ruling should be deferred.” National Automatic Laundry & Cleaning Council v. Shultz, 443 F.2d 689, 702 (D.C.Cir.1971). In light of the potential that a holding of finality would disrupt the regulatory process in this case, these practical perspectives on reviewability also support the conclusion that the section 167 order in this case is non-final. Therefore, although I am unpersuaded by the cases upon which the majority relies and believe the issue to be extremely close, I join in the judgment. It is to be hoped, however, that future Supreme Court cases will clarify the import of cases such as PPG and Frozen Food Express upon the finality doctrine in terms of the need to show immediate operative effect to hold declaratory agency action final. Moreover, since F.2d 86 (D.C.Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>); National Automatic Laundry & Cleaning Council
holding ripe for review advisory guidelines for processing freedom of information act requests holding that a motion picture film is a record for purposes of the freedom of information act 5 usc  552 1976 recognizing privacy interest in medical records requested under freedom of information act holding ripe for review letter written by administrative agency construing legislative history of statute holding that refusal to disclose records under faca constituted sufficient injury to bestow standing similar to when an agency denies requests for information under the freedom of information act