Back to Federal guidance

Strobe light versus audible backup alarm on loaders

Summary An asphalt company asked whether it could use a strobe light instead of an audible reverse alarm on a loader. OSHA said the light did not satisfy the construction standard. It discussed the rule's employee signaler alternative and forwarded the company's variance request for separate consideration.
Document
Federal opinion letter
Agency
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
Document number
1990-07-20
Date issued
July 20, 1990
Status
Active
Status last verified October 9, 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.

July 20, 1990

Mr. Edwin M. Gately
Environmental/Safety Compliance Supervisor
Tri County Asphalt Corporation
[Recipient address omitted]
Dear Mr. Gately:

This is in response to your letters of May 1 and June 13, regarding Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) Standard 29 CFR 1926.602(9)(ii).

I have had the matter of the use of a strobe light in lieu of an audible backup alarm reviewed by the Office of Construction and Maritime Compliance Assistance in this Directorate and the Office of Variance Determination in the Directorate of Technical Support.

The use of a strobe light in lieu of an audible backup alarm does not satisfy the requirements of 29 CFR 1926.602(9) and would be a violation of that standard.

With respect to the alternative set forth in 29 CFR 1926(9)(ii), you have stated that the use of an employee to signal the front end loader operator, if the audible alarm is not used, would put that person in danger, not only from the loader but the traffic, as well. Yet you also stated that you were limiting the truck traffic in the stock pile area to one truck at a time, with all other traffic being held at the bottom of the hill. This would appear to eliminate the truck hazard, at least. Perhaps you could position the employee in question to avoid any danger from the loader.

With respect to a request for a variance, we are forwarding your letters and a copy of this letter to:

Mr. James Concannon
Directorate of Technical Support
Office of Variance Determination
Room N3653
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20210 (202) 523-7193

He has advised that, in order to obtain a variance from an OSHA standard, the requester must submit the appropriate evidence to support their contention that their alternative method, system, procedure, etc., is as safe and healthful as the requirements of the standard from which a variance is sought. For your convenience, I am enclosing a copy of 29 CFR 1905, Rules of Practice For Variances.

If you have any questions, you can contact Mr. Concannon directly.

Sincerely,
Patricia K. Clark Director
Designate Directorate of Compliance Programs

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