FirstAlerts

OSHA cites Evan Lopez in Oklahoma City for repeat violation, proposes $5,674 penalty

The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration has cited Evan Lopez of Oklahoma City for a repeat violation and proposed a $5,674 penalty.

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 20, 2026, 1:23 p.m. ET
The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has cited , located at in , for a violation of workplace safety standards. OSHA proposed a penalty of $5,674, according to the agency's inspection record dated July 17, 2026. The citation, issued under inspection number , lists a violation of standard 19260501 B13. The inspection was opened on February 9, 2026. The penalty is proposed, not final; no final order has been entered, and the employer may contest the amount. The record states the citation, the standards cited, and the penalty proposed. It does not state that anyone was hurt, and a citation is an allegation by the agency until a final order settles it.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 120 Aug 2026, 17:23current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.