Laserfiche WebLink
-~e'lieve that the Board, in its order of November 12, 1999, <br />intended to declare, before the fact, that "sufficient reason" <br />for reconsideration could not exist. <br />OSM now turns to the Appellants' argument that the Petition <br />should be denied because it presents no "extraordinary <br />circumstances" that would justify reconsideration. The Board's <br />regulation at 43 C.F.R. § 4.21 (d) provides that reconsideration <br />of a decision may be granted "only in extraordinary <br />circumstances." <br />The Appellants assert that in order to satisfy the <br />"extraordinary circumstances" requirement, OSM must show that the <br />Board either 1) made a "mistake concerning a material fact of <br />crucial importance" or 2) that the Board needs to reconsider its <br />decision in order to clarify the decision. The Appellants cite <br />two cases, Jerry Hylton v. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation <br />and Enforcement (On Reconsideration, 145 IBLA 167 (August 10, <br />1998), and Powderhorn Coal Co. v. Office of Surface Minino <br />Reclamation and Enforcement (On Reconsiderationl, 132 IBLA 36 <br />(February 9, 1995), in support of this argument. See Opposition <br />at 4. The Appellants argue that OSM's Petition does not satisfy <br />either of these tests and should thus be denied. <br />OSM, in response, respectfully asserts that it has shown <br />3 <br />