“SECRETARY OF LABOR,Complainant,v.PABST BREWING COMPANY,Respondent.OSHRC Docket No. 77-1985_ORDER OF REMAND_Before: ROWLAND, Chairman; CLEARY and COTTINE, Commissioners.BY THE COMMISSION:On December 17, 1982, the Commission issued its decision in Sun Ship,Inc., 82 OSAHRC , 11 BNA OSHC 1028, 1983 CCH OSHD ? 26,353 (No. 16118,1982). In accordance with the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court inAmerican Textile Manufacturers Institute, Inc. v. Donovan, 101 S.Ct.2478 (1981) (\”ATMI\”), the Commission held that \”feasible\” under theoccupational noise standard means achievable. The Commission overruledthe cost-benefit test of feasibility previously set forth in ContinentalCan Co., 76 OSAHRC 109\/A2, 4 BNA OSHC 1541, 1976-77 CCH OSHD ? 21,009(No. 3973, 1976), appeal withdrawn, No. 76-3229 (9th Cir. Apr. 26,1977), and substituted a test consistent with ATMI.In view of this intervening change in law, the judge’s decision withrespect to the alleged violation of section 1910.95(b)(1) is vacated. The case is remanded for further proceedings, including evidentiarysubmissions, so that the interrelated issues of technological andeconomic feasibility can be reconsidered in light of the test offeasibility established by Sun Ship, Inc. [[1\/]]Pabst Brewing Company argues that the citation lacked sufficientparticularity because it did not identify at least one noise controlmethod which the Secretary of Labor believed was feasible. In Pabst’sview, this was necessary to guard against an unfounded citation, topromote prompt abatement, and to provide fair notice of the allegedviolation. The judge rejected Pabst’s defense on the basis ofCommission precedent that upheld similar noise citations. See GannettCorp., 81 OSAHRC 35\/A2, 4 BNA OSHC 1383, 1976-77 CCH OSHD ? 20,915 (No.6352, 1976); see also Del Monte Corp., 77 OSAHRC 17\/D12, 4 BNA OSHC2035, 1976-77 CCH OSHD ? 21,536 (No. 11865, 1977).The purpose of the particularity requirement in section 9(a) of the Actis to put the employer on notice as to the nature of the allegedviolation. The Secretary is not required to state with particularityhow the employer is to abate the cited violation. Del Monte Corp.,supra; Gannett Corp., supra. When the language of a citation lackssufficient particularity the requirements of section 9(a) may befulfilled in later stages of the proceeding. Del Monte Corp., supra;cf. Cement Asbestos Products Co., 80 OSAHRC 26\/C7, 8 BNA OSHC 1151, 1980CCH OSHD ? 24,343 (No. 78-1054, 1980).Pabst does not argue that it lacked sufficient information in this caseto decide whether to contest the citation or that it was prejudiced inpreparing its defense. The Commission has held that the ultimatesanction of vacating a citation should be taken only when this showinghas been made. Id.; Gold Kist, Inc., 79 OSAHRC 93\/C8, 7 BNA OSHC 1855,1979 CCH OSHD ? 23,998 (No. 76-2049, 1979). Accordingly, the judge’sruling on particularity is affirmed. SO ORDERED.FOR THE COMMISSIONRay H. Darling, Jr.Executive SecretaryDATED: JAN 31 1983————————————————————————The Administrative Law Judge decision in this matter is unavailable inthis format. To obtain a copy of this document, please request one fromour Public Information Office by e-mail ( [email protected] ), telephone (202-606-5398), fax(202-606-5050), or TTY (202-606-5386). FOOTNOTES:[[1\/]] Chairman Rowland would not remand the case for furtherproceedings. Consistent with his dissenting opinion in Sun Ship, heconcludes that the requirement in section 1910.95(b)(1) that feasibleadministrative or engineering controls be utilized is invalid. Becauseof this conclusion, Chairman Rowland does not reach Pabst’sparticularity argument which the majority discuss in the succeedingparagraphs of their opinion.”