with less than ideal clarity; occasionally, legislation is opaque in instructing which federal tribunal is the proper — or a proper — forum for the first court airing of, or an appeal in, a particular kind of federal case. Compare Hohri v. United States, 782 F.2d 227, 239-41 (D.C. Cir.1985), with id. at 944-946 (dissenting opinion) (divided views on “plain meaning” of 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(2) (1982)). When administrative' action is in question, as in the instant case, the governing statute may fail to say with precision whether judicial review should initially occur in a district court, or directly in a court of appeals. The matter at hand pointedly illustrates these difficulties, as did our previous encounter with these appellants, Lorion v. NRC, 712 F.2d 1472 (D.C.Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>), rev’d sub nom. Florida Power & Light Co. v.
holding that there must first be a denial by atf for the district court to review holding that federal district courts lack jurisdiction to review a final state court decision in a particular case holding that because here the statutes in issue provide for judicial review via citizen suit provisions yet do not set forth a standard for that review judicial review is limited to apa review on the administrative record holding in land use situations courts have concluded in order for a regulatory takings claim to be ripe there must be a final decision regarding the application of the regulations to the property at issue holding that judicial review of nuclear regulatory commission decision at issue must first occur in district court