In 1999 and 2001, the Department of Labor’s (DOL) Wage and Hour Division issued letters opining that mortgage-loan officers do not qualify for the administrative exemption to overtime pay requirements under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). In 2004, the DOL issued new regulations regarding the exemption. Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) requested a new interpretation of the revised regulations as they applied to mortgage-loan officers. In 2006, an opinion letter found that mortgage-loan officers fell within the administrative exemption. In 2010, the DOL again altered its interpretation of the administrative exemption. Without notice or an opportunity for comment, the DOL withdrew the 2006 opinion letter and issued an Administrator’s Interpretation concluding that mortgage-loan officers do not qualify for the administrative exemption. MBA filed a lawsuit contending that the Administrator’s Interpretation was procedurally invalid based on case law which holds that an agency must use the APA’s notice-and-comment procedures when it wishes to issue a new interpretation of a regulation that deviates significantly from a previously adopted interpretation. Is a repeal of a rule subject to the notice-and-comment requirements of the APA?