the Secretary’s charging decisions are unreviewable. The Commission, however, hears sounds in the silence. In support of its conclusion that the Secretary’s charging decisions are reviewable, the Commission purported to discern the following standard: The Secretary’s decision to cite an owner-operator, the Commission said, must be “made for reasons consistent with the purpose and policies of the Mine Act.” Commission Decision, 27 F.M.S.H.R.C. at 266 (internal quotation marks omitted). That phrase is nowhere to be found in the Act itself, nor does it offer a particularly meaningful standard. Indeed, were we to regard it as one, we would have to hold all agency decisions under all statutes reviewable, as all legislation has “purpose[s] and policies.” Cf. Baltimore Gas, 252 F.3d at 461 (<HOLDING>); Steenholdt v. FAA, 314 F.3d 633, 639
holding an ijs boilerplate demeanor findings failed to provide an adequate basis for this court to conduct its review holding that a consumer reporting agency which gives a consumer report to the attorney representing the agency is not subject to the fcra because the attorney is not a traditional third party holding that boilerplate language in a confirmation plan is binding if confirmed holding that the government may intervene in the marketplace to protect consumer welfare holding that a requirement that an agency should protect consumer interests is merely a boilerplate truism and not a discretionrestricting guideline