1. Whether the regulation provision in question under the Energy Reorganization Act is genuinely ambiguous in determining federal courts' case law and interpretation or the Department of Labor's case law and interpretation by and through the Administrative Review Board's adjudication of claims under the Act.

2. Although the Fourth Circuit purported to apply a separation of powers doctrinal standard to Petitioner's appeal, relying on Hyatt v. Heckler, 807 F.2d 376, 379 (4th Cir. 1986). However, the Fourth Circuit is discharged to address and review whether the ARB erroneously applied its own law and standards for equitable tolling as to Appellant's claims, dissimilar in its entirety from Hyatt.

Whether the regulation provision under the Energy Reorganization Act is genuinely ambiguous in determining federal courts' interpretation versus the Department of Labor's interpretation through the Administrative Review Board's adjudication, and whether the Fourth Circuit properly reviewed the ARB's application of equitable tolling standards