Excelsior Mining Arizona, Inc. (Board decision, August 1, 2018)

In re Excelsior Mining Arizona, Inc. (EAB UIC Appeal No. 18-03): petition dismissed after withdrawal

Decision type
Board decision
Dockets
UIC 18-03, R9UIC-AZ3-FY16-1
Decided
August 1, 2018
Outcome
Procedural
Precedential status
Citable Board precedent
Checked against source
2026-08-21

Apply this precedent to your situation

This is citable Board precedent from 2018, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.

Currency note: this decision dates from 2018
The EPA regulations may have been amended, penalty amounts have been adjusted, and later Board or court decisions may have changed the analysis since then. Treat this page as historical context, not current compliance advice. Verify the current standard before relying on any specific rule, threshold, or penalty mentioned here.
Final EAB decision
This Environmental Appeals Board order is a final disposition of the appeal. After Sharon Rock asked to formally rescind her appeal of a Class III Underground Injection Control permit, the Board treated the letter as a request for dismissal and dismissed the petition. The full text below is the official EPA release, transcribed from a scanned PDF with OCR proofreading.
About this page: The plain-English summary and decision snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official EPA EAB release. The full text is the agency's own release.
Transcribed from a scanned original: EPA EAB released this decision as an image-only file. The full text below is a machine transcription, proofread against the scan. Check the official release before quoting exact language.
Read the official release (epa.gov)

Plain-English summary

Sharon Rock appealed a Class III Underground Injection Control permit issued by EPA Region 9 to Excelsior Mining Arizona, Inc. for the Gunnison Copper Project in Cochise County, Arizona. She later sent a letter seeking to formally rescind the appeal. The Environmental Appeals Board treated that letter as a request for dismissal under 40 C.F.R. § 124.19(k), waived procedural requirements because she appeared to be unrepresented, and dismissed the petition. The order does not decide the merits of the permit or the project.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited authorities: 40 C.F.R. § 124.19(i)(3), § 124.19(i)(4), § 124.19(k), and § 124.19(n)
  • Outcome: The petition for review was dismissed after the petitioner asked to rescind the appeal.
  • Key point: The EAB may treat a pro se petitioner's letter as a request for dismissal and relax filing requirements for good cause.

Full text (EPA EAB public release)

ENVIRONMENTAL APPEALS BOARD
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C.

                                               )

In re: )
)
Excelsior Mining Arizona, Inc. ) UIC Appeal No. 18-03 Permit No. R9UIC-AZ3-FY16-1 )
)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR REVIEW

On July 9, 2018, Petitioner Sharon Rock filed a letter appealing a Class III Underground Injection Control (“UIC”) permit issued by EPA Region 9 to Excelsior Mining Arizona, Inc. for the Gunnison Copper Project in Cochise County, Arizona. Letter from Sharon Rock to Clerk of the Board, U.S. EPA (July 2, 2018). Subsequently, the Board received a second letter from Ms. Rock seeking to “formally rescind” the appeal. Letter from Sharon Rock to Clerk of the Board, U.S. EPA (July 18, 2018).¹

Federal regulations governing the appeal of UIC permits provide that a petitioner may, by motion, request dismissal of an appeal and that the motion must include a reason for the request. 40 C.F.R. § 124.19(k). The Board interprets Ms. Rock’s July 18 letter as a request for dismissal pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 124.19(k). Given that Ms. Rock appears to be unrepresented by legal counsel, the Board in this instance waives the procedural requirements concerning the form and contents of a request for dismissal. See 40 C.F.R. § 124.19(n) (authorizing the Board to “do all acts and take all measures necessary for the efficient, fair, and impartial adjudication of issues arising in an appeal,” including relaxing or suspending filing requirements for good cause); see also In re Sutter Power Plant, 8 E.A.D. 680, 687 (EAB 1999) (stating that public participation in the permitting process should not be “unduly hampered by process restrictions”).

Therefore, the Board grants the request and dismisses the Petition.

So ordered.²

ENVIRONMENTAL APPEALS BOARD

Dated: 08/01/2018

By: ________
Kathie A. Stein
Environmental Appeals Judge

The three-member panel deciding this matter is composed of Environmental Appeals Judges Aaron P. Avila, Mary Kay Lynch, and Kathie A. Stein.

¹ The regulations governing the appeal of UIC permits require that all petitions for review and other documents subsequently filed with the Board be served on the Regional Administrator as well as on the permit applicant, if petitioner is not the applicant. 40 C.F.R. § 124.19(i)(3). Proof of service must be appended to each document that is filed. Id. § 124.19(i)(4). Neither the July 2 letter nor the July 18 letter includes proof of service, and there is no indication the filings otherwise satisfy the service requirements. In light of the request for dismissal, the Board through this Order provides notice to the Region and to the permit applicant of the initiation of the proceeding.

² The three-member panel deciding this matter is composed of Environmental Appeals Judges Aaron P. Avila, Mary Kay Lynch, and Kathie A. Stein.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of the foregoing Order Dismissing Petition for Review in the matter of Excelsior Mining Arizona, Inc., UIC Appeal No. 18-03, was sent to the following persons in the manner indicated:

By First Class Certified Mail/
Return Receipt Requested:

Sharon Rock
P.O. Box 1723
Bisbee, AZ 85603

Rebecca A. Sawyer
Vice President, Sustainability
Excelsior Mining Arizona, Inc.
Concord Place, Suite 300
2999 North 44th Street
Phoenix, AZ 85018

By EPA Pouch Mail:

Mike Stoker
Regional Administrator
U.S. EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
Mail Code ORA-1
San Francisco, CA 94105

Rich Campbell
Office of Regional Counsel
U.S. EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
Mail Code ORC-2
San Francisco, CA 94105

Dated: AUG 1 2018 ________
Annette Duncan
Administrative Specialist

Does this precedent still control your case?

Ezel checks whether it still stands, including any court review since, and applies it to your situation with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace