future logging decisions). Turning to the second prong of our ripeness inquiry, we conclude that withholding consideration of Nevada’s substantive claims at this time imposes no hardship on Nevada. Nevada itself has not sought immediate review of the FEIS insofar as it may relate to future DOE or NRC decisions. Putting the now-unreviewable site-selection decisions to one side, the effect of the FEIS will not be felt in a concrete way by Nevada until it is used to support some other final decision of DOE or NRC. Nevada may raise its substantive claims against the FEIS if and when NRC or DOE makes such a final decision. Our decision to postpone consideration of Nevada’s claims therefore works no hardship on Nevada sufficient to render its claims ripe. See id. at 735, 118 S.Ct. at 1671 (<HOLDING>); AT&T Corp., 349 F.3d at 700 (same). In
holding that the distinct courts decision whether to remand for further proceedings or payment of benefits is discretionary and is subject to review for abuse of discretion 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 that there is no right to habeas review of administrative evidentiary determinations before a district court where direct review of the administrative proceedings is available in the appellate courts holding that requiring a party to participate in further administrative or judicial proceedings is not a hardship sufficient to outweigh a determination that an issue is unfit for review holding that the district courts decision whether to remand for further proceedings or payment of benefits is discretionary and is subject to review for abuse of discretion