proceeding subsequent to its informal adjudication. The Supreme Court has held that a “relevant consideration[ ] in determining finality [is] whether the process of administrative decisionmaking has reached a stage where judicial review will not disrupt the orderly process of adjudication.” Port of Boston Marine Terminal Association v. Rederiaktiebolaget Transatlantic, 400 U.S. 62, 71, 91 S.Ct. 203, 209, 27 L.Ed.2d 203 (1970). Similarly, Judge Leventhal writing for the D.C. Circuit has stated that “[t]he ultimate question is whether the problems generated by pre-enforcement review are of such a nature that, taken together, they outweigh the hardship and interest of plaintiffs members and establish that judicial review of [an agency’s] interpreta . Shultz, 443 F.2d 689 (D.C.Cir.1971) (<HOLDING>). The language of the APA also suggests that
holding that legislative history cannot supply a clear statement holding that the history of enforcement of a statute is relevant to standing and ripe ness inquiry holding ripe for review letter written by administrative agency construing legislative history of statute holding that even where there are  contrary indications in the statutes legislative history we do not resort to legislative history to cloud a statutory text that is clear holding that a draft of a proposed letter from an area director of a government agency to a municipal administrative agency was properly excluded because it did not represent an agency finding