(FMSHRC). Under this “split enforcement” structure, the Court held, “enforcement of the Act is the sole responsibility of the Secretary.” Id. at 151-52, 111 S.Ct. 1171 (internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover, since “Congress did not invest the Commission with the power to make law or policy by other means, we cannot infer that Congress expected the Commission to use its adjudicatory power to play a policymaking role.” Id. at 154, 111 S.Ct. 1171. We have previously, and repeatedly, applied Martin’s analysis to the Mine Act. We do so here as well. As is true under the OSH Act, “enforcement of the [Mine] Act is the sole responsibility of the Secretary,” 499 U.S. at 152, 111 S.Ct. 1171 (internal quotation marks omitted), and the Commission has no “policymaking role,” id 2024 (<HOLDING>); Swift v. United States, 318 F.3d 250, 253
holding that 18 usc  1014 has no materiality requirement because the statute does not so much as mention materiality holding as much holding unreviewable an agencys decision to discontinue funding a program where the statute did not so much as mention the program holding that a later seventh circuit decision could not have overruled an earlier decision without so much as citing it holding that judicial review of an administrative agencys decision is limited solely to whether given the relevant standard and facts the agencys decision was arbitrary illegal capricious or unreasonable