Roll-Over Protective Structures, 76979-77025 [05-24462]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
• Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 249 (Thursday, December 29, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 76979-77025]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-24462]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Parts 1926 and 1928

[Docket No. S-270-A]
RIN 1218-AC15


Roll-Over Protective Structures

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), DOL.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In 1996, OSHA published a technical amendment revising the 
construction and agriculture standards that regulate testing of roll-
over protective structures (``ROPS'') used to protect employees who 
operate wheel-type tractors. This revision removed the original ROPS 
standards and replaced them with references to national consensus 
standards for ROPS-testing

[[Page 76980]]

requirements. The Agency believed that the national consensus standards 
essentially duplicated the ROPS standards they replaced, and that any 
differences between them were not substantive. Subsequently, OSHA 
identified several substantive differences between the national 
consensus standards and the original ROPS standards. Therefore, the 
Agency is reinstating the original ROPS standards by issuing this 
direct final rule. The reinstated ROPS standards for both construction 
and agriculture also contain a number of minor revisions that OSHA 
believes are not substantive and will improve comprehension of, and 
compliance with, the standards.

DATES: This direct final rule will become effective on February 27, 
2006 unless significant adverse comment is received by January 30, 
2006. If OSHA receives significant adverse comment, it will publish a 
timely withdrawal of this rule. Submit comments to this direct final 
rule by the following dates:
    Hard copy: Submit (i.e., postmarked or sent) comments by regular 
mail, express delivery, hand delivery, and courier service by January 
30, 2006.
    Electronic transmission and facsimile: Submit comments by January 
30, 2006.
    The incorporation by reference of specific publications listed in 
this direct final rule is approved by the Director of the Federal 
Register as of February 27, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to this direct final rule--
identified by docket number S-270-A or RIN number 1218-AC15--by any of 
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     OSHA's Web site: https://dockets.osha.gov/. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments.
     Facsimile: When written comments are 10 pages or fewer, 
fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-1648.
     Regular mail, express delivery, hand delivery, and courier 
service: Submit three copies to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. S-
270-A, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N-
2625, Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-2350. (OSHA's TTY 
number is (877) 889-5627.) Please note that security-related problems 
may result in significant delays in receiving comments and other 
written materials by regular mail. Telephone the OSHA Docket Office at 
(202) 693-2350 for information regarding security procedures concerning 
delivery of materials by express delivery, hand delivery, and messenger 
service. The hours of operation for the Docket Office are 8:15 a.m. to 
4:45 p.m., EST.
    Additional materials: When a commenter would like to submit 
additional materials (e.g., studies, journal articles) to supplement 
comments that were submitted electronically or by facsimile, these 
materials must be sent, in triplicate hard copy, to the OSHA Docket 
Office, Technical Data Center, Room N-2625, OSHA, U.S. Department of 
Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20210. These 
materials must clearly identify the sender's name, date, subject, and 
docket number (S-270-A) or RIN number (1218-AC15) to enable the Agency 
to attach them to the appropriate comments.
    Personal information: OSHA will make available to the public, 
without revision, all comments and other materials submitted to the 
docket, including any personal information. Therefore, the Agency 
cautions commenters about submitting statements they do not want made 
available to the public, or submitting comments that contain personal 
information (either about themselves or others) such as social security 
numbers, birth dates, and medical data.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information and press 
inquiries, contact Mr. Kevin Ropp, Director, Office of Communications, 
OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3637, 200 Constitution Avenue, 
NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-1999; fax: (202) 693-
1634. For technical inquiries, contact Mr. Mark Hagemann, Acting 
Director, Office of Safety Systems, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 
Room N-3609, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; 
telephone: (202) 693-2255; fax: (202) 693-1663. For detailed 
instructions on submitting comments and for additional information on 
the rulemaking process, see the ``Public Participation'' heading under 
the section below titled Supplementary Information.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Direct Final Rulemaking
II. Summary and Explanation of the Rulemaking
    A. Basis for the Rulemaking
    B. Substantive Differences Between the Standards
    C. Minor Revisions to the Original OSHA ROPS Standards
III. Procedural Determinations
    A. Legal Considerations
    B. Economic Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Certification
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act
    D. Federalism
    E. State-Plan States
    F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    G. Public Participation
List of Subjects
Authority and Signature
IV. Amended Standards

I. Direct Final Rulemaking

    The Agency uses direct final rulemaking when it expects that a rule 
will not be controversial. Examples of such rules include minor 
substantive revisions to regulations, incorporation by reference of the 
latest edition of a technical or industry consensus standard, and 
direct incorporations of mandates from new legislation. In direct final 
rulemaking, OSHA publishes a final rule in the Federal Register with a 
statement that, unless it receives a significant adverse comment by a 
specified date, the rule will become effective on a designated date 
thereafter.
    OSHA believes that the subject of this rulemaking is suitable for a 
direct final rule. The Agency bases this decision on substantive 
differences found between the original OSHA standards on roll-over 
protective structures (``ROPS'') for the construction and agriculture 
industries and the national consensus standards issued by the Agency 
under a 1996 technical amendment to replace the original standards. By 
replacing the original ROPs testing provisions through a technical 
amendment, OSHA denied the regulated community an opportunity for 
notice-and-comment on these substantive differences as required under 
the Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)) and the 
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 655(b)(2) and 
(b)(3)). Therefore, the Agency has concluded that it has a legal 
obligation to the regulated community to reinstate the original OSHA 
standards through this direct final rule. (See section II.A below 
(``Basis for the Rulemaking'') for a detailed discussion of the 
Agency's legal analysis of this issue.)
    Having concluded that this reinstatement action constitutes a 
binding legal obligation, the Agency will consider as significant 
adverse comments only those comments that address: (1) The lawfulness 
of the procedures used to promulgate the 1996 technical amendment as 
these procedures relate to the ROPs testing provisions; and (2) whether 
the minor revisions made to the original ROPS standards in this direct 
final rule (see a description of these revisions under section II.C of 
this preamble) are reasonable or appropriate.
    The Agency often publishes an identical proposed rule 
simultaneously

[[Page 76981]]

with a direct final rule. In this instance, however, OSHA is not 
publishing a companion proposed rule. Should OSHA receive any 
significant adverse comments to this direct final rule, it will 
withdraw the rule and determine, based on the comments submitted to the 
record, whether to issue a proposed rule in the future. Accordingly, if 
OSHA receives timely significant adverse comments on the two issues 
described in the previous paragraph, it will publish notice of the 
significant adverse comments in the Federal Register and withdraw this 
direct final rule no later than February 27, 2006.

II. Summary and Explanation of the Rulemaking

A. Basis for the Rulemaking

    On March 7, 1996, OSHA published a technical amendment in the 
Federal Register that revised a number of its standards. Section II.G 
of the amendment revised the construction and agriculture standards 
that regulate testing of roll-over protective structures (``ROPS''); 
employers use these structures to protect employees who operate wheel-
type tractors. (See 61 FR 9228.) ROPS testing determines the capacity 
of ROPS components to absorb energy (i.e., withstand fracturing) during 
loadings administered under field and/or laboratory conditions, and 
under different temperature conditions. The revision removed the 
original, detailed ROPS-testing standards and referred instead to 
national consensus standards for substantive ROPS-testing requirements. 
The 1996 technical amendment was part of an OSHA initiative to 
``undertake a line-by-line review of * * * regulations to determine 
where they could be simplified or clarified'' (61 FR 9228).
    The Administrative Procedures Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)), the 
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 
655(b)(2) and (b)(3)), and OSHA's procedural regulations (29 CFR 
1911.5) require that OSHA provide notice and an opportunity for comment 
during substantive rulemaking. However, in the preamble to the 1996 
technical amendment, the Agency noted that the technical amendment did 
not revise the original ROPS standards in any material fashion, and 
that ``[t]he substantive requirements are unchanged'' between the 
original ROPS standards and the consensus standards that replaced them 
(61 FR 9229). For this reason, OSHA determined that the technical 
amendment did not require notice and an opportunity for comment because 
it satisfied the ``unnecessary'' exemption specified by the APA (5 
U.S.C. 553(b).\1\ Relying on the ``unnecessary'' exemption to notice 
and comment, the Agency stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The three exemptions Specified by this provision of the APA 
are: Impracticable, unnecessary and contrary to the public interest.

    OSHA has determined that this rulemaking is not subject to the 
procedures for public notice-and-comment rulemaking specified under 
section 4 of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) or sec. 
6(b) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 
655(b)) because this rulemaking does not affect the substantive 
requirements or coverage of the standards involved. This rulemaking 
does not modify or revoke existing rights and obligations, and new 
rights and obligations have not been established. Under this 
rulemaking, the Agency is merely correcting or clarifying existing 
regulatory requirements. OSHA therefore finds that public notice-
and-comment procedures are unnecessary within the meaning of 5 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) and 29 CFR 1911.5. (61 FR 9229.)

    Several years after issuing the 1996 technical amendment, the 
Agency was informed that several of the original OSHA ROPS provisions 
differed substantively from the national consensus standards for the 
construction and agriculture industries (Ex. 4-7). In response to this 
information, the Agency conducted a thorough evaluation of its original 
ROPS standards and the ROPS testing requirements contained in the 
national consensus standards referenced in its current construction and 
agriculture ROPS standards. OSHA has included in the docket for this 
rulemaking four side-by-side comparisons of the differences found 
between the original OSHA standards and the referenced national 
consensus standards (Exs. 4-1 to 4-4).
    Based on the findings of this evaluation, which are described in 
detail in the following section, the Agency has concluded that 
differences do exist between its original construction and agriculture 
ROPS standards and the ROPS standards implemented under the 1996 
technical amendment, that these differences have a substantial impact 
on the regulated community, and that OSHA incorrectly applied the APA's 
``unnecessary'' exemption to the ROPs testing procedures. This 
conclusion is consistent with existing case law. For example, in 
Utility Solid Waste Activities Group v. Environmental Protection 
Agency, 236 F.3d 749 (D.C. Cir. 2001), the court found that an EPA 
technical amendment had a significant impact on the regulated community 
and, most importantly, that it did not meet any of the three exemptions 
to notice-and-comment rulemaking specified by the APA i.e., 5 U.S.C. 
553(b)(B) (Id. at 754)). In vacating the technical amendment, the court 
stated, ``The amendment * * * constituted agency action `without 
observance of [the] procedure required by law' and, as such, it is 
`unlawful and set aside.' 5 U.S.C. 706(2)(D).''
    The substantive differences found between the standards and the 
legal analysis described in the preceding paragraphs support the 
Agency's conclusion that reinstating the original OSHA standards 
through this direct final rule is necessary and appropriate. 
Specifically, the Agency is revoking the references to the national 
consensus standards for ROPS testing located in paragraphs 29 CFR 
1926.1002(a)(i), 1926.1003(a)(i), and 1928.51(b)(1) and reinstating in 
the construction and agriculture standards the original OSHA ROPS 
testing provisions. For both the reinstated construction and 
agriculture ROPS standards, the Agency also has made a number of minor 
revisions to its original ROPS standards. OSHA believes that these 
minor revisions will improve comprehension of, and compliance with, the 
reinstated standards without making substantive revisions.
    The following section highlights the substantive differences 
between its original ROPS testing requirements and the testing 
provisions of the consensus standards referenced in its current ROPS 
construction and agriculture standards. The Agency describes in section 
II.C below the minor revisions it is making to the original OSHA ROPS 
standards under this direct final rule.

B. Substantive Differences Between the Standards

    Construction standards. In revising the ROPS standards for 
construction in the 1996 technical amendment, the Agency deleted 
paragraphs (c) through (i) and (k) from 29 CFR 1926.1002, which 
addressed testing of protective frames for wheel-type tractors used in 
construction, and replaced them with a reference to Society of 
Automotive Engineers (``SAE'') consensus standard J334a-1970 in 
paragraph (a)(1) of revised 29 CFR 1926.1002. The Agency also revised 
29 CFR 1926.1003, specifying testing requirements for overhead 
protection used with tractors, by removing paragraphs (c) through (g) 
and substituting a reference to SAE consensus standard J167-1970 in 
paragraph (a)(1) of the revised standard.
    While most of the revisions to the construction ROPS standards made 
in the 1996 technical amendment were nonsubstantive, the Agency 
identified

[[Page 76982]]

two substantive revisions. The first revision involved paragraph (c)(1) 
of original 29 CFR 1926.1002, which allowed the regulated community to 
use either a laboratory test or a field test for impact testing, while 
the SAE standard requires both tests. Accordingly, this direct final 
rule reinstates the impact-testing option provided by paragraph (c)(1) 
of original 29 CFR 1926.1002, and which is not available in the SAE 
standard. (See Ex. 4-1.)
    The second revision addressed paragraphs (i)(ii) of original 29 CFR 
1926.1002 and (f)(1) of original 29 CFR 1926.1003, in combination with 
paragraph (f)(2)(iv) of 29 CFR 1926.1001. These paragraphs permitted 
manufacturers to conduct the required performance tests using either 
zero-degree Fahrenheit (0 [deg]F) testing or Charpy V-notch testing, 
while the SAE standard specifies that performance tests must be 
conducted only at 0 [deg]F.\2\ Therefore, reinstating the original OSHA 
standards will provide an additional cold-temperature testing option 
not available in the SAE standard. (See Exs. 4-1 and 4-2.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ These two tests determine, under controlled laboratory 
conditions, the reduced-temperature ductility of the carbon steel 
used to make ROPS. Generally, the less ductile the steel, the more 
likely it is to fracture with impact during reduced-temperature 
exposure (thereby losing its protective features). The 0 [deg]F 
test, used principally by ROPS manufacturers, involves administering 
impacts and/or loads to the entire ROPS at 0 [deg]F, while the 
Charpy V-notch test, used primarily by steel manufacturers, applies 
impacts to steel specimens of a predetermined size at several 
reduced-temperature levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Agriculture standards. In revising the ROPS standards for the 
agriculture industry, the Agency deleted entirely original 29 CFR 
1928.52 and 1928.53, as well as Appendix B to subpart C of 29 CFR part 
1928. The deleted standards specified procedures for testing, 
respectively, protective frames and enclosures for wheel-type tractors 
used in agriculture, while Appendix B provided diagrams depicting these 
testing procedures. In place of these requirements, OSHA referenced SAE 
consensus standard J334a-1970 and American Society of Agricultural 
Engineers (``ASAE'') consensus standard S306.3-1974 for protective 
frames, and SAE consensus standard J168-1970 and ASAE consensus 
standard S336.1-1974 for protective enclosures, in paragraph (b)(1) of 
revised 29 CFR 1928.51.
    For both protective frames and protective enclosures, the testing 
conducted under the ASAE and SAE standards generally is consistent with 
the testing requirements of the original OSHA standards. However, the 
Agency found several substantive differences between the original OSHA 
standards and the consensus standards (for testing both protective 
frames and protective enclosures) that replaced them. First, both the 
original OSHA standards and the ASAE standards differ substantively 
from the SAE standards by providing an exemption from field-upset 
testing based on results for either the static or dynamic versions of 
the laboratory energy-absorption test,\3\ while the SAE standards 
require field-upset testing only under dynamic test conditions. 
Consequently, this direct final rule will reinstate the testing 
exemption found in the original OSHA ROPS standards. (See Exs. 4-3 and 
4-4.) Second, the original OSHA and the SAE standards allow either 
static or dynamic testing at 0 [deg]F, while the ASAE standards limit 
testing at 0 [deg]F to dynamic testing. Therefore, reinstating the 
original OSHA standards under this direct final rule restores the 
testing option found in the original OSHA standards, but which is not 
in the ASAE standards. (See Exs. 4-3 and 4-4.) Finally, as an 
alternative to 0 [deg]F testing, the original OSHA and ASAE standards 
offer the Charpy V-notch test, while the SAE standards do not. 
Accordingly, reinstating the original OSHA standard will provide an 
additional cold-temperature testing option not available in the SAE 
standards. (See Exs. 4-3 and 4-4.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The laboratory energy-absorption test assesses the energy 
(measured as force multiplied by distance) absorbed by ROPS during 
laboratory-controlled rear and side impacts. During testing, ROPS 
components bend as they absorb energy; however, such bending must 
not exceed the deflection values specified by the OSHA standards 
(these values represent thresholds beyond which the deflection may 
endanger the tractor operator). Generally, the tests have a safety 
margin (e.g., 15%), which means that additional deflection equal to 
the specified safety margin is possible without jeopardizing safety. 
The laboratory-based test is derived from the energy-absorbing 
results obtained for ROPS tested during rear or side field-upset 
tests, i.e., deflection values are comparable when the same ROPS and 
tractors are evaluated under the two testing conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Minor Revisions to the Original OSHA ROPS Standards

    Paragraph (c)(1) of OSHA's original 29 CFR 1926.1002 contains an 
editorial error. The original paragraph states that laboratory or field 
tests ``determine the performance requirements set forth in paragraph 
(c)(1) of this [standard].'' However, paragraph (i) of the standard, 
not paragraph (c)(1), provides the performance requirements that the 
tests must determine. Therefore, OSHA is correcting the reference 
accordingly.
    The Agency also is making two additional revisions related to the 
original construction standards for ROPS. First, as noted in Ex. 4-1, 
paragraph 5.3.2 of SAE consensus standard J334a-1970 defines the term 
``Pu'' as the ``[u]ltimate force capacity of mounting 
connection, lb (kg).'' However, paragraph (j)(3) of original 29 CFR 
1926.1002 lists no definition for this term. Since the original OSHA 
standard duplicates the remaining terminology of the SAE consensus 
standard, this rulemaking will add this term and the SAE consensus 
standard definition to reinstated 29 CFR 1926.1002(j)(3). Second, in 
reinstating the original 29 CFR 1926.1002 and 1926.1003 standards, OSHA 
is removing the following sentence from paragraphs (k) and (g) of these 
respective standards: ``The SAE standard shall be used in the event 
that questions of interpretation arise.'' The Agency is removing this 
sentence because the referenced SAE standard provides no additional 
information on which to base such interpretations.
    Finally, the Agency is making a number of plain-language revisions 
to the regulatory text of the original OSHA ROPS standards for the 
construction and agriculture industries. The Agency finds that using 
plain language will improve the comprehensibility of these provisions. 
These improvements will, in turn, enhance employer compliance with the 
revised provisions and, concomitantly, increase the protection afforded 
to employees. OSHA believes that rewriting these provisions in plain 
language did not alter the substantive requirements of the existing 
provisions.

III. Procedural Determinations

A. Legal Considerations

    The purpose of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 
(``OSH Act''), 29 U.S.C. 651 et seq., is ``to assure so far as possible 
every working man and woman in the nation safe and healthful working 
conditions and to preserve our human resources.'' (29 U.S.C. 651(b).) 
To achieve this goal, Congress authorized the Secretary of Labor to 
promulgate and enforce occupational safety and health standards. (29 
U.S.C. 655(b) and 654(b).) A safety or health standard is a standard 
``which requires conditions, or the adoption or use of one or more 
practices, means, methods, operations, or processes, reasonably 
necessary or appropriate to provide safe or healthful employment or 
places of employment.'' (29 U.S.C. 652(8).) A standard is reasonably 
necessary or appropriate within the meaning of Section 652(8) when a 
significant risk of material harm exists in the workplace and the 
standard will reduce substantially or eliminate that workplace risk.

[[Page 76983]]

    OSHA based its original ROPS standards on evidence that these 
structures are necessary to ensure proper employee protection should 
wheel-type tractors become unstable and roll backwards or to the side. 
For this direct final rule, the Agency has determined that the original 
OSHA construction and agriculture ROPS standards meet the statutory 
requirements of Section 652(8) of the OSH Act. In addition, OSHA finds 
that this direct final rule does not increase employers' compliance 
burdens (see section B (``Economic Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility 
Certification'') below). Consequently, it is unnecessary to determine 
significant risk, or the extent to which the direct final rule would 
reduce that risk, as would typically be required by Industrial Union 
Department, AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum Institute, 448 U.S. 607 
(1980).
    Because OSHA replaced its original ROPs testing provisions through 
a technical amendment, the regulated community did not have an 
opportunity for notice and comment on the substantive differences 
between the original ROPs testing provisions and the consensus 
standards that replaced them. Such notice and comment are required by 
the Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)), the Occupational 
Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 655(b)(2) and (b)(3)), and 
OSHA's procedural regulations (29 CFR 1911.5). Therefore, the Agency 
has concluded that it has a legal obligation to the regulated community 
to reinstate the original OSHA standards through this direct final 
rule.

B. Economic Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Certification

    OSHA's Economic Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
address issues related to the costs, benefits, technological 
feasibility, and economic impacts (including small business impacts) of 
this direct final rule reinstating the Agency's original ROPS 
standards.
    Executive Order (``E.O.'') 12866 requires regulatory agencies to 
conduct an economic analysis for rules that meet certain criteria. The 
most frequently used criterion under E.O. 12866 is that the rule will 
have an annual cost impact on the economy of $100 million or more. 
Neither the benefits nor the costs of this direct final rule exceed 
$100 million. Nevertheless, the Agency has prepared this economic 
analysis to summarize this direct final rule's impact, and has 
concluded that it is not an economically significant regulatory action 
under E.O. 12866.
    Although this direct final rule applies to employers in 
construction and agriculture so that their employees may operate safe 
equipment (i.e., wheel-type tractors), it more directly affects 
equipment manufacturers. Equipment manufacturers design and build 
machines that have ROPS to meet the testing criteria specified in 
OSHA's ROPS standards. Fewer than 10 original equipment manufacturers 
are directly affected by this direct final rule (see Ex. 4-5). 
Employers in the construction and agriculture industries who purchase 
and use wheel-type tractors are in violation of OSHA's ROPS standards 
and are subject to penalty when the tractors do not have protective 
structures meeting these standards. Therefore, employers in the 
construction and agriculture industries would be affected indirectly if 
changing the ROPS testing procedures were to change the price of 
equipment.
    For the purposes of its economic analyses, OSHA generally defines 
small firms as firms with fewer than 1,000 employees (using the Small 
Business Administration's definition); however, the Agency may use 
smaller size categories as well. None of the original equipment 
manufacturers affected by this direct final rule is a small employer 
under any of these definitions. However, some small manufacturing firms 
(e.g., with fewer than 20 employees) may retrofit older, existing 
equipment with custom-made ROPS, and these firms may be affected by 
this direct final rule.
    As explained in the preamble above, this direct final rule provides 
equipment manufacturers with more options for testing ROPS than the 
current OSHA ROPS standards. Therefore, none of the provisions in the 
direct final rule impose conditions that would generate new costs for 
equipment manufacturers, including small manufacturing firms. Cost 
savings under the direct final rule, if any, depend on the extent that 
equipment manufacturers choose to avail themselves of its alternative 
provisions. The Agency has not quantified the benefit of the increased 
testing options to manufacturers. The reinstated standards are both 
technologically and economically feasible and do not impose new 
compliance costs on equipment manufacturers or on the construction and 
agriculture industries. The Agency concludes that the economic impact 
of the direct final rule will be negligible on any of the potentially 
affected industries, including potentially affected small employers.
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (``RFA''), as amended by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 
601 et seq.), requires regulatory agencies to determine whether 
regulatory actions will adversely affect small entities. OSHA's 
threshold criteria for identifying a significant impact include costs 
exceeding one percent of revenues or five percent of profits. When 
costs exceed either threshold, then the Agency considers the impact on 
small entities to be significant for purposes of complying with the 
RFA. Employers will incur no significant costs of complying with this 
direct final rule. Accordingly, OSHA certifies that this regulation 
will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. In addition, the direct final rule is not a major rule as 
defined by Section 804 of the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et 
seq.).

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    After analyzing the provisions of this direct final rule in terms 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and 5 
CFR part 1320), OSHA has determined that these provisions do not impose 
any collection-of-information (i.e., ``paperwork'') requirements on 
employers in the construction and agriculture industries who use ROPS 
to protect employees who operate wheel-type tractors. While several of 
the provisions reinstated by this direct final rule require that test 
data be recorded or verified (i.e., 29 CFR 1926.1002(d)(3), (d)(6), 
(g)(2)(i), (g)(2)(ii), and (g)(2)(iii); 1928.52(d)(2)(iii)(A) and 
(d)(2)(iii)(F); and 1928.53(d)(1)(iii) and (d)(2)(iii)(B)), these 
information-collection requirements apply only to ROPS manufacturers, 
not to the employers who use ROPS on wheel-type tractors. OSHA also 
concludes that, as a matter of usual and customary business practice, 
manufacturers record and verify ROPS testing information to ensure the 
integrity of protective frames and enclosures, and notes that the 
current SAE and ASAE consensus standards for ROPS require that 
manufacturers record and verify ROPS test data.
    Members of the public may send comments on this paperwork 
determination to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 
(Attention: Desk Officer for OSHA), OMB, Room 10235, 726 Jackson Place, 
NW., Washington, DC 20503. However, no comment received on this 
paperwork determination will be considered by the Agency to be a 
``significant adverse comment'' as specified above under section I 
(``Direct Final Rulemaking'').

[[Page 76984]]

D. Federalism

    The Agency reviewed the direct final rule according to the most 
recent Executive Order (``E.O.'') on Federalism (Executive Order 13132, 
64 FR 43225, August 10, 1999). This E.O. requires that Federal 
agencies, to the extent possible, refrain from limiting State policy 
options, consult with States before taking actions that restrict their 
policy options, and take such actions only when clear constitutional 
authority exists and the problem is national in scope. The E.O. allows 
Federal agencies to preempt State law only with the expressed consent 
of Congress. In such cases, Federal agencies must limit preemption of 
State law to the extent possible.
    Under Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 
(``OSH Act''; 29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.), Congress expressly provides OSHA 
with authority to preempt State occupational safety and health 
standards. Under the OSH Act, a State can avoid preemption under 
Section 18 only when it submits, and obtains Federal approval of, a 
plan for the development and enforcement of safety and health standards 
(i.e., ``State-Plan State''; see 29 U.S.C. 667). Occupational safety 
and health standards developed by a State-Plan State must be at least 
as effective in providing safe and healthful employment and places of 
employment as the Federal standards. Subject to these requirements, a 
State-Plan State is free to develop and enforce under State law its own 
requirements for safety and health standards.
    The Agency concludes that this direct final rule complies with E.O. 
13132. In States without OSHA-approved State Plans, Congress expressly 
provides for OSHA standards to preempt State job safety and health 
rules in areas addressed by Agency standards; in these States, the 
direct final rule limits State policy options in the same manner as 
every Agency standard. In States with OSHA-approved State Plans, this 
action does not significantly limit State policy options.

E. State-Plan States

    When Federal OSHA promulgates a new standard or imposes additional 
or more stringent requirements than an existing standard, the 26 States 
and U.S. Territories with their own OSHA-approved occupational safety 
and health plans must revise their standards to reflect the new 
standard or amendment, or show the Agency why such action is 
unnecessary, e.g., because an existing State standard covering this 
area already is at least as effective as the new Federal standard or 
amendment (29 U.S.C. 553.5(a)). The State standard must be at least as 
effective as the final Federal rule, must be applicable to both the 
private and public (i.e., State and local government employees) 
sectors, and must be completed within six months of the publication 
date of the final Federal rule. When OSHA promulgates a new standard or 
amendment that does not impose additional or more stringent 
requirements than an existing standard, States are not required to 
revise their standards, although the Agency may encourage them to do 
so. The 26 States and Territories with OSHA-approved State plans are: 
Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, 
Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto 
Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, 
and Wyoming. Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, and the Virgin Islands 
have OSHA-approved State plans that apply to State and local government 
employees only. Although this direct final rule does not impose any 
additional or more stringent requirements on employers compared to the 
existing standard, the Agency strongly encourages the States and 
Territories with their own State Plans that currently do not include 
the original OSHA ROPS testing standards in their construction and 
agriculture standards to adopt the revisions promulgated under this 
direct final rule within six months of the date of this Federal 
Register notice, unless OSHA withdraws the Direct Final Rule following 
the end of the comment period.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    OSHA has reviewed this direct final rule according to the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``UMRA''; 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) and 
Executive Order 12875. As discussed above in section III.B (``Final 
Economic Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Certification'') of this 
preamble, the Agency has determined that this direct final rule imposes 
no additional costs on any private-or public-sector entity. 
Accordingly, this direct final rule requires no additional expenditures 
by either public or private employers.
    As noted earlier, the Agency's standards do not apply to State and 
local governments, except in States that have voluntarily elected to 
adopt a State plan approved by the Agency. Consequently, this direct 
final rule does not meet the definition of a ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandate'' (see Section 421(5) of the UMRA (2 U.S.C. 
658(5)). In conclusion, this direct final rule does not mandate that 
State, local, and tribal governments adopt new, unfunded regulatory 
obligations.

G. Public Participation

    The Agency requests that interested members of the public who 
submit written comments concerning this direct final rule do so using 
any of the methods listed above in the section titled Addresses. Note, 
however, that the Agency has defined a significant adverse comment as 
only those comments that address: (1) The lawfulness of the procedures 
used to promulgate the 1996 technical amendment as these procedures 
relate to the ROPs testing provisions; or (2) whether the minor 
revisions made to the original ROPS standards in this direct final rule 
are reasonable or appropriate.
    OSHA will post all comments received, without revision, to https://
dockets.osha.gov, including any personal information provided. The 
Agency cautions commenters about submitting personal information such 
as social security numbers and birth dates. For access to materials in 
the docket, including background documents and comments received, go to 
https://dockets.osha.gov. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information 
about materials not available through the OSHA webpage, and for 
assistance in using the webpage to locate docket submissions.
    If the Agency receives no significant adverse comment regarding 
this direct final rule, it will publish a Federal Register notice 
confirming the effective date of this direct final rule. For the 
purpose of judicial review, OSHA views the date that it confirms the 
effective date of the direct final rule to be the date of issuance. 
Additionally, such confirmation may include minor stylistic or 
technical changes to the regulatory language provided by this notice. 
If OSHA receives significant adverse comment on this direct final rule, 
it will withdraw the direct final rule and determine, based on the 
comments submitted to the record, whether to issue a proposed rule in 
the future.

List of Subjects

29 CFR Part 1926

    Construction industry, Incorporation by reference, Motor vehicle 
safety, Occupational safety and health.

29 CFR Part 1928

    Agriculture, Incorporation by reference, Motor vehicle safety, 
Occupational safety and health.

[[Page 76985]]

Authority and Signature

    Jonathan L. Snare, Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for 
Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210 authorized the 
preparation of this direct final rule. The Agency is issuing this 
direct final rule under the following authorities: Sections 4, 6, and 8 
of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 
657); Section 3704 of the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act 
(40 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2002 (67 FR 
65008); and 29 CFR part 1911.

    Signed at Washington, DC on December 13, 2005.
Jonathan L. Snare,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor.

IV. Amended Standards

0
Based on the reasons presented in the preamble to this direct final 
rule, OSHA is amending 29 CFR parts 1926 and 1928 as follows:

PART 1926--[AMENDED]

Subpart W--[Amended]

0
1. Revise the authority citation for subpart W of part 1926 to read as 
follows:

    Authority: Section 3704 of the Contract Work Hours and Safety 
Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 3701); Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the 
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 
657); and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 
(41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 
111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), or 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), as applicable.


0
2. Revise Sec. Sec.  1926.1002 and 1926.1003 and add a new Appendix A 
to subpart W, to read as follows:


Sec.  1926.1002  Protective frames (roll-over protective structures, 
known as ROPS) for wheel-type agricultural and industrial tractors used 
in construction.

    (a) General. (1) The purpose of this section is to set forth 
requirements for frames used to protect operators of wheel-type 
agricultural and industrial tractors that will minimize the possibility 
of operator injury resulting from accidental upsets during normal 
operation. With respect to agricultural and industrial tractors, the 
provisions of 29 CFR 1926.1001 and 1926.1003 for rubber-tired dozers 
and rubber-tired loaders may be used instead of the requirements of 
this section.
    (2) The protective frame that is the subject of this standard is a 
structure mounted to the tractor that extends above the operator's seat 
and conforms generally to Figure W-14.
    (3) When an overhead weather shield is attached to the protective 
frame, it may be in place during testing, provided that it does not 
contribute to the strength of the protective frame. When such an 
overhead weather shield is attached, it must meet the requirements of 
paragraph (i) of this section.
    (4) For overhead protection requirements, see 29 CFR 1926.1003.
    (5) The following provisions address requirements for protective 
enclosures.
    (i) When protective enclosures are used on wheel-type agricultural 
and industrial tractors, they shall meet the requirements of Society of 
Automotive Engineers (``SAE'') standard J168-1970 (``Protective 
enclosures--test procedures and performance requirements''), which is 
incorporated by reference. The incorporation by reference was approved 
by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (ii) SAE standard J168-1970 appears in the 1971 SAE Handbook, or it 
may be examined at: any OSHA Regional Office; the OSHA Docket Office, 
U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N-2625, 
Washington, DC 20210 (telephone: (202) 693-2350 (TTY number: (877) 889-
5627)); or the National Archives and Records Administration (``NARA''). 
(For information on the availability of this material at NARA, 
telephone (202) 741-6030 or access the NARA Web site at 
www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_
locations.html.) Copies may be purchased from the Society of Automotive 
Engineers, 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, Pennsylvania 15096-0001.
    (b) Applicability. The requirements of this section apply to wheel-
type agricultural and industrial tractors used in construction work. 
See paragraph (j) of this section for definitions of agricultural 
tractors set forth in paragraph (i) of this section.
    (c) Performance requirements. (1) Either a laboratory test or a 
field test is required to determine the performance requirements set 
forth in paragraph (i) of this section.
    (2) A laboratory test may be either static or dynamic. The 
laboratory test must be under conditions of repeatable and controlled 
loading to permit analysis of the protective frame.
    (3) A field-upset test, when used, shall be conducted under 
reasonably controlled conditions, both rearward and sideways to verify 
the effectiveness of the protective frame under actual dynamic 
conditions.
    (d) Test procedures--general. (1) The tractor used shall be the 
tractor with the greatest weight on which the protective frame is to be 
used.
    (2) A new protective frame and mounting connections of the same 
design shall be used for each test procedure.
    (3) Instantaneous and permanent frame deformation shall be measured 
and recorded for each segment of the test.
    (4) Dimensions relative to the seat shall be determined with the 
seat unloaded and adjusted to its highest and most rearward latched 
position provided for a seated operator.
    (5) When the seat is offset, the frame loading shall be on the side 
with the least space between the centerline of the seat and the 
upright.
    (6) The low-temperature impact strength of the material used in the 
protective structure shall be verified by suitable material tests or 
material certifications according to 29 CFR 1926.1001(f)(2)(iv).
    (e) Test procedure for vehicle overturn. (1) Vehicle weight. The 
weight of the tractor, for purposes of this section, includes the 
protective frame, all fuels, and other components required for normal 
use of the tractor. Ballast must be added when necessary to achieve a 
minimum total weight of 130 lb (59 kg) per maximum power-takeoff 
horsepower at the rated engine speed. The weight of the front end must 
be at least 33 lb (15 kg) per maximum power-takeoff horsepower. In case 
power-takeoff horsepower is unavailable, 95 percent of net engine 
flywheel horsepower shall be used.
    (2) Agricultural tractors shall be tested at the weight set forth 
in paragraph (e)(1) of this section.
    (3) Industrial tractors shall be tested with items of integral or 
mounted equipment and ballast that are sold as standard equipment or 
approved by the vehicle manufacturer for use with the vehicle when the 
protective frame is expected to provide protection for the operator 
with such equipment installed. The total vehicle weight and front-end 
weight as tested shall not be less than the weights established in 
paragraph (e)(1) of this section.
    (4) The following provisions address soil bank test conditions.
    (i) The test shall be conducted on a dry, firm soil bank as 
illustrated in Figure W-15. The soil in the impact area shall have an 
average cone index in the 0-in. to 6-in. (0-mm to 153-mm) layer not 
less than 150 according to American Society of Agricultural Engineers 
(``ASAE'') recommendation ASAE R313.1-1971 (``Soil cone

[[Page 76986]]

penetrometer''), as reconfirmed in 1975, which is incorporated by 
reference. The incorporation by reference was approved by the Director 
of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR 
part 51. The path of vehicle travel shall be 12[deg]  
2[deg] to the top edge of the bank.
    (ii) ASAE recommendation ASAE R313.1-1971, as reconfirmed in 1975, 
appears in the 1977 Agricultural Engineers Yearbook, or it may be 
examined at: any OSHA Regional Office; the OSHA Docket Office, U.S. 
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N-2625, 
Washington, DC 20210 (telephone: (202) 693-2350 (TTY number: (877) 889-
5627)); or the National Archives and Records Administration (``NARA''). 
(For information on the availability of this material at NARA, 
telephone (202) 741-6030 or access the NARA Web site at 
www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_
locations.html). Copies may be purchased from the American Society of 
Agricultural Engineers 2950 Niles Road, St. Joseph, MI 49085.
    (5) The upper edge of the bank shall be equipped with an 18-in. 
(457-mm) high ramp as described in Figure W-15 to assist in tipping the 
vehicle.
    (6) The front and rear wheel-tread settings, when adjustable, shall 
be at the position nearest to halfway between the minimum and maximum 
settings obtainable on the vehicle. When only two settings are 
obtainable, the minimum setting shall be used.
    (7) Vehicle overturn test--sideways and rearward. (i) The tractor 
shall be driven under its own power along the specified path of travel 
at a minimum speed of 10 mph (16 kph), or maximum vehicle speed when 
under 10 mph (16 kph), up the ramp as described in paragraph (d)(5) of 
this section to induce sideways overturn.
    (ii) Rear upset shall be induced by engine power with the tractor 
operating in gear to obtain 3 to 5 mph (4.8 to 8 kph) at maximum 
governed engine rpm, preferably by driving forward directly up a 
minimum slope of two vertical to one horizontal. The engine clutch may 
be used to aid in inducing the upset.
    (f) Other test procedures. When the field-upset test is not used to 
determine ROPS performance, either the static test or the dynamic test, 
contained in paragraph (g) or (h) of this section, shall be made.
    (g) Static test. (1) Test conditions. (i) The laboratory mounting 
base shall include that part of the tractor chassis to which the 
protective frame is attached, including the mounting parts.
    (ii) The protective frame shall be instrumented with the necessary 
equipment to obtain the required load-deflection data at the locations 
and directions specified in Figures W-16, W-17, and W-18.
    (iii) The protective frame and mounting connections shall be 
instrumented with the necessary recording equipment to obtain the 
required load-deflection data to be used in calculating FSB (see 
paragraph (j)(3) of this section). The gauges shall be placed on 
mounting connections before the installation load is applied.
    (2) Test procedure. (i) The side-load application shall be at the 
upper extremity of the frame upright at a 90[deg] angle to the 
centerline of the vehicle. The side load L shall be applied according 
to Figure W-16. L and D shall be recorded simultaneously. The test 
shall be stopped when:
    (A) The strain energy absorbed by the frame is equal to the 
required input energy (Eis);
    (B) Deflection of the frame exceeds the allowable deflection; or
    (C) The frame load limit occurs before the allowable deflection is 
reached in the side load.
    (ii) The L-D diagram (see Figure W-19 for an example) shall be 
constructed using the data obtained according to paragraph (g)(2)(i) of 
this section.
    (iii) The modified Lm-Dm diagram shall be constructed according to 
paragraph (g)(2)(ii) and Figure W-20 of this section. The strain energy 
absorbed by the frame (Eu) shall then be determined.
    (iv) Eis, FER, and FSB shall be calculated.
    (v) The test procedure shall be repeated on the same frame using L 
(rear input; see Figure W-18) and Eir. Rear-load application shall be 
distributed uniformly along a maximum projected dimension of 27 in. 
(686 mm) and a maximum area of 160 sq. in. (1,032 sq. cm) normal to the 
direction of load application. The load shall be applied to the upper 
extremity of the frame at the point that is midway between the 
centerline of the seat and the inside of the frame upright.
    (h) Dynamic test. (1) Test conditions. (i) The protective frame and 
tractor shall meet the requirements of paragraphs (e)(2) or (3) of this 
section, as appropriate.
    (ii) The dynamic loading shall be produced by using a 4,410-lb 
(2,000-kg) weight acting as a pendulum. The impact face of the weight 
shall be 27  1 in. by 27  1 in. (686  25 mm by 686  25 mm), and shall be constructed so 
that its center of gravity is within 1.0 in. (25.4 mm) of its geometric 
center. The weight shall be suspended from a pivot point 18 to 22 ft 
(5.5 to 6.7 m) above the point of impact on the frame, and shall be 
conveniently and safely adjustable for height (see Figure W-21).
    (iii) For each phase of testing, the tractor shall be restrained 
from moving when the dynamic load is applied. The restraining members 
shall be 0.50- to 0.63-in. (12.5- to 16.0-mm) steel cable, and points 
for attaching restraining members shall be located an appropriate 
distance behind the rear axle and in front of the front axle to provide 
a 15[deg] to 30[deg] angle between the restraining cable and the 
horizontal. The restraining cables shall either be in the plane in 
which the center of gravity of the pendulum will swing, or more than 
one restraining cable shall give a resultant force in this plane (see 
Figure W-22).
    (iv) The wheel-tread setting shall comply with the requirements of 
paragraph (e)(6) of this section. The tires shall have no liquid 
ballast, and shall be inflated to the maximum operating pressure 
recommended by the tire manufacturer. With the specified tire 
inflation, the restraining cables shall be tightened to provide tire 
deflection of 6 to 8 percent of the nominal tire-section width. After 
the vehicle is restrained properly, a wooden beam that is 6-in. x 6-in. 
(150 mm x 150 mm) shall be driven tightly against the appropriate 
wheels and clamped. For the test to the side, an additional wooden beam 
shall be placed as a prop against the wheel nearest to the operator's 
station, and shall be secured to the floor so that when it is 
positioned against the wheel rim, it is at an angle of 25[deg] to 
40[deg] to the horizontal. It shall have a length 20 to 25 times its 
depth, and a width two to three times its depth (see Figures W-22 and 
W-23).
    (v) Means shall be provided for indicating the maximum 
instantaneous deflection along the line f impact. A simple friction 
device is illustrated in Figure W-23.
    (vi) No repair or adjustments may be carried out during the test.
    (vii) When any cables, props, or blocking shift or break during the 
test, the test shall be repeated.
    (2) Test procedure. (i) General. The frame shall be evaluated by 
imposing dynamic loading to the rear, followed by a load to the side on 
the same frame. The pendulum dropped from the height (see the 
definition of ``H'' in paragraph (j)(3) of this section) imposes the 
dynamic load. The position of the pendulum shall be so selected that 
the initial point of impact on the frame shall be in line with the arc 
of travel of the center of gravity of the pendulum. A quick-release 
mechanism should be

[[Page 76987]]

used but, when used, it shall not influence the attitude of the block.
    (ii) Impact at rear. The tractor shall be restrained properly 
according to paragraphs (h)(1)(iii) and (h)(1)(iv) of this section. The 
tractor shall be positioned with respect to the pivot point of the 
pendulum so that the pendulum is 20[deg] from the vertical prior to 
impact as shown in Figure W-22. The impact shall be applied to the 
upper extremity of the frame at the point that is midway between the 
centerline of the frame and the inside of the frame upright of a new 
frame.
    (iii) Impact at side. The blocking and restraining shall conform to 
paragraphs (h)(1)(iii) and (h)(1)(iv) of this section. The center point 
of impact shall be that structural member of the protective frame 
likely to hit the ground first in a sideways accidental upset. The side 
impact shall be applied to the side opposite that used for rear impact.
    (i) Performance requirements. (1) General. (i) The frame, overhead 
weather shield, fenders, or other parts in the operator area may be 
deformed in these tests, but shall not shatter or leave sharp edges 
exposed to the operator, or violate the dimensions shown in Figures W-
16 and W-17, and specified as follows:

D = 2 in. (51 mm) inside of the frame upright to the vertical 
centerline of the seat;
E = 30 in. (762 mm);
F = Not less than 0 in. (0 mm) and not more than 12 in. (305 mm), 
measured at the centerline of the seat backrest to the crossbar along 
the line of load application as shown in Figure W-17; and
G = 24 in. (610 mm).

    (ii) The material and design combination used in the protective 
structure must be such that the structure can meet all prescribed 
performance tests at 0 [deg]F (-18 [deg]C) according to 29 CFR 
1926.1001(f)(2)(iv).
    (2) Vehicle overturn performance requirements. The requirements of 
this paragraph (i) must be met in both side and rear overturns.
    (3) Static test performance requirements. Design factors shall be 
incorporated in each design to withstand an overturn test as specified 
by this paragraph (i). The structural requirements will be met 
generally when FER is greater than 1.0 and FSB is greater than K-1 in 
both side and rear loadings.
    (4) Dynamic test performance requirements. Design factors shall be 
incorporated in each design to withstand the overturn test specified by 
this paragraph (i). The structural requirements will be met generally 
when the dimensions in this paragraph (i) are used during both side and 
rear loads.
    (j) Definitions applicable to this section. (1) ``Agricultural 
tractor'' means a wheel-type vehicle of more than 20 engine horsepower, 
used in construction work, that is designed to furnish the power to 
pull, propel, or drive implements. (SAE standard J333a-1970 (``Operator 
protection for wheel-type agricultural and industrial tractors'') 
defines ``agricultural tractor'' as a ``wheel-type vehicle of more than 
20 engine horsepower designed to furnish the power to pull, carry, 
propel, or drive implements that are designed for agricultural usage.'' 
Since this part 1926 applies only to construction work, the SAE 
definition of ``agricultural tractor'' is adopted for purposes of this 
subpart.)
    (2) ``Industrial tractor'' means that class of wheel-type tractors 
of more than 20 engine horsepower (other than rubber-tired loaders and 
dozers described in 29 CFR 1926.1001), used in operations such as 
landscaping, construction services, loading, digging, grounds keeping, 
and highway maintenance.
    (3) The following symbols, terms, and explanations apply to this 
section:

E is = Energy input to be absorbed during side loading in 
ft-lb (E'is in J [joules]);
E is = 723 + 0.4 W ft-lb (E' is = 100 + 0.12 W' , 
J);
E ir = Energy input to be absorbed during rear loading in 
ft-lb (E' ir in J);
E ir = 0.47 W ft-lb (E' ir = 0.14 W', J);
W = Tractor weight as specified by 29 CFR 1926.1002(e)(1) and (e)(3), 
in lb (W' , kg);
L = Static load, lb (kg);
D = Deflection under L, in. (mm);
L-D = Static load-deflection diagram;
Lm-Dm = Modified static load-deflection diagram 
(Figure W-20). To account for an increase in strength due to an 
increase in strain rate, raise L in the plastic range L x K;
K = Increase in yield strength induced by higher rate of loading (1.3 
for hot, rolled, low-carbon steel 1010-1030). Low carbon is preferable; 
however, when higher carbon or other material is used, K must be 
determined in the laboratory. Refer to Norris, C.H., Hansen, R.J., 
Holley, M.J., Biggs, J.M., Namyet, S., and Minami, J.V., Structural 
Design for Dynamic Loads, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1959, p. 3;
Lmax = Maximum observed static load;
Load Limit = Point on a continuous L-D curve at which the observed 
static load is 0.8 Lmax (refer to Figure W-19);
Eu = Strain energy absorbed by the frame, ft-lb (J); area 
under the Lm-Dm curve;
FER = Factor of energy ratio, FER = EuEis; also, 
FER = EuEir;
Pb = Maximum observed force in mounting connection under a 
static load, L, lb (kg);
Pu = Ultimate force capacity of mounting connection, lb 
(kg);
FSB = Design margin for a mounting connection 
(PuPb)-1; and
H = Vertical height of lift of 4,410-lb (2,000-kg) weight, in. (H', 
mm). The weight shall be pulled back so that the height of its center 
of gravity above the point of impact is defined as follows: H = 4.92 + 
0.00190 W (H' = 125 + 0.107 W') (see Figure W-24).

    (k) Source of standard. The standard in this section is derived 
from, and restates, in part, Society of Automotive Engineers (``SAE'') 
standard J334a-1970 (``Protective frame test procedures and performance 
requirements''). The SAE standard appears in the 1971 SAE Handbook, 
which may be examined at any OSHA regional office.


Sec.  1926.1003  Overhead protection for operators of agricultural and 
industrial tractors used in construction.

    (a) General. (1) Purpose. When overhead protection is provided on 
wheel-type agricultural and industrial tractors, the overhead 
protection shall be designed and installed according to the 
requirements contained in this section. The provisions of 29 CFR 
1926.1001 for rubber-tired dozers and rubber-tired loaders may be used 
instead of the standards contained in this section. The purpose of this 
standard is to minimize the possibility of operator injury resulting 
from overhead hazards such as flying and falling objects, and at the 
same time to minimize the possibility of operator injury from the cover 
itself in the event of accidental upset.
    (2) Applicability. This standard applies to wheel-type agricultural 
and industrial tractors used in construction work (see 29 CFR 
1926.1002(b) and (j)). In the case of machines to which 29 CFR 1926.604 
(relating to site clearing) also applies, the overhead protection may 
be either the type of protection provided in 29 CFR 1926.604, or the 
type of protection provided by this section.
    (b) Overhead protection. When overhead protection is installed on 
wheel-type agricultural or industrial tractors used in construction 
work, it shall meet the requirements of this paragraph. The overhead 
protection may be constructed of a solid material. When grid or mesh is 
used, the largest permissible opening shall be such that

[[Page 76988]]

the maximum circle that can be inscribed between the elements of the 
grid or mesh is 1.5 in. (38 mm) in diameter. The overhead protection 
shall not be installed in such a way as to become a hazard in the case 
of upset.
    (c) Test procedures--general. (1) The requirements of 29 CFR 
1926.1002(d), (e), and (f) shall be met.
    (2) Static and dynamic rear load application shall be distributed 
uniformly along a maximum projected dimension of 27 in. (686 mm), and a 
maximum area of 160 sq. in. (1,032 sq. cm), normal to the direction of 
load application. The load shall be applied to the upper extremity of 
the frame at the point that is midway between the centerline of the 
seat and the inside of the frame upright.
    (3) The static and dynamic side load application shall be 
distributed uniformly along a maximum projected dimension of 27 in. 
(686 mm), and a maximum area of 160 sq. in. (1,032 sq. cm), normal to 
the direction of load application. The direction of load application is 
the same as in 29 CFR 1926.1002 (g) and (h). To simulate the 
characteristics of the structure during an upset, the center of load 
application may be located from a point 24 in. (610 mm) (K) forward to 
12 in. (305 mm) (L) rearward of the front of the seat backrest, to best 
use the structural strength (see Figure W-25).
    (d) Drop test procedures. (1) The same frame shall be subjected to 
the drop test following either the static or dynamic test.
    (2) A solid steel sphere or material of equivalent spherical 
dimension weighing 100 lb (45.4 kg) shall be dropped once from a height 
10 ft (3.08 m) above the overhead cover.
    (3) The point of impact shall be on the overhead cover at a point 
within the zone of protection as shown in Figure W-26, which is 
furthest removed from major structural members.
    (e) Crush test procedure. (1) The same frame shall be subjected to 
the crush test following the drop test and static or dynamic test.
    (2) The test load shall be applied as shown in Figure W-27, with 
the seat positioned as specified in 29 CFR 1926.1002(d)(4). Loading 
cylinders shall be mounted pivotally at both ends. Loads applied by 
each cylinder shall be equal within two percent, and the sum of the 
loads of the two cylinders shall be two times the tractor weight as set 
forth in 29 CFR 1926.1002(e)(1). The maximum width of the beam 
illustrated in Figure W-27 shall be 6 in. (152 mm).
    (f) Performance requirements. (1) General. The performance 
requirements set forth in 29 CFR 1926.1002(i)(2), (3), and (4) shall be 
met.
    (2) Drop test performance requirements. (i) Instantaneous 
deformation due to impact of the sphere shall not enter the protected 
zone as illustrated in Figures W-25, W-26, and W-28.
    (ii) In addition to the dimensions set forth in 29 CFR 
1926.1002(i)(1)(i), the following dimensions apply to Figure W-28:

H = 17.5 in. (444 mm); and
J = 2 in. (50.8 mm), measured from the outer periphery of the steering 
wheel.

    (3) Crush test performance requirements. The protected zone as 
described in Figure W-28 must not be violated.
    (g) Source of standard. This standard is derived from, and 
restates, in part, the portions of Society of Automotive Engineers 
(``SAE'') standard J167-1970 (``Protective frame with overhead 
pro