Insights / Enforcement trends
What OSHA, MIOSHA and EPA cite most.
The numbers behind workplace safety and environmental enforcement, with sources, plain-English takeaways and what each one means for an employer.
Key findings
What the data says
Federal fall protection citations (1926.501) in FY2025, the most of any standard and the 15th year in a row at number one.
Michigan fiscal years in which the written hazard communication program, residential fall protection and construction head protection each made the MIOSHA top 10.
MIOSHA penalties for lockout/tagout energy control procedures in FY2025, the largest total on Michigan’s list even though it ranked fourth by count.
Share of facilities in nine northern Michigan counties in significant violation under EPA programs, against 1.2% statewide.
Federal OSHA
Top 10 most-cited standards
Federal OSHA data does not include the states that run their own plans, including Michigan.
FY2025 (final): citations
Oct. 1, 2024 to Sept. 30, 2025
View as table
| Rank | Standard (29 CFR) | Subject | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1926.501 | Fall protection, general requirements (construction) | 6,992 |
| 2 | 1910.1200 | Hazard communication (general industry) | 3,010 |
| 3 | 1926.1053 | Ladders (construction) | 2,842 |
| 4 | 1910.147 | Lockout/tagout, control of hazardous energy | 2,562 |
| 5 | 1910.134 | Respiratory protection | 2,294 |
| 6 | 1926.451 | Scaffolding (construction) | 2,286 |
| 7 | 1926.503 | Fall protection training (construction) | 2,216 |
| 8 | 1910.178 | Powered industrial trucks | 2,150 |
| 9 | 1926.102 | Eye and face protection (construction) | 1,965 |
| 10 | 1910.212 | Machine guarding | 1,498 |
Counts as published in OSHA’s FY2025 final Top 10 and reported by trade press; two independent reports agree on every figure. Source: osha.gov/top10.
FY2026 preliminary ranking
Oct. 1, 2025 to Aug. 31, 2026, with movement from FY2025. OSHA publishes no counts for the preliminary list.
- 1Fall protection, general requirements1926.501no change
- 2Hazard communication1910.1200no change
- 3Lockout/tagout1910.147▲ up 1
- 4Scaffolding1926.451▲ up 2
- 5Ladders1926.1053▼ down 2
- 6Respiratory protection1910.134▼ down 1
- 7Powered industrial trucks1910.178▲ up 1
- 8Fall protection training1926.503▼ down 1
- 9Eye and face protection1926.102no change
- 10Machine guarding1910.212no change
Source: OSHA Top 10, updated Oct. 5, 2026. Preliminary data can change when the year closes.
Michigan MIOSHA
Top 10 most-cited standards
Michigan enforces its own state plan, so this list includes Michigan-specific rules (408.xxxx and 325.xxxx) alongside adopted federal standards.
FY2025: citations and penalties
Oct. 1, 2024 to Sept. 30, 2025. The bar shows citations; the figures show citations · penalties.
View as table
| Rank | Standard | Subject | Citations | Penalties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 408.40114(1) | Construction: accident prevention program | 275 | $104,940 |
| 2 | 408.40132(3) | Construction: first aid training | 198 | $102,880 |
| 3 | 1910.1200(e)(1) | Hazard communication: written program | 167 | $239,800 |
| 4 | 1910.147(c)(4)(i) | Hazardous energy: energy control procedures | 157 | $837,100 |
| 5 | 408.22141(1) | Recordkeeping: annual electronic submission | 157 | $103,600 |
| 6 | 1926.501(b)(13) | Fall protection: residential construction | 155 | $301,600 |
| 7 | 1926.100(a) | PPE: head protection (construction) | 124 | $129,500 |
| 8 | 325.47201(3) | Medical services and first aid: eye wash | 108 | $95,300 |
| 9 | 1926.102(a)(1) | PPE: eye and face protection (construction) | 79 | $52,400 |
| 10 | 1910.147(c)(7)(i)(A) | Hazardous energy: training and communication | 75 | $76,600 |
Seven years of Michigan data, FY2019 to FY2025
Citation counts for standards that appeared in the top 10 in several years; darker shading means more citations. A dash means the standard was not in that year’s top 10, not that it had zero citations.
| Standard | FY19 | FY20 | FY21 | FY22 | FY23 | FY24 | FY25 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hazard communication: written program (1910.1200(e)(1)) | 103 | 77 | 80 | 88 | 156 | 165 | 167 |
| Hazardous energy: energy control procedures (1910.147(c)(4)(i)) | 107 | 71 | – | 99 | 120 | 136 | 157 |
| Fall protection: residential (1926.501(b)(13)) | 129 | 142 | 221 | 199 | 103 | 133 | 155 |
| PPE: head protection (1926.100(a)) | 66 | 168 | 180 | 148 | 84 | 112 | 124 |
| Eye wash (325.47201(3)) | 98 | – | – | 59 | 103 | 129 | 108 |
| PPE: eye and face protection, construction (1926.102(a)(1)) | – | 78 | 85 | 88 | – | 76 | 79 |
| Hazardous energy: training and communication (1910.147(c)(7)(i)(A)) | 69 | 47 | – | – | 55 | 68 | 75 |
| Construction accident prevention program (408.40114(1)) | – | – | – | – | – | 145 | 275 |
| Citations across that year’s top 10 | 832 | 827 | 1,185 | 933 | 891 | 1,132 | 1,495 |
Source: MIOSHA Top 10 Citations by Fiscal Year. FY runs Oct. 1 to Sept. 30. Totals are sums of each year’s published top-10 counts.
Environmental enforcement
EPA enforcement, FY2025 and Michigan
EPA publishes yearly totals for cases, penalties and inspections, not a ranked list of the most-cited rules, so this section shows totals.
civil enforcement cases concluded, the most in nine years
EPA inspections, within 14,020 compliance monitoring activities
civil penalties assessed; about 69% came from one case
criminal defendants charged, from 187 cases opened
View all national FY2025 figures
| Measure (federal fiscal year 2025) | Result |
|---|---|
| Civil enforcement case conclusions | 2,127 |
| Administrative compliance orders | 971 |
| Final administrative penalty orders | 1,107 |
| Civil judicial conclusions | 49 |
| Civil penalties assessed | $652 million |
| Inspections | 8,296 |
| Total compliance monitoring activities (inspections plus off-site) | 14,020 |
| Criminal cases opened | 187 |
| Criminal defendants charged | 156 |
| Lead-based paint case conclusions (TSCA) | 127 |
| Drinking water case conclusions on Lead and Copper Rule service line inventories (SDWA) | 300+ |
Source: EPA Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Annual Results, FY2025 (PDF), with civil results on EPA’s civil enforcement page.
Michigan facilities in EPA’s ECHO database
Share of facilities, Michigan compared with nine northern counties (Antrim, Benzie, Charlevoix, Emmet, Grand Traverse, Kalkaska, Leelanau, Otsego and Wexford). Each figure counts facilities, not individual violations.
View as table
| Share of facilities | Michigan (31,640) | Nine northern counties (1,389) |
|---|---|---|
| Currently in significant violation | 383 of 31,640 (1.2%) | 6 of 1,389 (0.4%) |
| Currently in violation of any program | 2,419 of 31,640 (7.6%) | 50 of 1,389 (3.6%) |
| In violation in the last 3 years | 4,103 of 31,640 (13.0%) | 115 of 1,389 (8.3%) |
| Inspected in the last 5 years | 5,688 of 31,640 (18.0%) | 277 of 1,389 (19.9%) |
| Formal enforcement action, last 5 years | 659 of 31,640 (2.1%) | 30 of 1,389 (2.2%) |
Source: EPA ECHO facility search for Michigan, downloaded Nov. 1, 2026. Definitions per ECHO’s facility search help. Percentages are our calculation from the county totals.
State agency: Michigan’s EGLE posts individual enforcement notices by program. We did not find a statewide summary of the most common violations. See EGLE’s enforcement pages for notices.
What it means
How to use this list
Written programs come first
The written hazard communication program is top 10 every year in Michigan and second federally. A current, site-specific program is one of the cheapest citations to avoid. Written safety programs
Lockout/tagout costs the most
Energy control procedures are cited less often than some items but carry the highest penalties. Procedures, training and annual inspections all matter. Safety audits
Falls dominate construction
Fall protection, ladders, scaffolding and fall protection training account for four of the federal top 10. Safety training
Recordkeeping is a quiet risk
Michigan’s annual electronic injury-data submission jumped onto the FY2025 list with 157 citations. Know your reporting obligations. OSHA compliance
Method and sources
How this page was built
- Federal OSHA: FY2025 final counts come from OSHA’s final list as reported by Safety+Health magazine and Electrical Contractor magazine, which match. The FY2026 ranking is OSHA’s preliminary list and has no counts. The lists show only the ten most-cited standards.
- MIOSHA: from MIOSHA’s PDF covering FY2019 to FY2025. It does not say whether counts are limited to serious violations. A standard missing from a year was outside that year’s top 10. Federal and Michigan figures cover different jurisdictions and should not be added together.
- EPA national: from the agency’s FY2025 annual report. The report has a few internal inconsistencies, so only figures that agree are shown.
- EPA ECHO, Michigan: facility counts by county from an ECHO facility search, downloaded Nov. 1, 2026. They count facilities, not violations, and the percentages are our own calculation.
- Limits: none of these lists is broken out by region or industry. EPA and EGLE do not publish a top-violations list like OSHA’s. This page is educational and is not legal advice, and it will be updated when the agencies publish new data.
Sources: OSHA Top 10 Most Frequently Cited Standards · MIOSHA Top 10 Citations by Fiscal Year · MIOSHA data and statistics · EPA FY2025 enforcement annual results · EPA ECHO · Safety+Health: final FY2025 data
Questions
About this data
Where does this data come from?
Federal OSHA figures come from OSHA’s published Top 10 list (osha.gov/top10), which draws on OSHA Information System inspection data. Michigan figures come from MIOSHA’s “Top 10 Citations by Fiscal Year” report. EPA figures come from its FY2025 enforcement annual report and its ECHO database. Every source is linked below.
Why are federal and Michigan numbers different?
Michigan runs its own OSHA-approved state plan, so MIOSHA enforces and publishes its own list. Federal OSHA data does not include state plan inspections, and state plans use some state-specific rule numbers. Read the two lists side by side, not added together.
Does being on this list mean a violation is common in my industry?
It means the standard is cited often across all industries in that jurisdiction. Your own exposure depends on your hazards, so the most useful step is to check your operation against the standards that match your work.
Why is there no list of the most-cited EPA or EGLE rules?
EPA publishes enforcement totals and highlighted cases rather than a ranked list of violations, and Michigan’s EGLE posts individual notices rather than a statewide summary. We show what the agencies publish and do not list individual companies.
Can I cite or reuse this page?
Yes, please link back and credit Wolff Safety Consultants and the original government sources. The underlying data belongs to the agencies that publish it.
Next step
Check your operation against the list.
We can audit your site and written programs against the standards cited most often, and give you a prioritized fix list with owners and due dates.