Niemand Industries, Inc. v. Reich, No. 94-6854
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | Before EDMONDSON, DUBINA and BARKETT; PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 73 F.3d 1083 |
| Parties | 17 O.S.H. Cas. (BNA) 1495, 1996 O.S.H.D. (CCH) P 30,970 NIEMAND INDUSTRIES, INC., Petitioner, v. Robert B. REICH, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, and Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, Respondents. |
| Decision Date | 29 January 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-6854 |
Page 1083
P 30,970
v.
Robert B. REICH, Secretary of Labor, United States
Department of Labor, and Occupational Safety and
Health Review Commission, Respondents.
Eleventh Circuit.
Richard F. Kane and Jay L. Grytdahl, Blakeney & Alexander, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Petitioner.
Barbara A.W. McConnell and Ann Rosenthal, U.S. Dept. of Labor, Office of Solicitor-OSH, Washington, DC, for Respondents.
Petition for Review of an Order of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (Alabama Case).
Before EDMONDSON, DUBINA and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Petitioner Niemand Industries, Inc., ("Niemand") seeks review of a final decision of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission affirming an administrative ruling finding Niemand in violation of 29 C.F.R. Sec. 1910.1000(c) for exposing its employees to excessive levels of talc. Because there is no substantial record evidence to support the finding of a violation, we reverse the Commission's decision.
Niemand operates a manufacturing plant in Marion, Alabama where it produces containers and other products for shipment in interstate commerce. Following a complaint
Page 1084
that Niemand's employees were being exposed to excessive levels of talc, 1 the Occupational Safety and Health Administration ("OSHA") 2 sent an industrial hygienist to inspect Niemand's facility. As a result of the inspection, Niemand was charged with violating 29 C.F.R. Sec. 1910.1000.29 C.F.R. Sec. 1910.1000 provides, in part:
C.F.R. Sec. 1910.1000 Air Contaminants
An employee's exposure to any substance listed in Tables Z-1, Z-2 or Z-3 of this section shall be limited in accordance with the requirements of the following paragraphs of this section.
....
(c) Table Z-3. An employee's exposure to any substance listed in Table Z-3, in any 8-hour work shift of a 40-hour work week, shall not exceed the 8-hour time weighted average limit given for that substance in the table.
Table Z-3 limits permissible exposure to respiratory talc dust to 20 million particles per cubic foot of air ("mppcf") based on an eight-hour time weighted average.
The threshold question in this case is whether the Secretary's evidence supports a conclusion that an employee engaged in Niemand's talc operation was exposed to talc in excess of the permissible exposure...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
J.A.M. Builders Inc. v. Herman, No. 99-11917
...by substantial evidence on the record as a whole; if so, they are deemed conclusive. See 29 U.S.C. 660(a); Niemand Indus., Inc. v. Reich, 73 F.3d 1083, 1084 (11th Cir. 1996). "Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla and is such relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accep......
-
J.a.M. Builders v Herman, 11
...by substantial evidence on the record as a whole; if so, they are deemed conclusive. See 29 U.S.C. 660(a); Niemand Indus., Inc. v. Reich, 73 F.3d 1083, 1084 (11th Cir.1996). "Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla and is such relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept......
-
Film Allman, LLC v. Sec'y Labor, No. 15-15720
...the Commission's finding that a violation was "willful"); see 29 U.S.C. § 660(a); see also Niemand Indus., Inc. v. Reich, 73 F.3d 1083, 1084 (11th Cir. 1996). "Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla and is such relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept as a......
-
J.A.M. Builders Inc. v. Herman, No. 99-11917
...by substantial evidence on the record as a whole; if so, they are deemed conclusive. See 29 U.S.C. 660(a); Niemand Indus., Inc. v. Reich, 73 F.3d 1083, 1084 (11th Cir. 1996). "Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla and is such relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accep......
-
J.a.M. Builders v Herman, 11
...by substantial evidence on the record as a whole; if so, they are deemed conclusive. See 29 U.S.C. 660(a); Niemand Indus., Inc. v. Reich, 73 F.3d 1083, 1084 (11th Cir.1996). "Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla and is such relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept......
-
Film Allman, LLC v. Sec'y Labor, No. 15-15720
...the Commission's finding that a violation was "willful"); see 29 U.S.C. § 660(a); see also Niemand Indus., Inc. v. Reich, 73 F.3d 1083, 1084 (11th Cir. 1996). "Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla and is such relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept as a......