“SECRETARY OF LABOR,Complainant,v.STROUDSBURG DYEING &FINISHING COMPANY,Respondent.OSHRC Docket No. 88-1830_DECISION_Before: BUCKLEY, Chairman, and AREY, Commissioner.BY THE COMMISSION:Stroudsburg Dyeing & Finishing Company is seeking relief from a finalorder that resulted from its failure to file a timely notice of contestafter receipt of a \”failure to abate\” notification. Administrative LawJudge Paul A. Tenney denied Stroudsburg’s request for relief and grantedthe Secretary’s motion to dismiss Stroudsburg’s late-filed notice ofcontest.[[1\/]]Stroudsburg explains that its late filing of the notice of contest \”wasa result of the local area OSHA personnel dealing with an employee whowas not authorized to represent the company in OSHA matters.\”Stroudsburg states that, as a \”result of an error of procedure,\” thefailure to abate notice was directed to this unauthorized employee, whodelayed in bringing it to the attention of those who were authorized todeal with OSHA matters.The record reveals that the Secretary addressed Stroudsburg’s citationto the company, not to any particular official, and sent the citation toStroudsburg’s post office address. Such service is sufficient andStroudsburg has not shown any way in which it constituted misconduct bythe Secretary. There is therefore no basis for an equitable tolling ofthe 15-working-day time limitation under the principles first stated in_Atlantic Marine, Inc. v. OSHRC,_ 524 F.2d 476 (5th Cir. 1975), andlater followed by the Commission. _E.g., Louisiana-Pacific Corp., _OSHRCDocket No. 86-1266 (January 27, 1989). Similarly, Stroudsburg has notshown any basis for relief from the final order under Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 60(b).[[2\/]] The failure of the Stroudsburg employee whoreceived the mailed citation to bring it to the attention of the properofficer of the company does not constitute \”excusable neglect\” or \”anyother reason justifying relief.\” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1) and (6). _SeeLouisiana-Pacific Corp.,_ _supra;_ _Rebco Steel Corp.,_ 80 OSAHRC 28\/G2,8 BNA OSHC 1235, 1980 CCH OSHD ? 24,334 (No. 77- 2040, 1980) (reliefunder Rule 60(b) not justified where employer failed to properlysupervise the employee who mishandled the OSHA citation). Accordingly,we affirm the decision of the Administrative Law Judge granting theSecretary’s motion to dismiss the notice of contest.FOR THE COMMISSIONRay H. Darling, Jr.Executive SecretaryDATED: 27 FEB 1989————————————————————————SECRETARY OF LABORComplainantv.STROUDSBURG DYEING & FINISHINGCOMPANYRespondentDocket No. 88-1830_ORDER_1. By a letter dated November 4, 1988, Mr. Alvin J. Stern EngineeringConsultant for the contesting employer writes regarding my order datedOctober 17 concerning the dismissal of the Notice of Contest foruntimely filing. In effect, the letter asks for reconsideration of theorder.2. While the letter explains in some degree what is apparently theemployer’s position with respect to the merits of the case, it does notexplain why its contest to the \”failure to abate\” notification was nottimely filed; that is, why it was not filed within fifteen (15) workingdays following receipt of the notification. Accordingly, the request isdenied.PAUL A. TENNEYJudge, OSHRCDATED: November 7, 1988Washington, D.C.————————————————————————FOOTNOTES:[[1\/]] Under 29 U.S.C. ? 659(b), an employer who has received a failureto abate notice and proposed penalty has fifteen working days in whichto notify the Secretary of Labor that it intends to contest thenotification and penalty. If the employer fails to notify the Secretarywithin the time limit, the notification and penalty assessment \”shall bedeemed a final order of the Commission and not subject to review by anycourt or agency.\” Stroudsburg received the failure to abate notificationon May 31, 1988. The final date upon which a notice of contest couldhave been filed was June 21, 1988. Stroudsburg did not mail its noticeof contest until July 28, 1988.[[2\/]] Rule 60. Relief From Judgment or Order(b) Mistakes; Inadvertence; Excusable Neglect; Newly DiscoveredEvidence, Fraud, etc.On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a partyor a party’s legal representative from a final judgment, order, orproceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence,surprise, or excusable neglect … or (6) any other reason justifyingrelief from the operation of the judgment.”