UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-2116
WILLIAM T. KNOX,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the United States Department
of Labor. (07-105; 01-CAA-3)
Submitted: October 21, 2008 Decided: November 20, 2008
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Adam E. Draper, Paula Dinerstein, PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner.
Gregory F. Jacob, Solicitor of Labor, Steven J. Mandel, Associate
Solicitor, Paul L. Frieden, Mary J. Rieser, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William T. Knox appeals the Administrative Review Board’s
(“ARB”) decision on second remand rejecting the Administrative Law
Judge’s recommended decision and order awarding benefits, and
dismissing Knox’s whistle-blower complaint brought under the Clean
Air Act (“CAA”), 42 U.S.C. § 7622 (2006). We dismiss the petition
for lack of jurisdiction because the petition for review was not
timely filed.
The statute that establishes the jurisdiction of this
court to review a whistle-blower case brought under the CAA
provides that:
Any person adversely affected or aggrieved by an order
issued under subsection (b) of this section may obtain
review of the order in the United States court of appeals
for the circuit in which the violation, with respect to
which the order was issued, allegedly occurred. The
petition for review must be filed within sixty days from
the issuance of the Secretary’s order.
Id. § 7622(c)(1). This time period is jurisdictional, and under
Fed. R. App. P. 26(b), the court may not extend the time to file a
petition to review an order of an administrative board unless
specifically authorized by law. Section 7622 contains no such
authorization.
In this case, the ARB’s decision issued on August 30,
2007. Knox’s petition for review was not filed until October 30,
2007, sixty-one days later. We therefore dismiss the petition for
review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3