“Docket No. 88-1830 SECRETARY OF LABOR,Complainant,v.STROUDSBURG DYEING & FINISHING COMPANY,Respondent.OSHRC Docket No. 88-1830DECISIONBefore: BUCKLEY, Chairman, and AREY, Commissioner. BY THE COMMISSION:Stroudsburg Dyeing & Finishing Company is seeking relieffrom a final order that resulted from its failure to file a timely notice of contest afterreceipt of a \”failure to abate\” notification. Administrative Law Judge Paul A.Tenney denied Stroudsburg’s request for relief and granted the Secretary’s motion todismiss Stroudsburg’s late-filed notice of contest.[[1\/]]Stroudsburg explains that its late filing of the notice of contest \”was a result ofthe local area OSHA personnel dealing with an employee who was not authorized to representthe company in OSHA matters.\” Stroudsburg states that, as a \”result of an errorof procedure,\” the failure to abate notice was directed to this unauthorizedemployee, who delayed in bringing it to the attention of those who were authorized to dealwith OSHA matters.The record reveals that the Secretary addressed Stroudsburg’scitation to the company, not to any particular official, and sent the citation toStroudsburg’s post office address. Such service is sufficient and Stroudsburg has notshown any way in which it constituted misconduct by the Secretary. There is therefore nobasis for an equitable tolling of the 15-working-day time limitation under the principlesfirst stated in Atlantic Marine, Inc. v. OSHRC, 524 F.2d 476 (5th Cir. 1975), andlater followed by the Commission. E.g., Louisiana-Pacific Corp., OSHRC Docket No.86-1266 (January 27, 1989). Similarly, Stroudsburg has not shown any basis for relief fromthe final order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).[[2\/]] The failure of theStroudsburg employee who received the mailed citation to bring it to the attention of theproper officer of the company does not constitute \”excusable neglect\” or\”any other reason justifying relief.\” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1) and (6). SeeLouisiana-Pacific Corp., supra; Rebco Steel Corp., 80 OSAHRC 28\/G2, 8BNA OSHC 1235, 1980 CCH OSHD ? 24,334 (No. 77- 2040, 1980) (relief under Rule 60(b) notjustified where employer failed to properly supervise the employee who mishandled the OSHAcitation). Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the Administrative Law Judge grantingthe Secretary’s motion to dismiss the notice of contest.FOR THE COMMISSION Ray H. Darling, Jr.Executive Secretary DATED: 27 FEB 1989SECRETARY OF LABORComplainantv.STROUDSBURG DYEING & FINISHINGCOMPANYRespondentDocket No. 88-1830ORDER1. By a letter dated November 4, 1988, Mr. Alvin J. SternEngineering Consultant for the contesting employer writes regarding my order dated October17 concerning the dismissal of the Notice of Contest for untimely filing. In effect, theletter asks for reconsideration of the order.2. While the letter explains in some degree what is apparentlythe employer’s position with respect to the merits of the case, it does not explain whyits contest to the \”failure to abate\” notification was not timely filed; thatis, why it was not filed within fifteen (15) working days following receipt of thenotification. Accordingly, the request is denied.PAUL A. TENNEYJudge, OSHRCDATED: November 7, 1988Washington, D.C. FOOTNOTES: [[1\/]] Under 29 U.S.C. ? 659(b), an employer who has received a failure to abate noticeand proposed penalty has fifteen working days in which to notify the Secretary of Laborthat it intends to contest the notification and penalty. If the employer fails to notifythe Secretary within the time limit, the notification and penalty assessment \”shallbe deemed a final order of the Commission and not subject to review by any court oragency.\” Stroudsburg received the failure to abate notification on May 31, 1988. Thefinal date upon which a notice of contest could have been filed was June 21, 1988.Stroudsburg did not mail its notice of 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 party or a party’slegal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the followingreasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect … or (6) any otherreason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.”