(per curiam). The second line of analysis looks to the agency’s expressed intentions. CropLife Am., 329 F.3d at 883. This entails a consideration of three factors: “(1) the [a]gency’s own characterization of the action; (2) whether the action was published in the Federal Register or the Code of Federal Regulations; and (3) whether the action has binding effects on private parties or on the agency.” Molycorp, Inc. v. EPA, 197 F.3d 543, 545 (D.C.Cir.1999). As the case law reveals, it is not always easy to distinguish between those “general statements of policy” that are unreviewable and agency “rules” that establish binding norms or agency actions that occasion legal consequences that are subject to review. Compare Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders v. Norton, 415 F.3d 8, 14, 16 (D.C.Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>); Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Fed. Power Comm’n,
holding agency action is final where there are no deportation proceedings pending in which the decision might be reopened or challenged holding that apa  702s waiver of sovereign immunity applies regardless of whether the challenged agency action constitutes final agency action  holding that bankruptcy courts order was final where is was labeled as a final judgment and was clearly intended to serve as denial of relief sought the order determined the substantive rights at issue there was no indication in the record that the court intended to take further action and no party argued that any further action by the court was to occur holding that because the carrier contested the compensability of the claim and took the position that there was no evidence that the accident arose out of and in the course and scope of hernandezs employment there was no conclusion on the merits holding that there was no final agency action where the language of the challenged protocols was permissive and the scope of a regulated partys liability under  the statute remains exactly as it was before the protocols publication