With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". step when interpreting a statute is, of course, analyzing its text. It is significant that the language of section 300aa-32 conferring jurisdiction on federal appellate courts is permissive in nature—parties may file a petition for review of regulations promulgated under the Vaccine Act in the courts of appeals within 60 days of their enactment. The statutory language does not explicitly require a party to challenge reg ulations under the Vaccine Act within such time period and in such a forum. Therefore, we cannot say that Congress clearly intended to limit judicial review to the 60-day period. The language in section 300aa-32 thus differs from the mandatory language found in some other statutory review clauses. See Eagle-Picher Industries v. EPA, 759 F.2d 905, 911 (D.C.Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). Nevertheless, we recognize that there are

A: holding that issues not raised in the trial court may not be raised later on appeal
B: holding that claims raised in later litigation were barred because they could have been fully litigated in chapter 11 reorganization process
C: holding that issue not raised in first appeal cannot be attacked in later appeal
D: holding that a statutory provision of cercla clearly foreclosing later judicial review of matters that could have been raised in the ninety day statutory period bars a later challenge
D.