Originally Posted by cj_rumley

AMA's lawyer made a different point in " Since the FAA remains free to interpret aviation statutes and regulations as it sees fit, and since courts must defer to those interpretations unless they are determined to be arbitrary and capricious, the decision appears to have little practical effect on curbing the FAA's use of interpretations to modify existing law."
I understand that to say FAA's interpretation is the law de facto, until challenged in court and a decision is reached that the interpretations are arbitrary and capricious. IOW an umpteenth reiteration of the Chevron decision, and perhaps advice to his AMA client to "live with it" as any challange will most probably prove fruitless.