The trial court cited Occupational Noise Exposure, Hearing Conservation Amendments Level, 46 Fed.Reg. 4078, 4087-96 (1981), as evidence for the proposition that "there is an abundance of epidemiological and laboratory evidence that protracted noise exposure above 90dB causes hearing loss in a substantial portion of the exposed population." The court concluded that, contrary to Murphy's assertions, the cases of Joy Mining Machinery v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board, 805 A.2d 1279 (Penn. 2002) and McCuiston v. Addressograph-Multigraph Corp., 308 N.C. 665, 303 S.E.2d 795 (1983) did not stand for the proposition that noise exposures at or below 90 dBA were "safe"; nor were the cases analogous, as both involved workers' compensation actions for benefits under the respective workers' compensation laws, and were thus inapplicable for tort based premises liability or negligence actions. Additionally, the court noted that the workers' compensation laws in Joy Mining and McCuiston did not establish a sound level for entitlement to benefits, but allowed an employer to raise the affirmative defense that noise levels did not exceed 90 dBA on an eight-hour time weighted average.