opinion: CENTER FOR AUTO SAFETY, et al., Appellants, v. Elizabeth H. DOLE, Secretary, Department of Transportation, et al.
  No. 86-5436.
  United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
  Argued April 7, 1987.
  Decided May 24, 1988.
  Howard A. Heffron, with whom Clarence M. Ditlow III, Mary H. Dunlap and Evan W. Johnson, Washington, D.C., were on the brief for appellants. Messrs. Heffron, Dit-low and Johnson were on the supplemental brief on rehearing.
  David W. Allen, Asst. Chief Counsel, Nat. Highway Traffic Safety Admin., Richard K. Willard, Asst. Atty. Gen. at the time of filing, Douglas Letter, Appellate Litigation Counsel, Dept, of Justice, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel, Enid Rubenstein and Eileen T. Leahy, Attys., Nat. Highway Traffic Safety Admin., Washington, D.C., were on the brief for appellees. James M. Spears, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Allen, Letter and Jeffrey Clair, Atty., U.S. Dept, of Justice, and Jones, Leahy “and Ruben-stein”, Washington, D.C., were on the petition for rehearing and the supplemental brief on rehearing.
  Before WALD, Chief Judge, MIKVA and EDWARDS, Circuit Judges.
  Circuit Judge Edwards was randomly selected as a member of this panel following Judge Bork’s resignation from the Court.
  Opinion PER CURIAM.
  Dissenting opinion filed by Chief Judge WALD.
  PER CURIAM:
  This case concerns the reviewability of the Secretary of Transportation’s decision (through the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) (“NHTSA”) not to reopen an investigation into alleged safety defects in Ford automobiles built between 1966 and 1979. The relevant statute provides that “[a]ny interested person may file with the Secretary a petition requesting [her]” to commence an investigation. 15 U.S.C. § 1410a(a) (1982). The NHTSA regulations direct the agency to grant the petition if, after a “technical review,” it finds that “there is a reasonable possibility that the requested order will be issued at the conclusion of the appropriate proceeding.” 49 C.F.R. §§ 552.6 and 552.8 (1987).
  The case was originally decided by a sharply divided panel. The court reversed the decision of the district court denying and limiting review of the NHTSA’s order, and held that appellants were entitled to plenary review of the administrative decision. The majority concluded that the court should scrutinize “not merely the statement of reasons given by the Administrator, but the evidence compiled in the ‘technical review’ on which the agency relies in making its decision.” Center for Auto Safety v. Dole, 828 F.2d 799, 801 (D.C. Cir.1987). Judge Bork, who subsequently resigned from this court, dissented. While explaining his view that Congress intended to entirely preclude review of denials of citizen petitions, he rested on his conclusion that the scope of review should be limited to an examination of the agency’s statement of reasons.
  NHTSA petitioned for rehearing by the panel. The panel, with another member replacing Judge Bork, agreed to reconsider the decision. The parties submitted requested briefing on a discrete issue that was not a matter of dispute among the original panel members-whether the NHTSA regulation at issue permitted agency consideration of non-safety factors in deciding whether to grant a petition to investigate. We now hold that the agency’s applicable regulation-49 C.F.R. § 552.8-fails to provide the court with a judicially manageable standard that would enable us to review the agency’s decision.
  I.
  We have previously held that regulations promulgated by an administrative agency in carrying out its statutory mandate can provide standards for judicial review of agency action. Such self-imposed constraints may supply the “law to apply” under Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821,105 S.Ct. 1649, 84 L.Ed.2d 714 (1985), to overcome the presumption against reviewing administrative agency inaction, including nonenforcement decisions. See Padula v. Webster, 822 F.2d 97 (D.C.Cir.1987); Robbins v. Reagan, 780 F.2d 37 D.C.Cir.1985). NHTSA has not persuaded us that these previous holdings should be reexamined. Just as Congress can provide the basis for judicial review of nonenforcement decisions by spelling out statutory factors to be measured by the courts, so an agency can provide such factors by regulation. When an agency chooses to so fetter its discretion, the presumption against reviewability recognized in Chaney must give way. The Supreme Court has never deviated from the position it set forth in Service v. Dulles, 354 U.S. 363, 77 S.Ct. 1152, 1 L.Ed.2d 1403 (1957):
  “While it is of course true that under [the relevant statute] the Secretary was not obliged to impose upon himself these more rigorous substantive and procedural standards, neither was he prohibited from doing so, ... and having done so he could not, so long as the Regulations remained unchanged, proceed without regard to them.”
  Id. at 388, ’ll S.Ct. at 1165. In Service the Court scrutinized a decision that violated a self-imposed regulatory limitation superimposed on a broad statutory grant of discretion. The Service decision makes plain that an intent to proscribe judicial review of agency adherence to its own legally binding standards should not be inferred from a statute conferring broad discretion. Rather, there must be a much more definitive expression of Congress’ intent to immunize an administrative decision otherwise amenable to review.
  II.
  We thus adhere to our previous views that the Motor Vehicle Safety Act* (“the Act”) does not operate to preclude judicial review in this case. See Center for Auto Safety v. Dole, 828 F.2d at 804-05. At the outset, we stress that there is nothing in the Act remotely resembling an express preclusion of review of decisions not to grant citizen petitions. Compelling legislative history or a law’s own structure may manifest a Congressional intent to deny review when the statute itself is silent < on the matter. See Block v. Community Nutrition Institute, 467 U.S. 340, 104 S.Ct. 2450, 81 L.Ed.2d 270 (1984). But appellees have pointed to no “clear and convincing’’^ evidence, see Bowen v. Michigan Academy of Family Physicians, 476 U.S. 667, 106 S.Ct. 2133, 2136, 90 L.Ed.2d 623 (1986), that Congress meant to take this unusual step with this Act.
  The foregoing analysis, however, does not carry the day for appellants’ request for this court’s review. Other considerations bear on whether, notwithstanding the presumption of reviewability of agency compliance with legally binding regulations, this court may review the NHTSA’s decision to deny the citizen petition in this case. The rebriefing has persuaded us that the regulation to which appellants refer us for “law to apply” does not limit the agency’s discretion in a way that enables us to conduct a meaningful review of the agency’s compliance. While safety is an indispensable element of the decision not to investigate, NHTSA can and does consider such “nonsafety” factors as its available resources, enforcement priorities, the likelihood of uncovering sufficient evidence to establish the existence of a defect, and the prospect of ultimately succeeding in any necessary enforcement litigation. The regulation sub judice provides the court no way to second-guess the weight or priority to be assigned these elements. In particular, it would be unwise, and inconsistent with the broad mandate of the agency under the governing statute, to infer a mandatory allocation of the agency’s limited resources from the regulation at issue. We must thus conclude that NHTSA’s decision governed by this regulation is not reviewable.
  III.
  We find no need to further address the difficulties this Court previously encountered in delimiting the depth and scope of our review of the agency’s refusal to investigate. The earlier opinions in this case labored long and hard to determine whether the court’s review was confined solely to the reasons expressed by the agency or whether the whole administrative record was to be considered. The perplexities of whether and how to apply the teachings of Dunlop v. Bachowski, 421 U.S. 560, 95 S.Ct. 1851, 44 L.Ed.2d 377 (1975), which divided the original panel in this case, are not relevant to our decision not to review.
  The petition for rehearing is granted. The earlier decision of this court is vacated. For the reasons stated above the order of the district court denying review is affirmed.
instruction: What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
  Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
  When coding the detailed nature of participants, use your personal knowledge about the participants, if you are completely confident of the accuracy of your knowledge, even if the specific information is not in the opinion. For example, if "IBM" is listed as the appellant it could be classified as "clearly national or international in scope" even if the opinion did not indicate the scope of the business. 
  
  Your task concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private organization or association", specifically "other". Your task is to determine what subcategory of private association best describes this litigant.
choices: Civic, social, fraternal organization Political organizations - Other than political parties Examples: Civil rights focus; Public Interest - broad, civil liberties focus (ACLU) or broad, multi-issue focus (Common Cause, Heritage Foundation, ADA) or single issue - Environmental ENV, Abortion, etc. (prolife, pro-abortion), elderly, consumer interests: Consumer Federation of America, Consumer's Union, National Railroad Passenger Association; PAC Political party Educational organization - Private, non-profit school Educational organization - Association, not individual school - PTA or PTO Religious or non-profit hospital or medical care facility (e.g., nursing home) Other religious organization (includes religious foundations) Charitable or philanthropic organization (including foundations, funds, private museums, private libraries) Other Unclear