“Docket No. 77-1985 SECRETARY OF LABOR,Complainant,v.PABST BREWING COMPANY,Respondent.OSHRC Docket No. 77-1985ORDER OF REMANDBefore:\u00a0 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).\u00a0 Inaccordance with the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in American Textile ManufacturersInstitute, Inc. v. Donovan, 101 S.Ct. 2478 (1981) (\”ATMI\”), the Commission heldthat \”feasible\” under the occupational noise standard means achievable.\u00a0 The Commission overruled the cost-benefit test of feasibility previously set forthin Continental Can Co., 76 OSAHRC 109\/A2, 4 BNA OSHC 1541, 1976-77 CCH OSHD ? 21,009 (No.3973, 1976), appeal withdrawn, No. 76-3229 (9th Cir. Apr. 26, 1977), and substituted atest consistent with ATMI. In view of this intervening change in law, the judge’s decision with respectto the alleged violation of section 1910.95(b)(1) is vacated.\u00a0 The case is remandedfor further proceedings, including evidentiary submissions, so that the interrelatedissues of technological and economic feasibility can be reconsidered in light of the testof feasibility established by Sun Ship, Inc. [[1\/]]Pabst Brewing Company argues that the citation lacked sufficientparticularity because it did not identify at least one noise control method which theSecretary of Labor believed was feasible.\u00a0 In Pabst’s view, this was necessary toguard against an unfounded citation, to promote prompt abatement, and to provide fairnotice of the alleged violation.\u00a0 The judge rejected Pabst’s defense on the basis ofCommission precedent that upheld similar noise citations.\u00a0 See Gannett Corp., 81OSAHRC 35\/A2, 4 BNA OSHC 1383, 1976-77 CCH OSHD ? 20,915 (No. 6352, 1976); see also DelMonte Corp., 77 OSAHRC 17\/D12, 4 BNA OSHC 2035, 1976-77 CCH OSHD ? 21,536 (No. 11865,1977).The purpose of the particularity requirement in section 9(a) of the Act is toput the employer on notice as to the nature of the alleged violation.\u00a0 The Secretaryis not required to state with particularity how the employer is to abate the citedviolation.\u00a0 Del Monte Corp., supra; Gannett Corp., supra.\u00a0 When the language ofa citation lacks sufficient particularity the requirements of section 9(a) may befulfilled in later stages of the proceeding.\u00a0 Del Monte Corp., supra; cf. CementAsbestos Products Co., 80 OSAHRC 26\/C7, 8 BNA OSHC 1151, 1980 CCH OSHD ? 24,343 (No.78-1054, 1980).Pabst does not argue that it lacked sufficient information in this case todecide whether to contest the citation or that it was prejudiced in preparing its defense.\u00a0 The Commission has held that the ultimate sanction of vacating a citation should betaken only when this showing has been made.\u00a0 Id.; Gold Kist, Inc., 79 OSAHRC 93\/C8, 7BNA OSHC 1855, 1979 CCH OSHD ? 23,998 (No. 76-2049, 1979).\u00a0 Accordingly, the judge’sruling on particularity is affirmed.\u00a0 SO ORDERED.FOR THE COMMISSIONRay H. Darling, Jr.Executive SecretaryDATED:\u00a0 JAN 31 1983The Administrative Law Judge decision in this matter is unavailable in thisformat.\u00a0 To obtain a copy of this document, please request one from our PublicInformation Office by e-mail ( [email protected]), telephone (202-606-5398), fax (202-606-5050), or TTY (202-606-5386).\u00a0FOOTNOTES:[[1\/]] Chairman Rowland would not remand the case for further proceedings.\u00a0 Consistent with his dissenting opinion in Sun Ship, he concludes that therequirement in section 1910.95(b)(1) that feasible administrative or engineering controlsbe utilized is invalid. Because of this conclusion, Chairman Rowland does not reachPabst’s particularity argument which the majority discuss in the succeeding paragraphs oftheir opinion.”