With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". The single issue presented in this case is whether the FCC reasonably determined that DTE did not “fail[ ] to act to cany out its responsibility” to adjudicate the dispute between GNAPs and Verizon over whether ISP-bound calls are “local” within the meaning of their interconnection agreement. Only where there is such a failure does § 252(e)(5) obligate the Commission to step in. Otherwise - such as where the state agency actually “makes a determination” under § 252 - there is no statutory basis for FCC preemption. Under such circumstances, an aggrieved party may bring an action for judicial review in federal court under § 252(e)(6), or, if that provision is inapplicable and there is no federal question at issue, in state court. Cf. Veyizon Md., — U.S. at —, 122 S.Ct. at 1758-60 (<HOLDING>). Section 252(e)(6), entitled “Review of State

A: holding that the court does not have jurisdiction to review per curiam decisions of the district courts of appeal that merely affirm with citations to cases not pending review in this court
B: holding that federal district courts lack jurisdiction to review a final state court decision in a particular case
C: holding that federal courts have jurisdiction to review decisions of state commissions inteipreting interconnection agreements at least where review turns on issues of federal law and that this jurisdiction is not stripped by  252e6
D: recognizing that decisions of lower federal courts interpreting federal law are not binding on state courts
C.