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[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 22-14140 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ METAL CONVERSION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).