at 154, 111 S.Ct. 1171. Instead, “Congress intended to delegate to the Commission the type of nonpolicymaking adjudicatory powers typically exercised by a court in the agency-review context.” Id. “Under this conception of adjudication, the Commission is authorized to review the Secretary’s interpretations only for consistency with the regulatory language and for reasonableness.” Id. at 154-55, 111 S.Ct. 1171. And, like a court, the Commission is not as a general matter authorized to review the Secretary’s exercise of prosecutorial discretion. IV We conclude that the Commission is generally without authority to review the Secretary’s discretionary decisions regarding whether to cite owner-operators, their independent contractors, or both for safety violations committed by the indep 997) (<HOLDING>). 7 . See Lincoln, 508 U.S. at 193-94, 113
holding that no federal nexus is required holding that just because a claim implicates a federal issue or involves construction of federal law does not necessarily give rise to a federal question and confer removal jurisdiction on a federal court holding that federal express despite the use of the word federal in its name is not a federal agency and therefore cannot be sued in this court holding that a determination of whether the defendants actions constituted a taking under the louisiana constitution does not implicate any issues of federal law and thus does not provides a basis for a federal district court to exercise federal subject matter jurisdiction holding that a federal prosecutors certification that there is a substantial federal interest in a case required to proceed against a juvenile in federal court implicates core prosecutorial judgment and discretion and thus is normally not subject to judicial review