OSHA Inspection: RAMIRO MIRELES

Issued

Dec 18, 2025

Abate by

Jan 26, 2026

Penalty

Initial $398 · Current $398

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1903.19(c)(1): Within 10 calendar days after the abatement date, the employer must certify to OSHA (the Agency) that each cited violation has been abated, except as provided in paragraph (c)(2) of this section.  On or about December 18, 2025, with respect to a worksite located at 533 Windmill Drive, Kimberly, Wisconsin, the employer has not certified to OSHA the hazards related to lack of eye protection as identified in Citation 1, Item 1 of this inspection issued on September 10, 2025 had been abated.

Issued

Sep 10, 2025

Abate by

Oct 8, 2025

Penalty

Initial $2,837 · Current $2,837

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1926.102(a)(1): The employer shall ensure that each affected employee uses appropriate eye or face protection when exposed to eye or face hazards from flying particles, molten metal, liquid chemicals, acids or caustic liquids, chemical gases or vapors, or potentially injurious light radiation.   On or about August 28, 2025, at a jobsite located at 533 Windmill Drive, Kimberly, Wisconsin, employees were exposed to hazards from flying particles while installing roofing shingles with a pneumatic nail gun when the employer did not enforce the use of eye protection.

Issued

Sep 10, 2025

Penalty

Initial $7,094 · Current $7,094

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1926.501(b)(13):  Residential construction. Each employee engaged in residential construction activities 6 feet (1.8 m) or more above lower levels shall be protected by guardrail systems, safety net system, or personal fall arrest system unless another provision in paragraph (b) of this section provides for an alternative fall protection measure. Exception: When the employer can demonstrate that it is infeasible or creates a greater hazard to use these systems, the employer shall develop and implement a fall protection plan which meets the requirements of paragraph (k) of § 1926.502.  Note: There is a presumption that it is feasible and will not create a greater hazard to implement at least one of the above-listed fall protection systems. Accordingly, the employer has the burden of establishing that it is appropriate to implement a fall protection plan which complies with § 1926.502(k) for a particular workplace situation, in lieu of implementing any of those systems.  On or about August 28, 2025, at a jobsite located at 533 Windmill Drive, Kimberly, Wisconsin, employees were exposed to fall hazards between 8 feet 6 inches and 23 feet while conducting roofing activities on a residential construction site without the use of conventional fall protection.  Ramiro Mireles, dba M&R Remodeling was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard or its equivalent standard 29 CFR 1926.501(b)(13), which was contained in OSHA inspection number 1621523, citation number 1, item number 1 and was affirmed as a final order on November 28, 2022, with respect to a workplace located at 1 Penbrook Circle, in Appleton, Wisconsin.