Back to Federal guidance

Rollover protection for a backhoe operator seat

Summary An equipment manufacturer asked OSHA to reverse an earlier interpretation requiring a rollover protective structure for a backhoe operator’s seat on a described tractor. OSHA said the proposed engineering test standard supplied by the manufacturer did not decide when rollover protection is required, and it reaffirmed its December 1987 answer. The guidance matters to construction-equipment makers and users.
Document
Federal opinion letter
Agency
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
Document number
1989-05-23-1
Date issued
May 23, 1989
Status
Active
Status last verified October 10, 2026

Apply this to your situation

This page explains the general guidance. Ask about your specific situation and see what current federal labor law says, with citations.

About this page: The full text below is the official document from Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Ezel adds the plain-English summary and tracks the document's status. The official source linked on this page is authoritative for any reliance.

May 23, 1989

Mr. Charles L. Lambert, CSP
Safety Coordinator
The Charles Machine Works, Inc.
[Recipient address omitted]
Dear Mr. Lambert:

This is in response to your request and subsequent phone conversation with Mr. Anthony Brown of my staff requesting a review and reversal of a previous Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) response contained in a letter which was sent to you on December 30, 1987. This letter stated that under OSHA's current standard pertaining to rollover protective structures [29 CFR 1926.1000], a rollover protective structure (ROPS) would be required for the backhoe operator's seat when the tractor you described is moving backward or forward in the manner that you described.

The additional information that you have submitted to support your request for a reversal of OSHA's previous interpretation contains the Society of Automotive Engineers' (SAE) proposed standard J1040. This is primarily an engineering document which addresses criteria and procedures to be used for testing and determining the adequacy of ROPS. This proposed SAE standard does not address the issue of whether or not ROPS would be required on a particular vehicle and it does not address the issue of what types of operations would require ROPS. As you know, 29 CFR 1926.1000 does contain sections which identify the types of vehicles and describe some of the practices which would require the use of ROPS.

A review of the additional information you have sent us and OSHA's applicable construction standards pertaining to ROPS provides us with no reasonable justification to reconsider or revise the decision contained in OSHA's December 30, 1987 letter to you. Therefore, the December 30, 1987 letter OSHA sent to you is still applicable.

We have enclosed another copy of OSHA's December 30, 1987 letter to you for your information. We hope this response clarifies any confusion or misunderstanding you may have had concerning this matter and we appreciate your continued interest in safety and health.

Sincerely,

Gerald P. Reidy, Director
Office of Construction and Maritime
Compliance Assistance

What does federal law require in your situation?

Ezel checks current federal labor law against your facts and answers with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace