USCA11 Case: 22-14140 Document: 15-1 Date Filed: 07/27/2023 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-14140
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
METAL CONVERSION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety
Administration (PHMSA),
Respondent.
____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-14140 Document: 15-1 Date Filed: 07/27/2023 Page: 2 of 3
2 Opinion of the Court 22-14140
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
U.S. Department of Transportation
Agency No. 18-0086-HMI-SW
____________________
Before BRANCH, LUCK, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This petition for review is DISMISSED as untimely. Metal
Conversion Technologies, LLC (“MCT”) contends that it did not
receive notice of the Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety
Administration’s (“PHMSA”) July 25, 2022, decision assessing a
civil penalty against it until October 18, 2022. However, PHMSA
sent a copy of the decision by certified mail to Deitra Crawley,
MCT’s legal counsel at the time the decision was issued, on August
2, 2022. According to the regulations governing PHMSA proceed-
ings, MCT received notice of the decision on that date. See
49
C.F.R. § 105.35(a). Therefore, PHMSA’s decision became final on
August 2, 2022, and MCT’s petition for review was due by October
3, 2022. See Fed. R. App. P. 26(a)(1)(C);
49 U.S.C. §§ 5123(b),
5127(a). Thus, MCT’s petition for review, filed on December 15,
2022, was untimely.
While MCT argues that the 60-day filing deadline contained
in
49 U.S.C. § 5127(a) is not jurisdictional and, thus, subject to
equitable tolling, even claims-processing rules are not subject to
equitable tolling if the text of the rule precludes flexibility. See
Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert,
139 S. Ct. 710, 714-15 (2019)
USCA11 Case: 22-14140 Document: 15-1 Date Filed: 07/27/2023 Page: 3 of 3
22-14140 Opinion of the Court 3
(discussing how the time limitation in Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(f) is not subject to equitable tolling based on the
language in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26(b)(1)).
Moreover, an extension of the 60-day deadline that applies here is
not “specifically authorized by law.” See Fed. R. App. P. 26(b)(2).
