|
July 12, 1993
Mr. Robert F. Knapp
R.F. Knapp Company
P.O. Box 245
Spirit Lake, Idaho 83869
Dear Mr. Knapp:
This is in response to your May 12 letter requesting compliance
determinations for your "Radar Backup Alarm System 202" as it relates to the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standard 29 CFR
1926.601(b)(4)(i). That provision addresses reverse signal alarms for motor
vehicles. I apologize for the delay in responding to this inquiry, however,
with regard to your previous requests, our records show that on June 29,
1988, the National Office did respond to your April 15, 1988 letter forwarded
from the San Francisco Regional Office. (See enclosure)
Please be advised that OSHA does not approve nor endorse products. The
variable working conditions at jobsites and possible alterations or
misapplication of an otherwise safe product could easily create a hazardous
condition beyond the control of the manufacturer. However, we have reviewed
the product data enclosed with your letter and it appears that if the "System
202" immediately activates an external reverse signal alarm at the rear of
the vehicle when put in reverse gear, and provides adequate warning to
persons in the path of the vehicle, and to persons walking towards the
path of the vehicle in time to avoid contact, it would comply with the intent
of the above mentioned standard.
Also, please be advised that we are forwarding a copy of your letter to the
Directorate of Safety Standards Programs for evaluation of the need for
possible revision of the standards addressing reverse signal alarms.
If we can be of any further assistance, please contact me or Mr. Dale
Cavanaugh of my staff at (202) 219-8136.
Sincerely,
Roy F. Gurnham, P.E., Esq. Director
Office of Construction and Maritime
Compliance Assistance
June 29, 1988
Mr. Robert F. Knapp
3361 Penryn Road
Loomis, California 95650
Dear Mr. Knapp:
This is in further response to your letter of April 15, concerning the audio
backup warning device you submitted to our San Francisco, California,
Regional Office for evaluation. We apologize for the lateness of this
response.
It is the policy of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
not to approve or endorse products. The variable working conditions at
jobsites and possible alteration or misapplication of an otherwise safe
product could easily create a hazardous condition beyond the control of the
product manufacturer. However, we have evaluated you backup Brake Alert
System III.
29 CFR 1926.601(b)(4) requires the following:
No employer shall use any motor vehicle equipment having an
obstructed view to the rear unless:
(i) The vehicle has a reverse signal alarm audible above the
surrounding noise level or:
(ii) The vehicle is backed up only when an observer signals that it
is safe to do so.
It appears based on the information provided in the brochure that the Brake
Alert System II installed with an adequate alarm bell which sounds
immediately upon backing would comply with 29 CFR 1926.601(b)(4). However,
the alarm must sound at the rear of the vehicle so that persons in the path
of the vehicle will hear it.
Your 97 decibel audio warning device, on the rear of the vehicle must be
activated immediately upon backing to comply with the above mentioned
standard.
If we may be of further assistance, please let us know.
Sincerely,
Thomas J. Shepich, Director
Directorate of Compliance Programs.
April 15, 1988
R.F. Knapp Co. Manufacturing
3361 Penryn Rd.
Loomis, California 95650
Mr. Ghillotti,
I am writing this letter as a follow up to our telephone conversation on
April 15, 1988.
Brake Alert System II was designed to be mounted and used on vehicles that
already have audio backup warning devices. System II only alerts the driver
to objects or people behind the vehicle.
Brake Alert System III is the same as System II except with the addition of
a 97 decibel audio warning device to be mounted on the rear of the vehicle.
When the sensor unit detects an object or person in the path of the backing
vehicle, the red light and buzzer are activated in the cab to warn the
driver. At that time the 97 decibel audio warning device, on the rear of the
vehicle, is activated and the person or persons behind the vehicle are
warned.
Does this product, "Brake Alert System III", comply with OSHA requirements
of Section 1929 CFR 1926.601(B)?
Thank you,
Robert F. Knapp (owner)
May 12, 1993
Directorate of Compliance Programs
USDOL/OSHA
Francis Perkins Building
200 Constitution Ave,
Room N3119
Washington, D.C. 20210
Reference: San Francisco O.S.H.A.
Letter Dated May 3, 1988.
Reference: Robert F. Knapp
Letter Dated December 7, 1988.
Reference: Numerous Phone Calls During 1988-1989-1990.
To Whom It May Concern,
In early 1988 I requested an approval of a new concept in Backup Alarm
Systems which I had created in 1986. I requested confirmation for the use of
these systems from you San Francisco office. As the letter (copy enclosed)
states, the system that I created met the intent of the Standard but the
letter also stated that a final interpretation would be forthcoming from the
National Director Mr. Shay. I made several phone calls during the year but
got no response. I waited until December 7th, 1988 and finally wrote a
letter to Mr. Shay (copy enclosed). In 1989 and 1990, I made numerous phone
calls but only got the run around. No one would tell me anything. I never
did reach Mr. Shay. Nobody would give me any advice on how to get approval
for the use of my product.
I have been marketing my products to the Mining Industry. The Bureau of
Mines Safety and Health Administration wrote a very clear regulation
concerning this technology Oct. 24, 1988. I refer you to CFR
56.14132(b)(1)(iii) and CFR 56.14200.
One of the many problems created by your unwillingness to officially
recognize this concept is with companies that work their equipment part time
in a mining environment and part time in a non-mining environment. While
meeting the standards of the M.S.H.A. regulation, they are not sure what your
departments interpretation will be.
Noise Pollution is a real concern with many Construction Companies and
Public Works Departments throughout this country. Neighbors who find
themselves listening to the continuous Backup Alarms have put restraints on
many operations limiting working hours as well as complete stoppage of
projects. As any one who has tried to sleep while a piece of construction
equipment was working in the neighborhood can tell you, there must be a
better way.
The continuous repetitive backup alarm noise has been considered to actually
contribute to backing accidents by the Bureau of mines because they are
considered false signals until there is a real danger. They contend that
ground personnel become "Habituated" by the false alarms and don't respond
when the danger becomes real. The Bureau of Mines published several articles
and reports on their research.
After spending twenty five years on the job in the Construction Industry, it
was my own observation that the continuous repetitive style backup alarm had
to be improved upon. The continuous backup alarm was the best that
technology had to offer back in the sixties when it was mandated for use.
The most important missing element was that it failed to alert the driver of
the potential accident. The concept of a continuous backup alarm assumed
that everyone would get out of the way. Most of the time, everyone did get
out of the way but sometimes they didn't. These are the times that the
driver would appreciate a warning. This new technology gives that warning.
Another point that must be made is the fact that parked cars, fire hydrants,
buildings and inanimate objects don't have the ability to get out of the way.
Millions and millions of dollars are lost to property damage caused by
backing accidents each year. This type of accident and needless expense can
be eliminated by the use of the Radar Backup Alarm Systems.
A letter Dated May 3, 1993 from the State of California, Division of
Occupational Safety and Health, recognizes the System 202 that I manufacture
as meeting their Construction Safety Orders, Sections 1592 (a) and (b)(1). I
asked them for an interpretation in a letter dated April 16, 1993. They
responded in less than four weeks.
As you can see in the Radar Backup Alarm Systems Brochure that I have
enclosed, the System 202 sounds the existing Audio Backup Alarm when the
vehicle is placed into reverse gear. It sounds the audio alarm for four
seconds and then shuts it off. When a person or inanimate object is detected
within the radar pattern, the audio backup alarm is turned back on to warn
ground personnel. This feature makes the audio alarm a real warning. At the
same instance, a red light and Audio Buzzer is turned on for the driver
providing the opportunity to stop. My System 202 does not try to give
distances or perform any function other than to simply give the operator a
timely warning of the potential accident.
The System 202 is built with a Power Loss Safety Feature. If the ignition
power to the sensor is lost or the ground to the sensor is lost, the Existing
Audible Backup Alarm becomes activated and performs exactly the same as
before the System 202 was installed.
It is my opinion that not only does the System 202 meet the "Intent" of the
standard as so stated in the Letter from you San Francisco office but
actually meets the standard as "Written".
The Code of Federal Regulations 29 1926.601(b)(4)(i) states: "No employer
shall use any motor vehicle equipment having an obstructed view to the rear
unless: The vehicle has a reverse signal alarm audible above the surrounding
noise level."
Point..The System 202 does not replace the existing backup alarm
that is on the vehicle. The same alarm that usually comes as
standard equipment is still used.
Point..The System 202 does not effect the noise level of the
backup alarm when it is turned on.
Point..The standard does not say "Continuous" reverse signal
alarm.
I can understand why someone might be reluctant to respond to a request for
an interpretation because this new technology has not been available before.
With the System 202, the vehicle would still have an "alarm audible above the
surrounding noise level."
I am just a small time entrepreneur that has seen a real need and am trying
to fill it. After having witnessed many backing accidents, I have decided to
do something about it. So far, since designing this concept in 1986, I have
spent over six years and all of my assets developing the product. It goes
without saying, I really believe in what I am doing.
I sincerely request a written interpretation of the Standard as it effects
my System 202. Do you agree that it meets the Standard as written? Does it
meet the intent of the Standard as stated by the San Francisco office?
I do hope that you will effect an interpretation for me. It has been over
five years since I first requested it.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robert F. Knapp
P.O. Box 245
Spirit Lake, Idaho 83869
208-623-5244
May 3, 1988
R.F. Knapp Company
3361 Penryn Road
Loomis, CA 95650
Attention: Robert F. Knapp
Dear Mr. Knapp:
In response to your letter of April 15, 1988 regarding the audio backup
warning device the following information is provided:
The brochure, printed in red, states "When the Sensor Unit Detects
an object or someone in the path of the backing vehicle, the red light and
buzzer are activated in the cab to alert the driver".
If System III upon alerting the driver, the driver has enough
distance to stop the vehicle before hitting the object or person than the
device would meet the intent of the standard.
There is also the option on System III of continuous audio warning
which would comply with the standard.
Because this item will be sold nationally an acceptance letter
should be obtained through our National Office. Your literature is being
forwarded to:
Don Shay, Director
Directorate of Compliance Programs USDOL/OSHA
Francis Perkins Building
200 Constitution Avenue,
Room N3119
Washington, D.C. 20210
(202) 523-8031
A final interpretation will be forthcoming from Mr. Shay.
Sincerely,
GABRIEL J. GILLOTTI
Assistant Regional Administrator
Office of Technical Support
December 7, 1988
Mr. Don Shay, Director
Directorate of Compliance
Programs USDOL/OSHA
Francis Perkins Building
200 Constitution Avenue,
Room N3119
Washington, D.C. 20210
Dear Mr. Shay:
In May of 1988 I sought an acceptance letter from the Occupational Safety
and Health Administration for my "Break Alert System". As referenced int he
attached letter a final interpretation was to be forthcoming from your
office. I realize that the information provided to evaluate my product may
not have been comprehensive enough to ascertain the compliance of my product
with the established standards. To assist in your evaluation of my products
I would like to supplement any information that you have with the following:
My product "Break Alert Systems" uses discrimination backup alarm
technology. It is a Microwave Radar system, using the Doppler shift
principle where it measures the difference in velocity of an object. When
the unit detects an object or person in the path of the backing vehicle, it
warns the driver with a red light and buzzer on the dash and also activates
the outside regularly required back-up alarm to warn people on the ground.
In fact the system meets all the requirements listed in the attached
memorandum from the U.S. Department of Labor, Mine and Safety Administration
memorandum dated July 28, 1987.
My objective is to introduce my product to the construction Industry on a
National level. Your consideration of a letter of acceptance would be
greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Robert F. Knapp
Owner
| 
Newsletter
RSS Feeds
Print This Page
Text Size
Standard Interpretations - Table of Contents