rule does not amount to “amending” it.