Laserfiche WebLink
II. <br />OSM's Petition Fails to Establish "Extraordinarv Circumstances" <br />Sufficient to Warrant Reconsideration of the Board's Decision <br />The regulations of the Office of Hearings and Appeals provide that "reconsideration of a <br />decision may be granted only in extraordinary circumstances where, in the judgment of the Director <br />or an Appeals Boazd, sufficient reason appears therefor." 43 C.F.R. § 4.21(c). Incases arising under <br />the Surface Mining Act, the Board has found "extraordinary circumstances" justifying <br />reconsideration (1) where a party points out a "mistake concerning a material fact of crucial <br />importance to the resolution" of a case, Jerrv Hvlton v. Office of Surface Minint? Reclamation & <br />Enforcement (On Reconsideration), 145 IBLA 167,168 (1998) (correcting the Board's initial error <br />regazding the timing of an appeal with respect to relief obtained from OSM and state regulators on <br />a citizen complaint), and (2) where the Boazd, without changing its disposition an appeal, deems it <br />necessary to grant reconsideration "for the limited purpose of clarifying the language of our prior <br />decision," Powderhom Coal Co. v. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation & Enforcement, 132 <br />IBLA 36, 40 (1995). OSM's petition for reconsideration does not allege a mistake of material fact, <br />it does not call upon the Board to clarify anything, nor does it present any other argument that might <br />reasonably constitute "extraordinary circumstances" justifying the Board's reconsideration of its <br />decision. <br />At the outset of its petition, OSM confesses that "the Board's discussion [of the facts and <br />procedural history] fairly states the relevant background of this case." Petition at 2. This statement <br />precludes the sort ofmistake-of--fact showing that the Board found sufficient to merit reconsideration <br />in Hvlton. Moreover, nothing in OSM's petition requests reconsideration for the purpose of <br />4 <br />