Pabst Brewing Company (Commission decision, January 31, 1983)

Plain-English summary

The two-member majority vacated the judge's ruling on Pabst Brewing Company's alleged failure to use feasible noise controls because an intervening decision replaced the prior cost-benefit test with an achievable-controls test. It remanded for additional evidence and reconsideration of technological and economic feasibility. Chairman Rowland would not remand because he considered the standard's feasible-controls requirement invalid. The majority rejected Pabst's argument that the citation had to identify a specific feasible control method. Rowland did not reach that issue. The majority held that a citation must give notice of the alleged violation, not prescribe abatement, and that Pabst had shown neither inadequate notice nor prejudice.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): 29 C.F.R. § 1910.95(b)(1).
• Outcome: By a two-member majority, the noise-control ruling was vacated and the case remanded under the new feasibility test; the majority rejected the particularity defense.
• Key point: A citation need not specify the employer's abatement method when it otherwise provides adequate notice of the alleged violation and the employer is not prejudiced.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

Docket No. 77-1985

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 in American Textile Manufacturers Institute, Inc. v. Donovan, 101 S.Ct. 2478 (1981) ("ATMI"), the Commission held that "feasible" under the occupational noise standard means achievable. The Commission overruled the cost-benefit test of feasibility previously set forth in Continental Can Co., 76 OSAHRC 109/A2, 4 BNA OSHC 1541, 1976-77 CCH OSHD 21,009 (No. 3973, 1976), appeal withdrawn, No. 76-3229 (9th Cir. Apr. 26, 1977), and substituted a test consistent with ATMI.

In view of this intervening change in law, the judge's decision with respect to the alleged violation of section 1910.95(b)(1) is vacated.  The case is remanded for further proceedings, including evidentiary submissions, so that the interrelated issues of technological and economic feasibility can be reconsidered in light of the test of feasibility established by Sun Ship, Inc. [[1/]]

Pabst Brewing Company argues that the citation lacked sufficient particularity because it did not identify at least one noise control method which the Secretary of Labor believed was feasible.  In Pabst's view, this was necessary to guard against an unfounded citation, to promote prompt abatement, and to provide fair notice of the alleged violation.  The judge rejected Pabst's defense on the basis of Commission precedent that upheld similar noise citations.  See Gannett Corp., 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 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 to put the employer on notice as to the nature of the alleged violation.  The Secretary is not required to state with particularity how the employer is to abate the cited violation.  Del Monte Corp., supra; Gannett Corp., supra.  When the language of a citation lacks sufficient particularity the requirements of section 9(a) may be fulfilled in later stages of the proceeding.  Del Monte Corp., supra; cf. Cement Asbestos 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 to decide whether to contest the citation or that it was prejudiced in preparing its defense. The Commission has held that the ultimate sanction of vacating a citation should be taken only when this showing has 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's ruling on particularity is affirmed.

SO ORDERED.

FOR THE COMMISSION

Ray H. Darling, Jr.

Executive Secretary

DATED:  JAN 31 1983

The Administrative Law Judge decision in this matter is unavailable in this format.  To obtain a copy of this document, please request one from our 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 further proceedings. Consistent with his dissenting opinion in Sun Ship, he concludes that the requirement in section 1910.95(b)(1) that feasible administrative or engineering controls be utilized is invalid. Because of this conclusion, Chairman Rowland does not reach Pabst's particularity argument which the majority discuss in the succeeding paragraphs of their opinion.