Although Tavares requested hearings on all three complaints, he filed the requests at least nine months beyond the 30-day time limit for appealing an adverse finding by OSHA. Consequently, the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") directed Tavares to show cause why his complaints should not be dismissed because the hearing requests were untimely. In response, Tavares asserted that he was not properly served with the OSHA decisions and that as a professional truck driver he is often away from home, as long as one and one-half months. In a consolidated Recommended Decision and Order issued February 21, 2001, the ALJ rejected this excuse and recommended that we dismiss the complaint. The recommended decision of the ALJ is before the Board pursuant to the automatic review procedures of 29 C.F.R. §1978.109(c)(1).

   In accordance with 29 C.F.R. §1978.109(c)(2), the Board invited all parties to file briefs in support of, or in opposition to, the ALJ's recommended decision. None of the parties elected to file briefs.

   Under the STAA implementing regulations, the Board is bound by the factual findings of the ALJ if those findings are supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole. 29 C.F.R. §1978.109(c)(3). The Board reviews the ALJ's conclusions of law de novo. Johnson v. Roadway Express, Inc., ARB No. 99-011, ALJ No. 1999-STA-5 (ARB Mar. 29, 2000) citing Roadway Express, Inc. v. Dole, 929 F.2d 1060, 1066 (5th Cir. 1991).

   Here, the ALJ noted that the time limit for requesting hearings in these cases could be equitably tolled for a variety of reasons including inadequate notice. However, the ALJ went on to state:

Mr Tavares' response to the [show cause order] asserts no analogous reasons to invoke equitable tolling. Mr. Tavares initially argues that his request for a hearing was not timely because he was not properly notified and served. However, this argument is conclusory; it provides no facts to support a finding that Mr Tavares was prevented from filing by improper service. Also, assuming Mr. Tavares' occupation as a professional truck driver prevented him from filing his complaint in a timely fashion, it does not excuse his failure to file his written objections until nearly ten months after he received his most recent notice of findings from the Secretary. In fact, over one year and eight months passed after the Secretary's first ruling and Mr. Tavares' first contact with this office [of Administrative Law Judges]. In each of her findings, the Secretary made clear that Mr. Tavares was required to submit any written objections to the Secretary's findings and request a formal hearing within 30 days of receiving this order. Mr. Tavares has not provided a basis for finding either that his filings were timely or that the statutory limitations should be tolled.

Tavares has not identified, nor do we find, any error in the ALJ's conclusion that Tavares' appeals

were not timely filed. Accordingly, we concur with the ALJ's recommendation and DISMISS Tavares' complaints.

   SO ORDERED.

      PAUL GREENBERG
      Chair

      RICHARD A. BEVERLY
      Alternate Member