Back to Federal guidance

Rollover protection for backhoe equipped tractors

Summary A construction equipment maker asked OSHA to reconsider rollover protection requirements for tractors with backhoe attachments. OSHA said moving a tractor exposes the operator to rollover hazards regardless of travel speed, so it retained its earlier interpretation requiring protection. A separate protective structure was not required for each seat if one structure protected them all.
Document
Federal opinion letter
Agency
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
Document number
1992-07-24-0
Date issued
July 24, 1992
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 24, 1992

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

This is in response to your June 12 letter requesting the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) reconsider its interpretation of ROPS requirements addressing industrial tractors with backhoe attachments. I apologize for the delay in responding to your inquiry.

OSHA recognizes the advantages of being able to move a tractor from the backhoe operator's station. However, when the tractor is moved from one location to another, irrespective of the speed of travel, the operator is exposed to the hazards associated with tipping and rollover of the equipment. The information enclosed in you letter does not address the hazards introduced by the movement of the equipment and therefore, OSHA cannot justify a change of the earlier interpretation that a ROPS is necessary to protect the operator of a tractor when the equipment is being moved.

In regard to your statement that paragraphs 29 CFR 1926.602(a) and (b) show that ROPS are not required on attachment type equipment, please be advised that these provisions do not negate the clearly stated requirement of paragraph 29 CFR 1926.1000 which was promulgated at a later date. That paragraph states, in relevant part, that ROPS are required on "... wheel-type agricultural and industrial tractors, crawler tractors,..., with or without attachments, that are used in construction work" (emphasis added). This requirement is clearly intended to provide the operator of a moving piece of equipment with protection against the hazards of rollover regardless of where the point of operation is located. As stated in paragraph 29 CFR 1926.1000(c)(2)(i), "The design objective shall be to minimize the likelihood of a complete overturn and thereby minimize the possibility of the operator being crushed as a result of a rollover or upset." However, please note, these provisions do not require a separate ROPS for each operator seat if it can be shown that each seat is protected by a ROPS located somewhere on the equipment.

If we can be of any further assistance, please contact Mr. Roy F. Gurnham or Mr. Dale R. Cavanaugh of my staff in the Office of Construction and Maritime Compliance Assistance at (202) 523-8136.

Sincerely,
Patricia K. Clark, Director
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