United States Department of the Interior Office of Hearings and Appeals

Interior Board of Land Appeals 801 N. Quincy St., Suite 300

Arlington, VA 22203

703-235-3750 703-235-8349 (fax)

May 9, 2017

2015-74-1 AMC 399740, et

MARY BROCK, ETAL (ON RECONSIDERATION)

Mining Claim Maintenance Fees

Motion for Reconsideration Denied

ORDER

In an Order dated June 26, 2015, the Board dismissed an appeal filed by Mary Brock, Susan Mankowski, and Jeri Lynn Brock (appellants). We dismissed the appeal because appellants did not set forth any grounds for appeal within the required time period. Appellants later mailed to the Board a statement of reasons

in support of their dismissed appeal. Since appellants have not shown how their failure to comply with the Board's regulatory filing requirements constitutes the extraordinary circumstances required to reconsider their appeal, we wi l l not consider the SOR, and we decline to reconsider our dismissal of the appeal.

Appellants filed a notice of appeal from a November 13, 2014, decision of the Arizona State Office, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). In the decision, BLM declared appellants' lode mining claims forfeited for failure to timely pay the maintenance fees for the 2015 assessment year. In their notice of appeal, appellants did not set forth any grounds for appeal but did indicate that they would file their SOR within the 30-day deadline set forth in 43 C.F.R. § 4.412(a).

Appellants timely requested the Board to extend the deadline for filing their SOR until March 16, 2015. We granted appellants' request. After more than 3 months passed without receiving appellants' SOR, another extension of time request, or any other explanation for not filing wi th the Board any reasons in support of their appeal, we dismissed the matter from our docket for failure to timely submit an SOR.1

See IBLA 2015-74, Order dated June 26, 2015 (citing 43 C.F.R. § 4.402(a)).

Background

IBLA 2015-74-1

Shortly after we dismissed appellants' appeal, they sent to us a letter with enclosures. In the letter, they disputed their failure to file an SOR and enclosed for our review the SOR "forwarded to the BLM office and Field Solicitor." We construed appellants' correspondence as a timely-filed motion for reconsideration and docketed the motion accordingly.

Discussion

A movant seeking reconsideration of a Board decision must demonstrate that "extraordinary circumstances" warrant reconsideration of that decision.2 Here, appellants do not provide any extraordinary circumstances to justify reinstating appellants' appeal. Significantly, appellants do not claim that they filed the SOR with the Board before we dismissed their appeal. Instead, they state that they timely submitted their reasons for appeal to BLM and to the Solicitor's office. They therefore insist that we reinstate their appeal and decide the matter on the merits. We decline to do so.

A movant's failure to comply with the procedures set forth in our regulations does not constitute "extraordinary circumstances" for reconsideration.3 According to 43 C.F.R. § 4.412(a), an appellant "must file" an SOR "with the Board" by a prescribed time.4 When an SOR is filed within the prescribed time period, the Board may summarily dismiss the appeal.5 Thus, when we dismiss an appeal for failure to timely file an SOR, a movant seeking reconsideration of that dismissal on the sole ground that it sent its SOR to another Departmental office has only shown that it did not comply with governing regulations.6 Failure to adhere to our regulations does not constitute extraordinary circumstances that would warrant reconsideration.

In this case, appellants have not explained why they did not file their SOR with the Board within the allotted timeframe or why their appeal was otherwise wrongly dismissed. They only seek reconsideration on the ground that they sent their SOR to BLM and to BLM's counsel. Since appellants did not follow the governing regulation that an SOR must be filed with the Board, and because failing to follow our regulations does not, by itself, justify reinstating a closed appeal, reconsideration of appellants' appeal is not warranted.

43 C.F.R. 4.403(b).

See Wyoming Oil & Minerals, Inc. (On Reconsideration), 71 IBLA 15, 16 (1983). See 43 C.F.R. § 4.22(a) (filing with the Board occurs when the Board receives the

document). Id. §§ 4.402(a), 4.412(c). See Wyoming Oil & Minerals, Inc. (On Reconsideration), 71 IBLA at 16.

2

IBLA 2015-74-1

We conclude that appellants have failed to demonstrate the existence of any extraordinary circumstance warranting reconsideration of our June 26, 2015, Order, dismissing appellants' appeal. Therefore, pursuant to the authority delegated to the Board of Land Appeals by the Secretary of the Interior,7 we deny appellants' motion for reconsideration and dismiss this case from our docket.

I concur:

43 C.F.R. § 4 .1.

3