required under the Act was timely given....”)); United States for Use of Altman v. Young Lumber Co., 376 F.Supp. 1290, 1295 (D.S.C.1974) (“Rule 6(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, applies to the Miller Act limitation.”); United States for Use and Benefit of Lincoln Elec. Products Co. v. Greene Elec. Serv. of Long Island, Inc., 252 F.Supp. 324, 327 (E.D.N.Y.1966) (“The Miller Act 90-day notice time should be computed in accordance with Rule 6(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure .... ”), aff'd, 379 F.2d 207 (2nd Cir.1967); United States for Use and Benefit of Pre-Fab Erectors, Inc. v. A.B.C. Roofing & Siding, Inc., 193 F.Supp. 465, 465 (S.D.Cal.1961) (same). But see United States for the use of Magna Masonry, Inc. v. R. T. Woodfield, Inc., 709 F.2d 249, 250 (4th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>). Finally, Austin and Seaboard argue that
holding that the limitation act does not apply to claims brought under the oil pollution act holding that rule does not apply where defendant made false representations holding that trial court abused its discretion by denying a motion for rule 11 sanctions without adequate explanation holding without explanation or citation that rule 6a does not apply to the miller act holding that the limitation act does not apply to claims brought under the clean water act