Safety Incidents OSHA Severe Injury Reports · 2015–2025
5,197,124Inspections Most recent open 2026-08-25 Last loaded 2026-08-28

OSHA Inspection: MAACO INC.

Planned inspection · Health discipline

On , OSHA opened a planned health inspection of MAACO INC. in 8284 TARA BLVD., JONESBORO, GA 30236 (NAICS 811121). OSHA activity number 339776668.

What this inspection record means

OSHA opens inspections for many reasons: routine scheduling under a national or local emphasis program, an employee complaint or referral, or a follow-up after a reported injury. Opening or conducting an inspection is not itself an allegation or a finding that this employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.

Watch Maaco INC. for free Get an email when a new federal OSHA severe-injury report for Maaco INC. is published. One employer, no account, unsubscribe in one click.
Establishment
MAACO INC.
Site address
8284 TARA BLVD.
City
JONESBORO
State
GA
ZIP
30236
Mailing
8284 TARA BLVD., JONESBORO, GA 30236
Inspection type
Planned (H)
Scope
Partial (B)
Discipline
Health
Advance notice
No
Union status
Non-union (B)
Opened
Closing conference
Case closed
Last modified
Data loaded
NAICS code
811121
Employees
9
Ownership type
Private (A)

4 citations on file for this inspection.

1910.132 A

Serious Gravity 1 1 instance 1 exposed
Issued
Aug 22, 2014
Abate by
Sep 18, 2014
Penalty
Initial $2,100 · Current $2,100
29 CFR 1910.132(a): Protective equipment was not used when necessary whenever hazards capable of causing injury and impairment were encountered:  (a) Spray painting and prep station areas-  An employee was exposed to eye irritation while mixing and spraying chemicals such as but not limited to, Dimension Pro Urethane Hardener (Hexamethylene diisocyante), Dimension VOC Sealer (xylene), Ultra 7000 Basecoat Mica Mixing Clear (ethylbenzene), and HAPS Free Stabilizer (Hexamethylene diisocyante polymer), while not wearing eye protection.
Recent events (1)
  • · Z (S) $2100

1910.132 D02

Serious Gravity 1 1 instance 2 exposed
Issued
Aug 22, 2014
Abate by
Sep 18, 2014
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
29 CFR 1910.132(d)(2): The employer did not verify, through a written certification, that the required workplace hazard assessment had been performed:  (a) Throughout the facility- The employer did not verify that a personal protective equipment workplace hazard assessment had been performed for employees using hazardous substances, such as but not limited to, paints, hardeners, and reducers containing isocyanates, xylene, toluene and n-butyl acetate. The employer could not produce the written certification that identified the workplace evaluated, the person certifying that the evaluation had been performed, and the dates of the hazard assessment. It was not clear exactly what personal protective equipment was to be worn for specific jobs/tasks such as paint mixing, spraying and gun cleaning.
Recent events (1)
  • · Z (S) $0

1910.1200 E01

Serious Gravity 1 1 instance 2 exposed
Issued
Aug 22, 2014
Abate by
Sep 18, 2014
Penalty
Initial $2,100 · Current $2,100
29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1): The employer did not develop, implement, and/or maintain at the workplace a written hazard communication program which describes how the criteria specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(f), (g), and (h) will be met:  The employer had not established a written hazard communication program for employees exposed to hazardous substances, such as but not limited to, Dimension Pro Urethane Hardener (Hexamethylene diisocyante), Dimension VOC Sealer (xylene), Ultra 7000 Basecoat Mica Mixing Clear (ethylbenzene), and HAPS Free Stabilizer (Hexamethylene diisocyante polymer).
Recent events (1)
  • · Z (S) $2100

1910.134 C01

Other-than-serious 2 instances 2 exposed
Issued
Aug 22, 2014
Abate by
Sep 18, 2014
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1): A written respiratory protection program that included the provisions in 29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1)(i) - (ix) with worksite specific procedures was not established and implemented for required respirator use:  a) Body shop:  The employer did not establish or implement a respiratory protection program for employees required to wear a SAS N-95 2-strap filtering face piece. There was no written program, medical evaluations, fit-testing, or training.  b)  Paint area:  The employer did not establish or implement a respiratory protection program for one employee wearing a 3M half-mask respirator  while spray painting automobile parts. There was no written program, medical evaluations, fit-testing, or training.
Recent events (1)
  • · Z (O) $0

View Maaco INC.'s full OSHA safety record →

This record is reproduced from the U.S. Department of Labor Open Data API (OSHA inspection dataset). OSHA publishes its own view of this case as inspection number 339776668.

Look up any company's OSHA accident reports by company, or browse severe injury reports by year, state, and company.