Montalban Oil and Gas Operations, Inc. (Board decision, July 7, 2026)

Plain-English summary

Angela Otero petitioned for review of two Class V Underground Injection Control permits issued by EPA Region 8 to Montalban Oil and Gas Operations, Inc. The Region served notice of the final permit decisions on May 1, 2026, making June 1 the filing deadline because the thirtieth day fell on a weekend. Otero filed electronically at 12:03:57 a.m. on June 2 and offered no explanation or special circumstances for the delay. The Board denied her motion to treat the petition as timely and dismissed the petition.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authorities: 40 C.F.R. §§ 124.19 and 124.20
• Outcome: The motion to excuse the late filing was denied, and the petition for review was dismissed as untimely.
• Key point: The EAB may relax a filing deadline for good cause, but a late permit petition requires special circumstances, not merely a claim that the delay caused no prejudice.

Full text (EPA EAB public release)

                                                                         F I L E D
                                                                            Jul 07, 2026
                                                                       Clerk, Environmental Appeals Board
                                               INITIALS ________________________
                 ENVIRONMENTAL APPEALS BOARD
        UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                        WASHINGTON, D.C.


                                         )

In re Montalban Oil and Gas Operations, Inc. )
) UIC Appeal No. 26-02
Permit Nos. MT52443-12513 & )
MT52439-12514 )
)

           ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR REVIEW AS UNTIMELY



                                  Decided July 7, 2026




   Before Environmental Appeals Judges Aaron P. Avila and Ammie Roseman-Orr.

   Order of the Board by Judge Roseman-Orr:

   Before the Environmental Appeals Board is a petition from Angela Otero (“Petitioner”)

seeking review of two Class V Underground Injection Control (“UIC”) permits issued by the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 8 to Montalban Oil and Gas Operations, Inc., and

a motion from Petitioner to accept the petition for review as timely. For the reasons discussed

below, the Board denies Petitioner’s motion and dismisses the petition for review.

   Part 124 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations governs Board review of UIC

permitting decisions. Under part 124, a petition for review must be filed within thirty days after

the permit issuer serves notice that a final UIC permit decision has been issued. 40 C.F.R.

§ 124.19(a)(3). A document is considered filed on the date it is received by the Clerk of the

Board, and any document that is “filed electronically must be submitted using the Environmental
Appeals Board’s electronic filing system, subject to any appropriate conditions and limitations

imposed by order of the Environmental Appeals Board.” Id. § 124.19(i), (2)(i) (emphasis

added). The deadline for filing electronically with the Board – 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the

day the filing is due – is clearly provided in the Board’s standing Order on Electronic Filing and

in the directions on the Board’s website for filing documents electronically. Order on Electronic

Filing at 3 (EAB Sept. 29, 2025) 1; How to File with the EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board

Using the e-Filing System, https://www.epa.gov/environmental-appeals-board/how-file-epas-

environmental-appeals-board-using-e-filing-system (last updated Mar. 17, 2026). 2 It is the

filer’s responsibility to ensure that documents are timely filed. Order on Electronic Filing at 2

n.4.

   Here, the Region served Petitioner with notice of the final UIC permit decisions by email

on May 1, 2026. Pet. for Review at 4 (June 2, 2026); EPA Region 8’s Resp. to Mot. to Review

Pet. as Timely at 1 & attach. A (June 8, 2026) (“Reg.’s Resp. to Motion”). Because thirty days

after May 1, 2026, fell on a weekend, the deadline for Petitioner to file a petition for review was

Monday, June 1, 2026. See 40 C.F.R. § 124.20(c). Petitioner filed the petition for review with

the Board through its electronic filing system at 12:03:57 a.m. Eastern Time on June 2, 2026.

Petitioner’s pending motion acknowledges that her petition was untimely filed, but requests that

   1
     The Board’s Order on Electronic Filing is available at

https://www.epa.gov/environmental-appeals-board under the “Rules & Standing Orders
Governing Appeals Filed with the EAB” tab.
2
When filing by mail, courier, or hand-delivery, a filer must ensure that the filing is
received by the Clerk by close of business on the day the filing is due. Filing electronically
provides filers with additional hours on the day the filing is due by which to file.

                                            -2-

the Board accept the petition for review as timely or, in the alternative, “grant leave to file the

petition out of time.” Pet’r’s Mot. to Accept Pet. for Review as Timely at 2 (June 2, 2026)

(“Motion”). Petitioner indicates that she was aware the deadline for electronic filing was June 1,

2026. Id. at 1; Pet. for Review at 4. Petitioner provides no explanation for why the petition was

filed late. Petitioner’s only basis for asking the Board to accept the untimely petition is that the

delay in filing should be considered “de minimus” as it “caused no prejudice to any party or to

the Board’s consideration of the matter.” Motion at 2. The Region does not oppose the motion.

Reg.’s Resp. to Motion at 2

   The Board may “relax or suspend” filing deadlines for “good cause.” 40 C.F.R.

§ 124.19(n). It is well established that where a petition for review is filed after the deadline for

filing a petition has passed, “good cause” requires a showing of “special circumstances.” See,

e.g., In re Florence Copper, Inc., UIC Appeal No. 17-04, at 2 (EAB Mar. 22, 2017) (Order

Dismissing Pet. for Review as Untimely); In re Invensys Sys., Inc., NPDES Appeal No. 15-10,

at 2 n.1. (EAB Aug. 6, 2015) (Order Granting Extension of Time to File Pet. for Review).

Special circumstances have been found in cases where the delay in filing stemmed from

circumstances outside of the petitioner’s control, including natural disasters, responses to

terrorist threats, and problems with delivery service, and in situations where inaccurate or

misleading information provided by the permitting authority attributed to the delay. See, e.g., In

re Maralex Disposal, LLC, SDWA Appeal No. 13-01, at 3 (EAB Sept. 3, 2013) (Order

Dismissing Appeal as Untimely) (citing several orders issued by the Board on whether special

circumstances excused the late filing); In re Sierra Pac. Indus., PSD Appeal No. 13-01, at 4 n.5

(Mar. 21, 2013) (Order Denying Extension of Time to File Appeal Brief) (same). “Absent the

type of special circumstance that would justify the filing of an untimely appeal, the Board will
-3-
not deviate from its general practice of adhering to the 30-day period for the filing of an appeal,

as set forth in 40 C.F.R. § 124.19.” In re Town of Marshfield, NPDES Appeal No. 07-03, at 8

(EAB Mar. 27, 2007) (Order Denying Review).

   Without any explanation for the late filing, and because we are otherwise unaware of any

special circumstances that would justify relaxing the filing deadline, the Board has no basis from

which to conclude that special circumstances warrant acceptance of this untimely petition. See

Florence Copper, UIC Appeal No. 17-04, at 3; In re Seneca Resources Corp., 16 E.A.D. 411,

417-18 (EAB 2014); In re B&L Plating, Inc., 11 E.A.D. 183, 190-91 (EAB 2003). Moreover,

“de minimus” transgressions of the deadline without explanation do not amount to special

circumstances. The Board acknowledges that Petitioner is appearing pro se (i.e., is not

represented by legal counsel), and “[a]lthough the Board endeavors to construe petitions [from

pro se litigants] broadly * * * a litigant who elects to appear pro se takes upon himself or herself

the responsibility for complying with the procedural rules and may suffer adverse consequences

in the event of noncompliance.” In re Super Chem Corp., FIFRA Appeal No. 02-05, at 3, n.5

(EAB Sept. 9, 2002) (Order Dismissing Appeal) (dismissing appeal where pro se party did not

demonstrate that any special circumstances existed).

   After careful consideration, the Board concludes that the petition for review was not

timely filed and there is no basis to find that special circumstances warrant relaxation of the

deadline set forth in 40 C.F.R. § 124.19. Accordingly, the Board denies the Petitioner’s motion

and dismisses the petition for review as untimely.

   So ordered.




                                            -4-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

   I certify that copies of the foregoing Order Dismissing Petition for Review as Untimely in

the matter of Montalban Oil and Gas Operations, Inc., UIC Appeal No. 26-02, were sent to the
following persons on July 7, 2026, in the manner indicated:

By E-mail:

Angela Otero
[email protected]

Patrick Montalban
Montalban Oil & Gas Operations, Inc
[email protected]
[email protected]

Lucita Chin
Office of Regional Counsel
EPA Region 8
[email protected]

                                                                        Digitally signed by
                                                                        TOMMIE MADISON
                                                                        Date: 2026.07.07
                                                                        12:36:39 -04'00'
                                                             Tommie Madison
                                                             Clerk of the Board