Laserfiche WebLink
<br />issued.**1 <br />II. Approximate Original Contour Standards <br />In the present matter, Kerr completed what it believed to <br />be the reclamation required by its permit and requested bond re- <br />lease for backfilling and grading requirements. It was only at <br />the point of the bond release inspection that OSM issued an NOV <br />for failure to meet AOC standards under the state program. OSM <br />issued the NOV because a particular ridge at a particular loca- <br />tion was not generally restored to its same pre-mining contour. <br />DMG disagreed with OSM's determination concerning AOC. <br />DMG's position is that surrounding landforms and not just the ex- <br />act area disturbed by mining must be considered in determining <br />whether AOC requirements have been met. Using such a method to <br />determine AOC issues is not arbitrary or capricious. See Consol- <br />idation Coal Company v. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and <br />1** DMG is aware that on September 28, 1994, the Interior Board <br />of Land Appeals denied Kerr's appeal concerning interim temporary <br />relief on the basis that OSM had the authority to issue the NOV <br />under 30 C.F.R. part 843.12(a)(1). IBLA's decision is done in <br />conclusory fashion with no analysis of the issue. For the rea- <br />sons and authorities stated infra and in DMG's Post-Hearing <br />Brief, the DMG stands by its argument that the inspection here <br />was not done to enforce a .federal program, and therefore, the <br />ten-day notice procedures provided in 30 C.F.R. part 843.12(a)(2) <br />were applicable. <br />-3- <br />