(a) Procedural requirements. Any party may petition for reconsideration of a dispositive order or decision within 60 days after the date of the order or decision. The deadline to file a petition for reconsideration cannot be extended. The petition may include a request to stay the effectiveness of the order or decision. The petition may not exceed 15 pages. The Board will not accept a petition for reconsideration of a Board order affirming without opinion the decision on appeal under § 4.412.
(b) Substantive requirements. The Board will grant the petition only in extraordinary circumstances where sufficient reason exists and will deny a petition that merely repeats arguments made in the original appeal. The petitioner must establish that one of the following reasons exists:
(1) The Board misstated a material fact, resulting in an erroneous decision. The Board's findings concerning disputed material facts do not constitute a misstatement warranting reconsideration.
(2) Evidence exists that was not before the Board at the time it issued the final decision and that demonstrates error in the decision. The petitioner must submit the evidence with the petition and explain why the evidence was not provided to the Board during the course of the appeal.
(3) The Board's decision fails to cite and address a binding statute, regulation, or decision that would require a different outcome in the decision. Disagreement with the Board's interpretation or application of the law cited in the decision does not warrant reconsideration.
(c) Responses. Any other party to the original appeal may file a response to a petition for reconsideration within 21 days after service of the petition. The response may not exceed 15 pages.
(d) Status of decision while petition is pending. A petition for reconsideration will not stay the effectiveness or affect the finality of the Board's order or decision unless so ordered by the Board for good cause. If the Board stays the effectiveness of the order or decision, then finality is deferred until the Board rules on the petition.
(e) Petition Not Required for Exhaustion. A party does not need to file a petition for reconsideration to exhaust its administrative remedies.
Notes of Decisions
Jack J. Bender v. William P. Clark, as Successor to James G. Watt, 744 F.2d 1424 (10th Cir. 1984).
· cites it 2× “Although an individual applicant in Bender’s position is not statutorily entitled to a hearing on this particular administrative decision, the IBLA referred the case for a recommended decision to the Hearings Division, Office of Hearing and Appeals, pursuant to 43 C.F.R. §§…”
Hoyl v. Babbitt, 129 F.3d 1377 (10th Cir. 1997).
“We also note that the IBLA’s authority to grant a formal hearing before the Board pursuant to 43 C.F.R. § 4.415 is purely discretionary.”
Aera Energy LLC v. Salazar, 642 F.3d 212 (D.C. Cir. 2011).
“1 (emphasis added); and that the IBLA “may, on its own motion, refer any case to an administrative law judge for a hearing on an issue of fact,” 43 C.F.R. § 4.415 (2004). That said, the Secretary gives us no basis for barring the companies from pursuing their first theory — that…”
Rowe v. United States, 464 F. Supp. 1060 (D. Alaska 1979).
· cites it 2× “43 CFR 4.415, 43 CFR 4.911(c). Some appellants’ offers do not conflict in any part with the conveyances at issue here.”
Sierra Club v. Hodel, 737 F. Supp. 629 (D. Utah 1990).
· cites it 2× “4 43 C.F.R. § 4.415 . The IBLA also exercises de novo review when reviewing the administrative record.”
Elaine S. Stickelman v. United States of Am., 563 F.2d 413 (9th Cir. 1977).
“43 C.F.R. § 4.415 (1976). It should grant a hearing when there are significant factual or legal issues remaining to be decided and the record without a hearing would be insufficient for resolving them.”
Geosearch, Inc. v. Andrus, 508 F. Supp. 839 (D. Wyo. 1981).
“43 C.F.R. § 4.415 states in pertinent part: Either an appellant or an adverse party may, if he desires a hearing to present evidence on an issue of fact, request that the case be assigned to an administrative law judge for such a hearing.”
Silas v. Babbitt, 96 F.3d 355 (9th Cir. 1996).
“43 C.F.R. § 4.415 (1972) provides in pertinent part: "Request for hearings on appeals involving questions of fact.”
WillSource Enter., LLC v. Interior Bd. of Land Appeals (D. Colo. 2020).
“1997) (citing 43 C.F.R. § 4.415 ). In Hoyl, the Tenth Circuit 16 rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the IBLA violated his due process rights by refusing to provide him a formal evidentiary hearing.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.