Aliff responded to the Board's notice stating that he did not wish to pursue his complaint any further and that no additional correspondence was necessary in regard to this appeal.
The STAA and its regulations do not specifically provide for withdrawal of a complaint once the case has been referred to an administrative law judge for hearing, but, the STAA's implementing regulations do provide:
At any time before the findings or order become final, a party may withdraw his objections to the findings or order by filing a written withdrawal with the administrative law judge or, if the case is on review, with the Administrative Review Board, United States Department of Labor. The judge or the Administrative Review Board, United States Department of Labor, as the case may be, shall affirm any portion of the findings or preliminary order with respect to which the objection was withdrawn.[11 ]
Given the title of the ALJ's R. O., it appears that the ALJ construed Aliff's response to the Show Cause Order as a withdrawal of objections to the Secretary's preliminary findings pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1978.111(c). Aliff has not objected to the ALJ's decision to treat his assertion that there was no reason to keep his claim open as a request to withdraw his objections to the Secretary's preliminary findings and we know of no reason to reject the ALJ's recommended decision, given that Aliff has been reinstated to his position and his benefits have been restored. Accordingly, we GRANT the request to withdraw the objections to the Secretary's preliminary findings and AFFIRM those findings denying Aliff's complaint as provided in 29 C.F.R. § 1978.111(c).
SO ORDERED.
M. CYNTHIA DOUGLASS
Chief Administrative Appeals Judge
OLIVER M. TRANSUE
Administrative Appeals Judge
[ENDNOTES]
1 49 U.S.C.A. § 31105 (West 2008). Section 405 of the STAA provides protection from discrimination to employees who report violations of commercial motor vehicle safety rules or who refuse to operate a vehicle when such operation would violate those rules. Congress has amended the STAA since Aliff filed his complaint. See Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, P.L. 110-53, 121 Stat. 266 (Aug. 3, 2007). It is not necessary for us to determine whether the amendments are applicable to this case because even if the amendments were applicable, they would not affect our decision since they are not applicable to the issues presented for our review.
2 29 C.F.R. Part 1978 (2007).
3 See 29 C.F.R. § 1978.102.
4 See 29 C.F.R. § 1978.105.
5 See 49 U.S.C.A. § 31105(b)(2)(C); 29 C.F.R. § 1978.109(c)(1).
6 Secretary's Order 1-2002, 67 Fed. Reg. 64,272 (Oct. 17, 2002); 29 C.F.R. § 1978.109(a).
7 29 C.F.R. § 1978.109(c)(3); BSP Trans, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 160 F.3d 38, 46 (1st Cir. 1998); Castle Coal & Oil Co., Inc. v. Reich, 55 F.3d 41, 44 (2d Cir. 1995).
8 5 U.S.C.A. § 557(b) (West 1996).
9 See Roadway Express, Inc. v. Dole, 929 F.2d 1060, 1066 (5th Cir. 1991).
10 See 29 C.F.R. § 1978.109(a).
11 29 C.F.R. § 1978.111(c).