. Since the district court entered its opinion and on the eve of oral arguments before this Court, the D.C. Circuit Court rendered its decision in United States Telecom. Ass’n v. FCC, vacating portions of the FCC's Review of the Section 251 Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers. United States Telecom. Ass’n v. FCC, No. 00-1012 (March 2, 2004); Review of the Section 251 Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers, 18 FCC Red. 16, 978 (2003) (the "Triennial Review Order’’). Based on that decision, Appellant suggests that the district court's decision must be reversed. We disagree, noting that the D.C. Circuit's opinion does not forbid the use of unbundled shared transport for transiting or the provision of unbundled operator services/directory assistance. To the extent that the D.C. Cir-cult's decision addresses the FCC’s definition of impairment, its application of that standard on a national level, and the lawfulness of "subdelegation of the Commission's § 251(d)(2) responsibilities [to state commissions] ... to determine whether [competing local-exchange carriers] are impaired without access to network elements," we note that Appellant did not raise these issues below and may not argue those issues on appeal that it did not raise below, including the lawfulness of the impairment criteria that yielded the commission’s decision and the authority of the commission to conduct that analysis. See id. at 12, 18-26. This is not to say that D.C. Circuit's decision has no bearing on Plaintiff-Appellant's application to the Michigan Public Service Commission, only that those issues must first be presented before the state commission.