ENFORCE34390 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

J ~. . IBi,11 93-458 OPINICA7 BY AGYII~ISIRATIVE JUDGE GRADTP Counsel for the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforce- ment (OSN1) has filed a petition for reconsideration of our decision in the above-captioned case, cited as Raaderhorn Coal Co. v. O3J[, 129 IHLA 22 (1994). Petiti~er has also requested that this matter be recrmsidened by the entire Boar'~i en banc. our decisi,rn in this case affi~aed a ruling of the Admini~-trative Law ,nom, issued after a hearing, granting temporary relief frtim enforcene'nnt of notice of violation (NOV) No. 93-020-370-ODl issued by o~44. In rpvi.Ew- ing this giant of relief under the Surfaoe Mining Control and Reclamation A~ of 1977 (ShCltA), we noted that: Pursuant to sec^..ion 525(c) of ShY'JiA and its :rq~lementing regulations, the Secretary of the Interior, and his delegated representatives, are authorized to grant temporary relief from an Nw pending a decision on an application for review of that NDV, where, among other things, the applicant for such relief shows that "there is a substantial likelihood that the find- ings and decision of the administrative law judge in the mat- ters to which the application relates will be favorzble to the applicant.•• 93 CFR 4.1263(b); 30 U.S.C. § 1275(c) (1988); see Shamrock Coal Co. v. O9~1, 81 IBLA+ 374, 376 (1984 ), appeal d~- missed, Shamrock Coal Co. v. Hodel, No. 84-238 (E.D. Ky. May 13, 1987). in addition, there must be a showing that granting the application for temporary relief will not have an adverse affect on public health r¢ safety or cause significant, imminent envi- zn[mrstal haaa to land, air, ar water resouzees. See 30 U.S.C. § 1275(c) (1988); 43 CFR 4.1263(c). 129 IBLA at 27. After finding fro;¢ the record that there was no issue that ten~orary relief would not adversely affect the public health or safety cs cause significant, imminent environmental harm to land, air, or water reaotn-ces, the Board went on to review the question of substantial likelihood of auxess on the merits. Notwithstanding the ambiguity in the language of the administrative Law Judge'e ruling fran the bench at the conclusion of the hearing which was challenged on appeal by OSM, we ptnceed~ to examine the meaning of the teen and apply it to the evidence of record. In deciding this issue we found that: 'fie statute and regulations do not define the term "sub- stantial likelihood" and we have not been presented with citation to any prior Board precedent on This issue. We hunk the stan- dard for this tern must be defined in a manner consistent with 132 rata 37