Did some very boring reading this morning about "interpretation of Statutes". Essentially, agencies use "interpretations" to clarify what THEY think a statute or law actually says. Such interpretations don't have to be communicated, either! Ultimately, someone found allegedly in violation of a statute with an interpretation has to have the COURT (whatever level has jurisdiction) make the decision, which then establishes legal precedent for the agency on that particular point. Since court findings may be appealed, it is feasible that a question on interpretation of a rule could only be finally decided by the Supreme Court. Kinda like the recent Hobby Lobby employee health insurance issue/question.
The FAA didn't have to tell us what they think it all means.
And looks like we won't really find out until various points are tested.
Are we gonna have some FUN, or what??????