“UNITED STATES OF AMERICAOCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION\u00a0 \u00a0 SECRETARY OF LABOR, \u00a0 ???????????????????????????????????????????? Complainant, \u00a0 ???????????????????????? v. OSHRC DOCKET NO. 1434 A. STUART BOLLING COMPANY, INC., \u00a0 ????????????????????????????????????????????? Respondent. \u00a0 \u00a0February 7, 1973ORDEROF REMANDBefore MORAN, Chairman;VAN, NAMEE and BURCH, CommissionersVAN NAMEE, COMMISSIONER:??????????? On November 20, 1972, Judge Herbert E. Bates issued anorder granting Complainant?s motion to deny Respondent?s right to participateas a party and to affirm the citation and penalty proposed therefor. The motionwas predicated on the ground that Respondent failed to file an answer to theSecretary?s complaint as required by the Commission?s Rules of Procedure.??????????? Pursuant to the authority vested in the members of theCommission by section 12(j) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970(29 U.S.C. 651 et seq., 84 Stat. 1590) on December 19, 1972, I directed reviewof Judge?s order. For reasons given below we reverse and remand.??????????? We have reviewed the record and note that Respondentreplied to Complainant?s motion by and through a letter dated November 20, 1972and received by the Commission November 27, 1972. Consequently, this reply wasnot part of the record when Judge Bates issued his dispositive order.??????????? Respondent?s letter set forth its attempts to comply withthe Commission?s rules as well as a brief statement of its position with regardto the allegations of the complaint. In particular Respondent stated:We posted all thepleadings as prescribed by law and thought the posting was the requirement, notthe answer. We felt the important thing was the appeal, not the technicalaspects of the law . . ..?Please let me havea day in court, because I think the facts will show that the charge is not aserious violation or one that could lead to serious injury or death.\u00a0??????????? Treating this letter as both an answer to the complaintand a motion for reinstatement of the case, the Commission is of the opinionthat the Respondent complied with all the pertinent procedural requirements inthis matter, as soon as it fully understood them, without resultant prejudiceto the Complainant. We therefore conclude that Respondent?s late filing of itsanswer, in the circumstances of this case, is not a sufficient basis for denialof its right to participate.??????????? Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: (1) the Judge?s order beand the same is hereby set aside, (2) the Complainant?s motion to dismiss is denied,and (3) the case is remanded for further proceedings.\u00a0\u00a0UNITED STATES OF AMERICAOCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION\u00a0 \u00a0 SECRETARY OF LABOR, \u00a0 ???????????????????????????????????????????? Complainant, \u00a0 ???????????????????????? v. OSHRC DOCKET NO. 1434 A. STUART BOLLING COMPANY, INC., \u00a0 ????????????????????????????????????????????? Respondent. \u00a0 \u00a0November 20, 1972BATES, JUDGE, OSAHRC:Ruling on the Secretary?smotion to deny Respondent?s right to participate as a party and to affirm citationand proposed penalty: Granted.\u00a0”