With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". retroactive deadline by requiring hospitals to have appealed the exclusion of expansion waiver days before October 15, 1999 — two months prior to the PM’s issuance on December 15, 1999. Pl.’s SJM at 32-33. This argument assumes, however, that hospitals were entitled to include expansion waiver days in the DSH calculation prior to the PM’s issuance. Indeed, they were not. The Secretary’s policy prior to January 2000 was to exclude expansion waiver days from the DSH calculation. Cookeville, 531 F.3d 844, 848 (2008). Furthermore, hospitals— including those in Tennessee — were “on notice that the expansion population might not be included.” Id. PM A-99-62 merely clarified the Secretary’s existing policy. See United Hosp. v. Thompson, No. 02-3479, 2003 WL 21356086, *5 (D.Minn. June 9, 2003) (<HOLDING>). PM A-99-62 served a limited purpose— to hold

A: holding that the plain meaning of the uim policy language was clear and not contrary to public policy
B: holding that an arbitration award involving the appellants challenge to the failure of the insurance company to ensure that he had read and understood a signed waiver and to attach the waiver to the insurance policy as contrary to public policy is not reviewable by the courts because there is no challenge to a provision or term of the policy the appellant never claimed that the waiver or policy language itself was contrary to the public policy of this commonwealth
C: holding an endorsement to an existing insurance policy which added a new vehicle did not create a new contract of insurance but was merged with and became a part of the original policy
D: holding that pm a9962 was not a policy change requiring notice to hospitals but a clarification of existing policy
D.