applications,” their secondary road determinations “rely heavily on maps produced by state and federal transportation authorities,” a reasonable source to bolster its goal of “establishing] eligibility criteria for CAHs” to be consistently applied. Def.’s Resp. Pl.’s Cross-Mot. 13, ECF No. 26; see also DAB Final Decision 4, ECF No. 18 (“CMS lack[s] the resources and capacity for making case-by-case judgments about the driving characteristics of every stretch of highway in the United States” but bases its judgments on “objective criteria.”) (internal citations omitted). The Court, while not able to engage in fact-finding or reweighing of the evidence in evaluating this judgment, finds that the Secretary’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. See Roland, 2010 WL 70855, at *2 (<HOLDING>). Combined with the congressional goal of
holding that we review issues of statutory interpretation de novo holding that the court is not to undertake to reweigh conflicting evidence make credibility determinations or substitute its judgment for that of the agency holding that court is not empowered to substitute its judgment for that of the agency recognizing that the standard of review for issues of statutory interpretation and construction is de novo holding that a court may not reweigh the evidence or try the issues de novo or substitute its judgment for that of the secretary