Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Powderhorn Coal ComoanV v. OSM (Powderhorn), 129 IBLA 22, 28 <br />(March 18, 1994).3 <br />Assuming, without admitting, that ALJ Child's decision <br />denying temporary relief tips the balance of the hardships to the <br />parties decidedly in favor of Kerr, the dispositive question, <br />with regard to that decision, is: Whether Kerr has raised <br />questions going to the merits of the NOV so serious, substantial, <br />difficult and doubtful, as to make them a fair ground for litiga- <br />tion and thus for more deliberative investigation. Powderhorn at <br />28. <br />Kerr has raised the following issues in its challenge to the <br />NOV: <br />1. Whether OSM lacked authority to issue the NOV to Kerr <br />without complying with the procedural requirements at 30 C.F.R. <br />§ 843.12(a)(2). See Kerr's brief at 8-10. <br />2. Whether OSM should defer to DMG's discretion in deter- <br />mining whether Kerr violated the Colorado program. See Kerr's <br />brief at 10-11. <br />3. Whether Kerr violated the AOC standard in section <br />4.14.1(2) of the Colorado program, as cited in the NOV. See <br />Kerr's brief at 12. <br />4. Whether there can be a violation of the AOC standard <br />prior to DMG's approval of phase Z bond release. See Kerr's <br />brief at 12. <br />3 OSM has filed a petition for reconsideration of the <br />Board's decision in Powderhorn. The Board's response to that <br />petition is pending. <br />9 <br />