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 http://www.osha.gov.

July 8, 1994

Mark Granroth
Chief Engineer
Pettibone, Michigan
P.O. Box 368
Baraga, Michigan 49908

Dear Mr. Granroth:

Thank you for your letter dated January 4, concerning an update of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA's) letter to Pettibone dated June 2, 1972 pertaining to rollover protective structures (ROPS) for your Cary-Lift(R) models. OSHA's position today is essentially the same as was the response to Pettibone letter dated January 24, 1992 with the same inquiry. The January 24, 1992 letter with OSHA's response is attached. We have also added clarifying language which follow.

Some of the various industries (logging, construction, recycling plants) where Cary-Lift(R)'s are used were discussed during a telephone conversation of February 10, between Camille Villanova of our staff and Dale Peterson of yours. The General Industry Standards (29 CFR 1910) that would apply to logging and recycling plants do not contain a standard for ROPS or falling object protective structure (FOPS) at this time. If rollover and/or falling object hazards were present in these types of workplaces then OSHA would require that the employer have proof that the cab, lift arm, and any other protective structural equipment has been tested with the current design and specification recommendations published by a nationally recognized standards producing organization, such as American National Standards Institute (ANSI), American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), the Society of Automotive Engineers Standard (SAE), etc., or that the employer has equivalent proof or documentation. Other OSHA standards, such as those dealing with hazards in construction and agriculture, were developed from documents developed by these organizations, such as:

ASTM A 370, "Methods and definitions for mechanical testing of steel products;

SAE J167, "Protective Frame with Overhead Protection-Test Procedures and Performance Requirements (1971);

SAE J168 "Protective Enclosures, Test Procedures and Performance Requirements" (July 1970);

SAE J320a, "Minimum Performance Criteria for Roll-Over Protective Structure for Rubber-Tired, Self-Propelled Scrapers" (1971);

SAE J334a, "Protective Frame Test Procedures and Performance Requirements" (July 1970);

SAE J394, "Minimum Performance Criteria for Roll-Over Protective Structure for Rubber-Tired, Front End Loaders and Rubber-Tired Dozers" (1971);

SAE J395, "Minimum Performance Criteria for Roll-Over Protective Structure for Crawler Tractors and Crawler-Type Loaders" (1971);

SAE J396, "Minimum Performance Criteria for Roll-Over Protective Structure for Motor Graders" (1971);

SAE J397, (1969).

Note SAE: J168, J320A, J334A, J394, J395 and J396 are now historical documents. Some of the current documents that apply to ROPS and FOPS are SAE: J1040 "Performance Criteria for Rollover Structures (ROPS) for Construction, Earthmoving, Forestry and Mining Machines", J1215 "Performance Prediction of Roll-Over Protective Structures (ROPS) Through Analytical Methods, Information Report", J152a "Operator Enclosures Human Factor Design Consideration", and ANSI/ASME B56.6c-1991 "Safety Standard for rough Terrain Forklift Trucks."

None of the sales brochures that were sent with your letter indicate that the Cary-Lift(R) models have been tested and found to meet the criteria for ROPS and FOPS. If the Cary-Lift(R) models have been tested and have passed most ROPS and FOPS factors but due to the design of your equipment a factor, for example, vertical clearance from the work deck to the ROPS cannot be met, then this test information would assist OSHA in determining if a standard revision or a compliance interpretation for this type of off-the-road machinery should be issued.

If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,



Raymond E. Donnelly, Director
Office of General Industry Compliance Assistance