“Docket No. 15647 SECRETARY OF LABOR,Complainant, v.WHEELING-PITTSBURGH STEEL CORPORATION, Respondent.OSHRC Docket No. 15647DECISION Before:\u00a0 ROWLAND, Chairman; CLEARY and COTTINE, Commissioners. BY THE COMMISSION:The Secretary of Labor alleges that Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation violated theoccupational noise standard at 29 C.F.R. ? 1910.95(b)(1) by not using\”feasible\” engineering controls against excessive noise.\u00a0 AdministrativeLaw Judge Benjamin G. Usher held that the Secretary did not prove that the engineeringcontrol he proposed met the cost-benefit test of feasibility set forth in Continental CanCo., 76 OSAHRC 109\/A2, 4 BNA OSHC 1541, 1976-77 CCH OSHD ? 21,009 (No. 3973, 1976),appeal withdrawn, No. 76-3229 (9th Cir. April 26, 1977).\u00a0 The Secretary’s petitionfor review was granted under 29 U.S.C. ? 661(i).In Sun Ship, Inc., 82 OSAHRC 69\/A2, 11 BNA OSHC 1028, 1983 CCH OSHD ? 26,353(No. 16118, 1982), we overruled Continental Can and held, in accordance with the decisionof the United States Supreme Court in American Textile Manufacturers Institute, Inc. v.Donovan, 101 S.Ct. 2478 (1981), that \”feasible\” as used in the noise standardmeans achievable.\u00a0 In view of this intervening change in law, we vacate the judge’sdecision and remand for further proceedings, including evidentiary submissions, so thatthe interrelated issues of technological and economic feasibility can be reconsidered inlight of Sun ShipHowever, we shall also examine an important, threshold issue raised byWheeling-Pittsburgh:\u00a0 Is exposure to a sound level above 115 dBA excessive regardlessof duration?The occupational noise standard states in part: ? 1910.95 Occupational noise exposure.(a) Protection against the effects of noise exposure shall be provided whenthe sound levels exceed those shown in Table G-16 when measured on the A scale of astandard sound level meter at slow response….(b)(1) When employees are subjected to sound [levels] exceeding those listedin Table G-16, feasible administrative or engineering controls shall be utilized.\u00a0 Ifsuch controls fail to reduce sound levels within the levels of Table G-16, personalprotective equipment shall be provided and used to reduce sound levels within the levelsof the table.(2) If the variations in noise level involve maxima at intervals of 1 second or less, itis to be considered continuous.* * *Table G-16–Permissible Noise Exposures [[1\/]]Duration per day, hours\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Sound level dBAslow response 8\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 906\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 924\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 953\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 972\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 1001 1\/2\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 1021\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 1051\/2\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 1101\/4 or less\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 115The only evidence of excessive noise exposure relied on by the Secretary establishes thata Wheeling-Pittsburgh employee was exposed to noise at 124 dBA for 10 seconds, 127 dBA for15 seconds, 124 dBA for 5 seconds, 126 dBA for 7 seconds, 124 dBA for 5 seconds, and 122dBA for 5 seconds.\u00a0 The Secretary repeatedly declined before the judge to argue thatthese sound levels lasted longer than exposure durations extrapolated from theduration-sound level benchmarks in Table G-16.\u00a0 Instead, he maintains that the tablesets a ceiling of 115 dBA and exposure to sound levels above 115 is excessive regardlessof duration.Wheeling-Pittsburgh argues that 115 dBA is not a ceiling and thattime-weighting of employee exposure with extrapolated durations is necessary.\u00a0 Itmaintains that the standard does not clearly prohibit exposure to sound levels above 115dBA, and points to the second paragraph of the footnote to Table G-16, which permitsexposure as high as 140 dB to impulsive or impact noises, as evidence that brief exposureto levels above 115 dBA is permissible.\u00a0 It notes that Table G-16 permits soundlevels to vary with duration according to a known mathematical relationship.[[1\/]]\u00a0 Wheeling-Pittsburgh then reasons that inasmuch as this relationship must be used tocalculate sound levels and durations between those supplied by the table (interpolation),[[2\/]] the relationship should be used to calculate durations for sound levels above 115dBA (extrapolation).\u00a0 Wheeling-Pittsburgh also argues that it was not given fairnotice that 115 dBA is a ceiling value.We agree with the Secretary that 115 dBA is the upper limit of permissiblesound levels.\u00a0 The words \”or less\” in Table G- 16 can signify nothingelse.[[3\/]]\u00a0 Table G-16 prescribes the highest permissible sound level for a givenexposure period.\u00a0 For exposure periods of more than one-quarter hour, the maximumpermissible sound levels supplied by the table range from 90 dBA for eight hours to 110dBA for one-half hour.\u00a0 For an exposure period of one-quarter hour, the maximumpermissible level is 115 dBA.\u00a0 And for a period of less than one-quarter hour, thewords \”or less\” reveal that the maximum permissible level is also 115 dBA.[[4\/]]Wheeling-Pittsburgh’s contrary interpretation would render superfluous the words \”orless.\”\u00a0 We must give effect to these words unless it is impossible to do so.\u00a0 See Anaconda Aluminum Co., 81 OSAHRC 27A\/A2, 9 BNA OSHC 1460, 1480, 1981 CCH OSHC? 25,300, p. 31,352 (No. 13102, 1981).Wheeling-Pittsburgh argues that the second paragraph of the footnote to thetable, which states that \”[e]xposure to impulsive or impact noise should not exceed140 dB peak sound pressure level,\” would be unnecessary if Table G-16 alreadyprovided a ceiling. We disagree.\u00a0 The footnote refers solely to impulsive or impactnoise.\u00a0 The noise here, however, is not of that character but is continuous.\u00a0 Thus, whether Table G-16 regulates only continuous noise as measured by a soundlevel meter set at A scale and slow response, or whether it regulates continuous,impulsive and impact noise as so measured, the table does impose a ceiling on at least thecontinuous noise in this case.We also do not agree with Wheeling-Pittsburgh that because one mayinterpolate between values supplied by Table G-16, one may with equal logic extrapolateabove them.\u00a0 The soundness of extrapolation as a mathematical technique has nobearing on whether the standard permits extrapolation.\u00a0 The answer to that legalquestion of regulatory interpretation depends on whether the drafter intended to impose anabsolute limit on the noise to which unprotected human ears may safely be exposed.\u00a0 To extrapolate is to assume that the drafter imposed no such limit and is thereforeto assume the answer to the legal question before us.Yet, there is evidence in addition to the words of the standard that thedrafter did intend to impose an exposure ceiling.\u00a0 Shortly after the Secretaryadopted section 1910.95 under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C.?? 651-679 (\”the Act\”), he published Bulletin 334, \”Guidelines to theDepartment of Labor’s Occupational Noise Standards\” (rev. June 8, 1971), reprinted in1 BNA Noise Regulation Reporter, Reference File 41:3001.\u00a0 This publication, a nearlycontemporaneous interpretation of the standard by its drafter, [[5\/]] states that\”[e]mployees must not be exposed to steady sound levels above 115 dBA, regardless ofthe duration.\”\u00a0 Id. at 2.\u00a0 It also explains that \”[i]n contrast withthe 115 dBA upper limit for steady noise, the higher intensity for impact noise ispermissible because the noise impulse resulting from impacts….is past before the ear hastime to react fully.\”\u00a0 Id. at 4. [[6\/]]It bears emphasis that under Wheeling-Pittsburgh’s interpretation, employees would forvarying periods be left entirely unprotected from noise levels higher than 115 dBA; theywould not even have to wear ear plugs or ear muffs.\u00a0 If, as Wheeling-Pittsburghadvocates, permissible levels were extrapolated, employees could be lawfully exposedwithout any ear protection whatever to 120 dBA for seven and one-half minutes, and to 140dBA for about 28 seconds.\u00a0 [[7\/]]\u00a0 Yet, 120 dB is the threshold of pain. [[8\/]]The words of the standard and its regulatory history convince us that the Secretary didnot intend this result.Accordingly, the judge’s decision is vacated.\u00a0 The case is remanded forfurther proceedings consistent with this opinion. [[9\/]]SO ORDERED.FOR THE COMMISSIONRay H. Darling, Jr.Executive SecretaryDATED:\u00a0 MAR 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).FOOTNOTES: [[1\/]] When the daily noise exposure is composed of two or more periods ofnoise exposure of different levels, their combined effect should be considered, ratherthan the individual effect of each.\u00a0 If the sum of the following fractions:\u00a0 C1\/T1 + C2\/T2 [+…+] Cn\/Tn exceeds unity, then the mixed exposure should beconsidered to exceed the limit value.\u00a0 Cn indicates the total time of exposure at aspecified noise level and Tn indicates the total time of exposure permitted at that level.Exposure to impulsive or impact noise should not exceed 140 dB peak soundpressure level.[[1\/]] See note 7 infra.[[2\/]] See Weyerhaeuser Co., 77 OSAHRC 9\/A2, 4 BNA OSHC 1972, 1975 n.11,1976-77 CCH OSHD para. 21,465, p. 25,749 n.11 (Nos. 1231 & 1758, 1977), aff’d inpertinent part, 614 F.2d 199 (9th Cir. 1980); Sun Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., 11OSAHRC 171, 2 BNA OSHC 1181, 1183 n.4, 1185 n.5, 1974-75 CCH OSHD para. 18,537, p. 22,519n.4, p. 22,520 n.5 (No. 268, 1974) (lead and concurring opinions). [[3\/]] For this reason alone, we are unconvinced by Wheeling-Pittsburgh’sargument that it lacked fair notice that 115 dBA is a ceiling.[[4\/]] The Commission has always interpreted Table G-16 as imposing a 115 dBAceiling.\u00a0 \”[E]xposure for any period of time to sound levels of 115 dBA or moreconstitutes a violation.\”\u00a0 Louisiana-Pacific Corp., 77 OSAHRC 187\/A2, 5 BNA OSHC1994, 2000, 1977-78 CCH OSHD ? 22,261, p. 26,803 (No. 10639, 1977); see Castle & CookFoods, 77 OSAHRC 87\/A2, 5 BNA OSHC 1435, 1436 n.5, 1977-78 CCH OSHD ? 21,854, p. 26,327n.5 (No. 10925, 1977), aff’d without discussion of point, 692 F.2d 641 (9th Cir. 1982);Continental Can, 4 BNA OSHC at 1547, 1976-77 CCH OSHD at p. 25,257.[[5\/]] See Turner Co., 76 OSAHRC 108\/A2, 4 BNA OSHC 1554, 1557-58, 1976-77CCH OSHD ? 21,023, p. 25,275 (No. 3635, 1976), rev’d on another ground, 561 F.2d 82 (7thCir. 1977).\u00a0 As in Turner, the Bulletin was referenced in this litigation.\u00a0 Cf.Davis Metal Stamping, Inc., 82 OSAHRC 37\/A2, 10 BNA OSHC 1741, 1746, 1982 CCH OSHD ?26,134, p. 32,899 (No. 78- 5775, 1982) (contemporaneous interpretation of regulation ininspection manual).[[6\/]] Some contemporaneous industrial hygiene materials also indicates that115 dBA was then commonly thought of as an upper limit for at least continuous noise.\u00a0 See American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, \”ThresholdLimit Values of Physical Agents\” (1969) (table similar to Table G-16; 115 dBA markedas \”ceiling value\”), reprinted in National Safety Council, Fundamentals ofIndustrial Hygiene 739-741 (1971); Inter-Society Committee, \”Guidelines for NoiseExposure Control,\” 4 Sound & Vibration 21, 23 (Nov. 1970) (permissible noiselevels of \”up to 115 dBA\”); and Inter-Society Committee, \”Guidelines forNoise Exposure Control,\” 28 Ind. Hyg. Assn. J. 418, 421 (Sept.-Oct. 1967)(\”maximum of 115 dB\”).[[7\/]] The mathematical formula that we used to derive these numbers, andwhich is implicit in Table G-16, isT=__________ 8_____________,2 (L-90)\/5where T is the duration of a sound level in hours, and L is the sound level in dBA.\u00a0 See ? 1910.95, Appendix A.\u00a0 An easier but equivalent method of calculation isto halve the duration for each 5 dBA increase in sound level.[[8\/]] Fundamentals of Industrial Hygiene, at 168, supra note 6.[[9\/]] Chairman Rowland would not remand this 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 and engineering controlsbe utilized is invalid. Inasmuch as the Secretary seeks only the installation ofengineering controls, Chairman Rowland would vacate the citation and does not reach thequestion of whether 115 dBA is a ceiling.”