479 U.S. 388, 399-400, 107 S.Ct. 750, 93 L.Ed.2d 757 (1987); see also CC Distributors, 883 F.2d at 151. (b) Ripeness Although the ripeness doctrine is often understood to overlap with the standing doctrine, see Wyoming Outdoor Council v. United States Forest Serv., 165 F.3d 43, 48 (D.C.Cir.1999), it retains a separate analytical framework. The framework reveals the doctrine's dual pedigree-a pedigree that is partially traceable to Article III, but mostly traceable to the court's prudential goals of avoiding "abstract disagreements" and "premature adjudication." Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 148-49, 87 S.Ct. 1507, 18 L.Ed.2d 681 (1967); see also 13A Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller and Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 3532.1, at 118-19 (2d ed.1984) (<HOLDING>). In considering a claim’s ripeness, a court is
recognizing the dual underpinnings of the single analytical framework holding best interests are to be determined within statutory framework and not upon courts own perceptions recognizing that context under the pge analysis includes the preexisting common law and statutory framework within which the law was enacted holding best interests are to be determined within statutory framework and not upon judges own perceptions recognizing that irreparable harm is the single most important prerequisite for the issuance of a preliminary injunction