Laserfiche WebLink
support of their request that the Board deny OSM's Petition: <br />1. OSM's Petition should be denied because it is <br />barred by the Board's order of November 12, 1999. <br />2. OSM's Petition should be denied because it fails <br />to establish any "extraordinary circumstances" <br />that would justify reconsideration. <br />OSM will first rebut each of these arguments. OSM will conclude <br />this pleading by providing additional support for the granting of <br />the Petition. <br />First, the Appellants argue that the Board's order of <br />November 12, 1999, precludes the submission of this Petition <br />because it prohibits any response by OSM to the Board's order of <br />August 17, 1999,. that is submitted after November 12, 1999, from <br />becoming part of the record in this case. See Opposition at 1-3. <br />OSM does not believe that the Board's order of November 12, 1999, <br />prohibits the submission of this Petition. <br />OSM respectfully asserts to the Board that this Petition is <br />not submitted in response to the Board's order of August 17, <br />1999, but in response to the Board`s decision of January 5, 2000. <br />OSM's Petition is, in effect, submitted as part of new <br />proceeding. OSM notes that this matter has a new caption and a <br />new docket number (96-91R). The Board's regulation at 43 C.F.R. <br />§ 4.21(d) provides that a petition for reconsideration may be <br />granted where "sufficient reason appears therefor." OSM does not <br />2 <br />