Repeat OSHA Lockout/Tagout Citations: How a Prior Citation Raises Your Penalty Exposure
← Back to Blog Safety

Repeat OSHA Lockout/Tagout Citations: How a Prior Citation Raises Your Penalty Exposure

A prior lockout/tagout citation can make the next one a repeat at $165,514. What the five-year lookback really measures, and what you can still contest.

by iSi Environmental

On August 20, 2026, OSHA cited IPMF LLC, doing business as NaturPak, a food manufacturer in Janesville, Wisconsin, following two industrial-kettle incidents four weeks apart. Three workers died and two were seriously injured. Among the citations were repeat items for failing to develop, document and utilize lockout/tagout procedures for the kettles, and for failing to train employees on lockout/tagout (OSHA news release, 2026-08-20).

The word doing the work there is “repeat.” A repeat classification is OSHA’s statement that the same hazard was documented at this employer before.

The enforcement backdrop cuts against what most compliance newsletters report. Federal inspections fell from 34,625 in FY2024 to 30,273 in FY2025, down 12.6%, and programmed inspections, the emphasis-program-driven kind that generate most general-industry lockout/tagout citations, fell 18.7% (OSHA Enforcement Summary). Fewer inspectors are arriving. The penalty structure they carry has not loosened.

Below are the questions multi-site operators actually ask about repeat lockout/tagout exposure, each answered from the primary source.

What Happened in the OSHA NaturPak Kettle Case?

OSHA cited IPMF LLC dba NaturPak of Janesville, Wisconsin on August 20, 2026 after two industrial-kettle incidents on February 12 and March 18, 2026 killed three workers and seriously injured two. Proposed penalties were $115,850 for the February inspection and $248,250 for the March inspection, with repeat items for lockout/tagout procedures and lockout/tagout training (OSHA news release, 2026-08-20).

OSHA describes the two inspections separately and does not state that the March incident resulted from findings left uncorrected after February. What it does say is that the lockout/tagout items were classified as repeat, meaning the same failure had been cited at this employer before. NaturPak sits in NAICS 31, food and beverage manufacturing, the sector where 1910.147 is the most-cited standard of any kind: 412 of 1,869 FY2025 citations (OSHA Cited Standards, NAICS 31).

What Is an OSHA “Repeat” Violation?

“Repeat” is not defined in any regulation. The statutory hook is 29 U.S.C. 666(a), which penalizes an employer who “willfully or repeatedly violates” the Act, and Congress never defined the term. The operative rules are sub-regulatory, in Field Operations Manual Chapter 4, Section VII.

This surprises people who go looking for it in the CFR. 29 CFR 1903.15 is titled “Proposed penalties,” and “repeated” appears in it only at paragraph (d)(2), as a dollar ceiling. The classification test, the lookback window, the multi-facility reach and the penalty arithmetic all live in OSHA’s internal manual, which predicts how an Area Director will behave and binds nobody.

Does Citing the Same Standard Twice Automatically Make the Second One a Repeat?

No. FOM Chapter 4, Section VII.B, Example 4-29 is explicit: two citations under 1910.132(a), one for safety-toe footwear and one for hard hats, are “not substantially similar and, therefore, a repeated citation would not be appropriate” (FOM Ch. 4). The test is the hazard, not the regulation number.

That cuts both directions. Section VII.C confirms that different standards can support a repeat where the hazard is the same. For lockout/tagout the comparison is usually straightforward, because the underlying hazard, unexpected energization during servicing and maintenance, is the same whether the machine is a kettle, a press or a conveyor.

What Is the Maximum Penalty for an OSHA Repeat Violation in 2026?

$165,514 per violation, the same ceiling as a willful violation. It is unchanged from 2025 because the annual inflation adjustment was cancelled, not because it calculated to zero (OSHA memo, 2026-05-21). The 2026 repeat minimum is $4,256, and the serious minimum went down, from $1,221 to $1,085.

The mechanism matters if anyone on your team is budgeting forward. Per OSHA’s memo, OMB Memorandum M-26-11 explained that “the Bureau of Labor Statistics was unable to produce the required October 2025 CPI-U data due to the government shutdown,” and the 2015 statute “does not provide an alternative calculation method… As a result, the annual civil monetary penalties cost-of-living adjustment cannot be made this year.” The maxima are frozen at their 2025 values by a data failure, and the accompanying rule states that “In 2027, the Department will undertake a thorough review of civil penalties” (91 FR 31358).

Which Penalty Reductions Am I Still Eligible for on a Repeat Citation?

Size only. FOM Chapter 6, Section III.B.1: “Penalties proposed for violations classified as repeated shall be reduced only for size. Penalties proposed for violations classified as willful shall be reduced only for size and history” (FOM Ch. 6). A repeat loses both good faith and history. A willful keeps history.

Read that asymmetry twice. On the reduction schedule, a repeat is treated slightly worse than a willful. The rule lives in the Field Operations Manual, not in 29 CFR 1903.15, which is a common miscitation in compliance content.

The one reduction you keep is worth knowing precisely: a maximum of 70% at 1 to 25 employees, calculated on nationwide headcount across all of the employer’s workplaces, including sites in State Plan states (FOM Ch. 6, Table 6-2). A 20-person plant owned by a 900-person company gets the 900-person reduction.

Does One Repeat Citation Raise the Penalty on Every Other Item in the Same Inspection?

Yes, and this is the least-published penalty mechanic in the manual. FOM Chapter 6, Section III.B.3.a.3: “If a repeated violation is found, no reduction for good faith can be applied to any of the violations found during the same inspection” (FOM Ch. 6). Quick-Fix reduction is also barred, under Section IV.A.3.

One repeat item converts a single classification decision into a whole-inspection penalty event, and it bites hardest on lockout/tagout because those citations arrive in clusters. FY2025 saw 2,536 citations of 1910.147 across 1,421 inspections, or 1.78 per inspection, against 1.02 for fall protection (OSHA Industry Profile, 1910.147). One repeat in that stack raises the price of everything cited alongside it.

How Far Back Can OSHA Reach for a Repeat Lockout/Tagout Citation?

Five years from the final order date of the prior citation or five years from the final abatement date, whichever is later (FOM Ch. 4, Section VII.E). The abatement branch is the half most compliance content omits. The same section states there are “no statutory limitations” on the reach.

That second branch is where multi-site employers get caught. Most compliance calendars track the final order date, because that is the date on the paperwork. If a citation carried an 18-month abatement schedule, the window closes five years after abatement was final, which quietly buys OSHA another 18 months of reach.

The window is also not a defense. Per Hackensack Steel Corp., 20 BNA OSHC 1387, the Field Operations Manual, including its look-back policy, is not binding on the Commission and creates no substantive rights for employers. It does not stop a citation issued in year six.

Does a Prior Lockout/Tagout Citation Increase My Exposure at a Different Plant?

Yes. FOM Chapter 4, Section VII.C states there is “no requirement that the previous and current violations occur at the same workplace or under the same supervisor.” Section VII.D.1.a requires that citation history be pulled from the employer’s establishments “nationwide and cannot be limited to region-wide” (FOM Ch. 4).

The search normally runs within the same two-digit SIC or three-digit NAICS code, and an Area Director may waive even that after consulting the Regional Solicitor. The unit of analysis is the company. A plant in Wichita gets cited for a lockout/tagout deficiency, certifies abatement and closes the file. Two years later a sister plant in Tulsa is inspected, the same deficiency turns up, and because the lookup runs by NAICS across the company rather than by address, the second citation arrives as a repeat at the $165,514 tier. Nobody checked Tulsa.

One limit: a prior citation issued by a State Plan cannot serve as the basis for a federal repeat (FOM Ch. 4, Section VII.A.2).

Can I Rebut a Repeat Classification?

Yes, and the Commission has said the burden is not heavy. In Potlatch Corporation, OSHRC Docket No. 16183 (1979), where both violations cited the same general standard, “it may be relatively undemanding for the employer to rebut the Secretary’s prima facie showing of similarity… A prima facie showing of similarity would be rebutted by evidence of the disparate conditions and hazards.”

It has worked on a lockout/tagout item. In Angelica Textile Services, OSHRC Docket No. 08-1774 (2018), a repeat under 1910.147(c)(4)(ii) was rejected: “Given the stark differences between the current and prior violations, the Secretary’s repeat characterization… is rejected and the violations under these items are affirmed as serious.” What was proposed as $22,500 in repeats was assessed at $7,000. Important caveat: the Second Circuit later vacated that decision as moot after the employer’s bankruptcy, so it carries no precedential weight. Use it as an illustration, never as controlling authority.

The argument also loses. In UHS of Westwood Pembroke, OSHRC Docket No. 17-0737 (2022), the Commission reinstated a repeat characterization. What decides it is whether you can document that the conditions and hazards were different, which is a records question you can either answer at the inspection or cannot.

Can a Repeat Citation Turn Into a Willful One?

OSHA’s own manual says yes. FOM Chapter 4, Section V, Example 4-26 lists as an illustration of a willful violation: “The employer was issued repeated citations addressing the same or similar conditions, but did not take corrective action” (FOM Ch. 4). A documented repeat left unaddressed is evidence of the state of mind willfulness requires.

There is an asymmetry that catches multi-state employers. A State Plan citation cannot support a federal repeat under Section VII.A.2, but it can support willfulness under Section V.C.3.d. A California or Kentucky citation invisible to the repeat lookup is still available to an inspector building a willful case.

What Is the Difference Between a Repeat Citation and a Failure-to-Abate Notice?

Whether the condition was ever corrected. FOM Chapter 4, Section VII.F: failure-to-abate means the condition “has never been corrected… (i.e., the violation is continuously present).” And: “If, however, the violation was corrected, but later recurs, the subsequent occurrence is a repeated violation” (FOM Ch. 4).

The money behaves differently too. A failure-to-abate penalty accrues at up to $16,550 per day beyond the abatement date (29 CFR 1903.15(d)(5)), normally capped at 30 times the daily proposed penalty (FOM Ch. 6, Section VII.B.4.b). A repeat is a per-violation charge at the $165,514 ceiling. Two arithmetic paths off the same hazard, decided by whether the condition ever went away.

Can I Get a Failure-to-Abate Penalty Even Though I Fixed the Hazard?

Yes. FOM Chapter 6, Section VII.A lists as an independent failure-to-abate trigger a prior citation “for which the employer failed to submit abatement verification” (FOM Ch. 6). An employer who genuinely corrected the condition but never filed the 29 CFR 1903.19(c) certification is exposed to per-day penalties on a hazard that no longer exists.

This is the cheapest exposure on the list to eliminate. Machine guarded, procedure written, employees trained, and then the letter never went out: on the file OSHA is reading, nothing was abated. The per-day clock runs against the record, not the shop floor.

When Must an Employer Certify Abatement After an OSHA Citation?

Within 10 calendar days after the abatement date. The certification must state the date and method of abatement plus a statement that affected employees and their representatives were informed (29 CFR 1903.19(c)(1)). Willful and repeat items require abatement documentation on top of that, under paragraph (d)(1).

Two related obligations get missed. For movable equipment, a warning tag or a copy of the citation goes on the operating controls (paragraph (i)(1)). And each document sent to OSHA, or a summary, goes up near where the violation occurred and stays up three working days (paragraph (g)), even if you contest.

Where abatement will take longer than 90 days, a plan is due within 25 calendar days of the final order (29 CFR 1903.19(e)). The decision to comply, request an informal conference, or contest is due within 15 working days of receipt, which excludes weekends and Federal holidays (OSH Act Section 10). Contesting tolls abatement only for the items actually contested. Per OSHA 3000-01R: “If you contest only… some items on the citation, you must correct the other items by the abatement date.”

How Does One Repeat Condition Multiply Into Six-Figure Exposure?

Through instance-by-instance citation. OSHA’s 2024 policy expansion allows repeat violations, not only willful ones, to be cited per instance rather than grouped as one item (OSHA memo, 2024-04-17). Five machines without energy-control procedures can be five items at the $165,514 tier, which is $827,570 by arithmetic from one recurring condition.

The FOM multipliers stack underneath that. For an employer with 250 or fewer employees, the gravity-based penalty doubles for a first repeat and multiplies by five for a second, with a factor of ten at Area Director discretion (FOM Ch. 6, Section V.B.1). Above 250 employees it starts at five and goes to ten (Section V.B.2).

Then there is the Severe Violator Enforcement Program. Two willful or repeat violations in one inspection, or failure-to-abate notices, tied to high-gravity serious conditions can place an employer in SVEP, which brings a mandatory follow-up inspection within one year and possible inspection of related worksites nationwide (osha.gov/enforcement/svep). Removal takes three years from acceptable abatement verification with no additional serious citations. That is what turns one bad inspection into a multi-year enforcement relationship instead of a closed file.

Are Small Businesses Exempt From Repeat Violation Penalties?

No. There is no small-business exemption from repeat classification anywhere in the Act, the CFR or the Field Operations Manual. Size affects only the arithmetic, through the reduction schedule in FOM Ch. 6, Table 6-2, which tops out at 70% for 1 to 25 employees and is calculated on nationwide headcount.

Two features of the manual run against small employers here. That size reduction is the only one available once the repeat label attaches, and the multiplier schedule at or below 250 employees still reaches a factor of ten (FOM Ch. 6, Section V.B.1).

The Amputations NEP does carry outs worth checking. An establishment with 10 or fewer employees on the Appropriations Act Low-Hazard Industry Table “should not be inspected under this NEP,” and VPP sites are exempt (CPL 03-00-027 Sections VIII and X.D). Those govern inspection targeting. None touches how a citation is classified once written.

Do Repeat-Violation Rules Differ in State Plan States?

Yes, and the lookback usually runs shorter than federal. Five of six State Plans checked use a window under five years. Kentucky (KRS 338.141(2), effective 06/27/2025) and North Carolina (NCGS 95-138(b)(4)) cap it at three years by statute.

JurisdictionLookbackRuns fromScope
Federal5 yr (policy)Later of final order or abatementNationwide
California5 yrFinal order onlyStatewide only
Michigan3 yr construction / 5 yr general industryCase closing dateNo same-workplace rule
Oregon3 yrPrior citationNot limited to one establishment
Washington3 yrPrior violation final orderStatewide
Kentucky3 yr (statutory)Final order dateIn-state
North Carolina3 yr (statutory)Not specified in statuteIn-state

California’s willful and repeat maximum is $162,851 as of January 1, 2025, adjusted annually and just below the federal $165,514 (Cal/OSHA penalty adjustment announcement); the classification test itself sits in 8 CCR 334. Assuming the federal five-year window travels will make a multi-site manufacturer over-estimate its State Plan exposure.

Across iSi’s core region, none of this applies. Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Nebraska and Texas are all under federal OSHA jurisdiction with no State Plan of either type (osha.gov/stateplans), so the federal rules above govern at every site. One consequence for public-sector readers: because none of these states runs a public-employee-only plan, municipal, county and school-district employers have no OSH Act coverage at all.

Which Industries Get Cited Most Often for Repeat Lockout/Tagout Violations?

Manufacturing, overwhelmingly. In FY2025, 1,989 of the 2,536 citations of 1910.147, or 78.4%, landed in NAICS 31 through 33, and the standard produced $15,858,914 in penalties across 1,421 inspections (OSHA Industry Profile, 1910.147). On OSHA’s most recent posted Top 10 list, covering FY2024, it ranked fifth by count (OSHA Top 10).

The dollar figure is the more useful number. Lockout/tagout generates outsized penalty dollars for its citation count, roughly $6,254 per citation against roughly $1,472 for hazard communication. The Industry Profile tool notes that “Penalties shown reflect current rather than initial amounts,” so that total is net of settlements.

The delivery mechanism for most of these citations is the Amputations National Emphasis Program, CPL 03-00-027, effective 6/27/2025 through 6/27/2030. It targets 91 six-digit NAICS codes within 31 through 33, each chosen because it had 40 or more federal inspections with violations of 1910.147, .212, .213, .217 or .219. Newly added codes include 311412 frozen specialty food, 311421 fruit and vegetable canning and 331511 iron foundries. Under Section XI.B the compliance officer asks for the written energy-control program and training records first.

Are the Penalties in an OSHA News Release Final?

No. Every OSHA news release page carries the disclaimer: “Information in some news releases may not reflect the current or final status of a case, including, but not limited to, the penalty amount(s) or classification(s).” Proposed penalties routinely move on informal settlement or contest.

A documented example: in March 2024 OSHA announced $345,685 and Severe Violator placement against Vorteq Coil Finishers (news release, 2024-03-11). The current inspection record shows $173,000 and zero willful citations, with the 1910.147(c)(6)(i) item cut from $16,131 to $1,000 (inspection 1695874.015).

Use headline figures to understand what OSHA cited and how it classified it, not to model what a case costs. Most cases settle: per the OSHRC FY2027 Performance Budget, only 23 of 1,753 FY2025 ALJ dispositions came after a hearing.

Is the Repeat-Penalty Structure Under Any Pressure to Soften?

Yes, and the record points both ways at once. The DOL FY2027 Congressional Budget Justification states at page OSHA-11 that OSHA will “pivot toward a more efficient, less penalty-dependent enforcement program that eases the burden on small businesses by reducing the total penalties.” Federal Enforcement staffing tracks that: 1,467 FTE in FY2023 down to a 1,072 FTE request for FY2027.

One piece is implemented already. On July 14, 2025 OSHA expanded its penalty reductions (DOL release 25-1159-NAT): the 70% band widened from 10 or fewer employees to 25 or fewer, a 15% reduction was added for immediate corrective action, and a 20% reduction for employers with a clean five-year record. Deputy Secretary Sonderling: “By lowering penalties on small employers, we are supporting the entrepreneurs that drive our economy.”

The same CBJ paragraph carries the other half. OSHA “plans to review and revise current efforts to engage employers who disregard their obligations… especially employers with a history of willful and repeat violations.” The direction is a narrower enforcement posture with the remaining resources aimed more tightly at repeat offenders. Note too that the new 20% reduction requires five clean years, the same window as the repeat lookback, so a prior citation costs you that reduction on everything else.

How Do I Build a Corrective-Action Program That Prevents Repeat Citations?

Treat every citation as an enterprise-wide signal rather than a single-site event. That means four things past what abatement certification already requires: verify the same condition does not exist at other facilities under common ownership, document that check the way abatement itself gets documented, record the result even when it is “no issue found,” and run it on every citation going forward.

For lockout/tagout, four items belong on that check:

  1. Both dates on every prior citation. The lookback runs five years from the later of the final order date and the final abatement date, so calendar the later one.
  2. The annual periodic inspection certification. 1910.147(c)(6)(ii) requires a written certification naming the machine, the date, the employees included and the inspector, performed by an authorized employee other than the one who uses the procedure inspected.
  3. Machine-specific procedures. The NaturPak repeat items were for failure to develop, document and utilize procedures for specific equipment. A binder covering the plant in general does not satisfy 1910.147(c)(4)(i).
  4. Abatement verification letters, filed and retained. Ten calendar days, every time.

One repeat lockout/tagout citation carries the same $165,514 ceiling as a willful one, strips the good-faith reduction off every other item in the same inspection, and stays reachable for five years past the later of your final order or your final abatement. Staffing that enterprise-wide check with a full-time environmental or safety hire runs $130,000 to $195,000 a year in salary and burden, and that person still only covers the site where they sit. iSi’s EHS COOP program runs $15,000 to $90,000 a year and puts a compliance team behind every facility in the NAICS lookup OSHA already runs against your company. If you closed a lockout/tagout citation in the last five years, the question worth answering is whether the same condition exists somewhere else you operate.

Sources

OSHA enforcement and data

Regulations and statute

Field Operations Manual and directives

Penalties and the 2026 adjustment

Budget, staffing and review

OSHRC decisions

State plans

Publications

Tags: