Archive Notice - OSHA Archive

NOTICE: This is an OSHA Archive Document, and may no longer represent OSHA Policy. It is presented here as historical content, for research and review purposes only.

OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards and regulations. Our interpretation letters explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA's interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. Also, from time to time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep apprised of such developments, you can consult OSHA's website at

November 30, 1977

Mr. J. B. Stucky
Vice President-Marketing
Full Vision Inc.
Post Office Box 647
Newton, Kansas 67114

Dear Mr. Stucky:

This is in response to your letters dated August 31, 1977, and September 1, 1977, concerning your request for a variance from Section 1926.1002(i)(1)(i) and Sections 1928.52 and 1928.53(e)(1)(i), Roll-over protection Structures (ROPS) of the safety and health regulations for construction and agriculture. Your letter was forwarded to this office for evaluation of the modified ROPS.

The purpose of the standards contained in Sections 1926.1002(i)(1)(i), 1928.52 and 1928.53(e)(1)(i) is to provide minimum requirements for structural frames in the protection of operators of wheel type agricultural and industrial tractors, to minimize the possibility of operator injury resulting from accidental upsets during normal operation. That the 24 inch minimum dimension required by the aforementioned standards cannot be met throughout a portion of the vertical distance defined by the subject standards due to the locations of the rear tire, rear fenders, and seat is clearly indicated by the pictures attached to your letter.

Your proposed ROPS design for tractor models 240 and 330 does not provide the equivalent protection for operators as required by the existing standards. It cannot comply with the required 24 inch dimensions because of the narrowness of the tractors. The construction standards section 1926.1001 ROPS are required with dozer-loader attachments to be used in construction and the 1926.1002 type design criteria will not be acceptable.

I realize that you are not in a position to control the production of the tractors but modification of the equipment appears necessary to install ROPS as illustrated by the figures contained in the construction and agricultural standards.

If I may be of any further assistance, please feel free to contact me.


John K. Barto, Chief
Division of Occupational
Safety Programming