Laserfiche WebLink
ISIA 93-458 <br />thus for more deliberative investigation." Hamilton Watch Co. v. <br />Box , 206 F.2d 736, 740 (2nd Cir. 1953), oted in Placid oil <br />Cc. t•. U. S. IY?a3-C:~.s-~t o? the Interior, 491 F. Slipo. at 905; <br />Sierra Club, 108 IBLA 381, 384-85 (1989). <br />128 IffiA at 28. It appears that 0.41 has construed our reference to the <br />"balance of hardship" and quotation of language fran the Hamilton Watch <br />case as a substitution of a balancz of hardship standard for the zequised <br />gubg~nr;,aL ]ikoliTfm3 ~ success, an apptaach not suppozted either by the <br />statutcay language or the can't decision i11 the Virginia Surface Mining b <br />Acclamation Assn. case. HaaevPS, this is not a proper reeding of our <br />on~in;m ~ p~~t, Rather, we held that a substantial l.i]oelihmd of suc- <br />oess may be fau~d where applicant has raised issues on the merits of the <br />case so •seriws, substantial, diffi.cvlt and doubtful" as to make theca <br />appropriate for deliberative resolution in a decisien on the merits rather <br />than a preliminary ~ip*a**+~~ation on application for tanpotary relief. <br />Likelihood is, above all, a question of pzvbability. 1fius, a substantial <br />likelihood of success is properly found where, as in this case, the record <br />on initial review appeals insufficient to support the enforcanent action <br />taken. F3iile the quantum of showing required to establish that a proposi- <br />tion is "substantially" tmre likely than not (the standard argued by o34) <br />is unclear, J :he fine reau:re3 to sup'~a-~t teroora,~' rp1iP= is properly <br />distinguished from the basis cf a final decision a: the merits. When we <br />are unable to uphold the enforcetpnt action ae a ~eli~nary matter onl <br />the basis of the record before us, a showing of a substantial likelihood <br />of success rn the merits has bean made which wi11 justify temporary relief <br />assuming the o~.her statutory crite`ia are met. <br />A petiti~ for reccnsideration may be granted only in extraoz~dindry <br />cimanstanoes where good reason is shown therefor. 43 CFR 4.21(c); 43 cFR <br />4.403. We find that petitioner's apparent confusion regarding the meaning <br />of our prior e~pinirn regarding substantial likelihood of success justifies <br />granting the petition far the limited purpose of clarifying the language <br />of our grioz decision in this matter. Aoa~dingly, the petition for recon- <br />sideratiroc- is granted in part and denied in part arni we reaffirm our prior <br />decision as clarified. <br />Petitioner has sought reconsideration by the Board en banc. In <br />respaulinq to such requests, the Hoard follows a procedure similar to <br />J We natE that in order to prevail on the merits before the Hoard, an <br />appellant must establish error by a preponderance of the evidence. Hander <br />v. Clark, 744 F.2d 1424, 1429 (10th Cir. 1964) {reversing a Board decision <br />which affianed the administrative decision on the basis of a failure to <br />establish error by clew[ and definite evidence). <br />132 IBIA 40 <br />