retroactive effect.” Jahn v. 1-800-FLOWERS.com, Inc., 284 F.3d 807, 810 (7th Cir.2002). In addition, the question of retroactivity does not arise in an FCC ruling that is merely interpretive. See Manhattan General Equip. Co. v. Commissioner, 297 U.S. 129, 135, 56 S.Ct. 397, 80 L.Ed. 528 (1936) (explaining that agency ruling interpreting statute “is no more retroactive in its operation than is a judicial determination construing and applying a statute to a case in hand”); Farmers Telephone Co., Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, 184 F.3d 1241, 1250 (10th Cir.1999); McKenzie v. Bowen, 787 F.2d 1216, 1222 (8th Cir.1986) (“An interpretive rule ... clarifies or explains existing law or regulations.”); Borden, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, 19 F.3d 502, 510 (10th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Second, the FCC order on remand did not alter
holding that an unpublished bia decision that does not rely on precedent for its definition of a contested term does not receive chevron deference because it is not promulgated under the agencys authority to make rules carrying the force of law holding that there are no retroactivity concerns when agencys ruling does not overrulef  any controlling precedent upon which petitioner relied to its detriment holding that a plan administrator cannot support its argument on appeal with a fact not relied upon in its initial coverage determination holding an allegation sufficient under rule 9b that the plan and the participants acting on behalf of the plan relied upon and are presumed to have relied upon defendants representations and nondisclosures to their detriment recognizing a state agencys powers are limited to 1