May-June 2026 Q&A
Q: In the April-May 2024 issue, Incident Prevention responded to a reader’s question about the OSHA digger derrick exemption for licensed operators (see https://incident-prevention.com/blog/april-may-2024-qa/). Have you heard anything since then about exemption enforcement trends? For example, has OSHA indicated that it might more closely assess specific lifting activities?
A: OSHA 29 CFR 1926 Subpart CC, “Cranes and Derricks in Construction” – as its title suggests – applies only to construction activities. Subpart CC covers a contractor’s crane operators when they are performing upgrades, such as change-outs to taller poles or new equipment. Like-for-like infrastructure replacements are considered maintenance work, which is covered by 1910.269.
The cranes and derricks standard includes one notable exemption: Although a digger derrick operator must be qualified to set poles, pole-related hardware and pole-fed transformers, the operator is not required to be licensed.
We have not heard about any issues regarding OSHA and storm work, which is considered new construction. Still, in order to provide the right answers to an OSHA representative, contractors must maintain heightened awareness of regulatory rules.
We are aware of a couple of lawsuits pertaining to construction incidents during digger derrick operations. One incident resulted in a hospital stay, the other in a death. Although they requested employer records documenting each operator’s training, neither the OSHA Certified Safety and Health Officials (CSHOs) involved nor their attorneys have formally inquired about the operators’ licensing.
OSHA’s Office of Construction Services reads Incident Prevention magazine, which we know because they send us acknowledgements from time to time. For instance, when we published information about the digger derrick exemption in 2024, someone from the office reached out to confirm its accuracy. They have also said no special enforcement is planned but relayed that since Subpart CC went into effect, the agency has been educating CSHOs via CPL 02-01-057, a compliance directive whose stated purpose is to provide “guidelines for enforcement procedures and inspection guidance conducted for equipment covered by Subpart CC” (see www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/directives/CPL_02-01-057.pdf).
Today, all utility safety and operations professionals need to understand the rules. On more than one occasion, bucket operations have caught the attention of passing CSHOs who noticed an immediate danger to life or health. We should count on the same issue with digger derricks; OSHA compliance officers might get curious if they drive by a derrick with its boom in the air.
Due to the lack of a basket test, however, truck cranes also rated as manlifts will likely be the bigger issue. Employers could run into trouble defending themselves if OSHA can’t decide whether a piece of equipment is a manlift or a crane with a basket attached to it. Incident Prevention recommends that all employees be trained to understand the differences between the two.
We are familiar with an instance in which crew members did not use their remote controls; instead, an operator in the cab ran the basket. The crew members explained that they preferred radio contact with the crane operator because the remote controls weren’t fully reliable. OSHA refused to accept that the machine had been used as a manlift due to the operator’s location. They eventually decided that the crew had been using a crane with a basket and cited the contractor for failure to perform required basket proof tests.
Q: Our mechanics just showed us an advertisement for Altec’s EZ-Egress. Since it’s an insulating aerial platform with a door, how does that square with the ANSI A92.2 gloving bucket rule that prohibits access doors?
A: We’ve been exchanging emails with Altec regarding the numerous questions we’ve received about their new EZ-Egress system. We will likely continue speaking with them as system adoption grows across the industry. Current and prospective Altec customers are also free to reach out to the company directly with their questions.
If the EZ-Egress buckets are a success, you can bet other bucket truck manufacturers will follow suit. But there is one issue: Per the ANSI A92.2 standard, Class B buckets are not permitted to have access doors or drainage holes because those items can contribute to contamination and increase flashover risk. Note that ANSI requires high-resistance covers over all metal components around the basket, such as controls and winches.
The A92.2 standard further states that as with material-handling jibs and winches, fiberglass buckets are not insulating unless they are periodically tested just as liners are. The boom is the bucket’s only insulating section. Tested rubber gloves or hot sticks must serve as the worker’s primary means of protection.
To confirm its electrical integrity, Altec tests a bucket like a liner, first ensuring that all conductive components are adequately covered. A foil test using electrodes inside and outside the bucket is then conducted on its entire circumference, including the substantial door. This will require employers to rewrite their protocols for bucket use and the work the trucks can perform.
Lastly, we confirmed with Altec that the company’s rollout advertisements do not mention bucket categories or insulating values, but our understanding is that Category B gloving buckets featuring the EZ-Egress system will eventually be available.
Q: When working in your hooks, what is the correct method for grounding on a single wood transmission pole?
A: Verify that the pole bond is continuous from the static to earth. As you work your way up the pole, check for absence of voltage on the nearest phase conductor. Attach one end of the first ground to the pole bond/bracket. With a shotgun, attach the first ground to the nearest phase. Continue up the pole, attaching the grounded phase to the next closest phase. At the top, connect the last grounded phase to the static.
Q: When working from an insulated bucket, what’s the best grounding method on a single wood pole?
A: The grounding method should be the same whether the worker is in hooks or a bucket, especially if the bucket worker could find themselves between a grounded phase and a pole/arm/string at a different potential, which is possible where clearances are close (e.g., 69 kV and below). Pole bonds usually prevent that but cannot be fully trusted. For the best result, make an intentional connection.
Q: What’s the best way to ground on a single steel pole while working from an insulated bucket?
A: A single steel pole presents the same hazard as a single wood pole. The bond connection can be made using welded brackets, dead-end vangs or grounding bracket clamps. You can use threaded inserts if they are tight to the steel structure.
Q: What’s the best practice for grounding from the pole when the ground electrode is the static at the pole-top?
A: Every employer must address their construction standards and practical requirements for bonding in a worker. Many transmission poles are down-grounded with a three-strand #7 or #2 copper pole bond down to a ground rod cluster, butt wrap or plate all the way up to the static.
We do not recommend climbing to the top of the pole. The most practical approach is to use the pole bond for the initial ground connection. Then, move to the closest phase after testing for the absence of voltage and work upward to ground the next-closest phase. The top phase is often grounded to the static, which may prompt you to ask whether circulating current has formed. “Not if you are bracket grounded” is the closest answer we can provide. Figures 4 and 5 at IEEE 1048 4.2.2 illustrate voltage collapse with a single set of grounds. Brackets will close a completed circuit when they are on the grounded conductor and the nearby induction source supports magnetic coupling, setting up magnetic current circulation in the grounds.
A static involved in any work must be well-bonded to the pole-top. Lineworkers could be shocked (capacitive coupling) or electrocuted (magnetic coupling) if they are located between the static and pole where bonding is compromised or, in some cases, where the static is purposely insulated from the pole without bonding (yes, some utilities are doing that).
Do you have a question regarding best practices, work procedures or other utility safety-related topics? If so, please send your inquiries directly to kwade@utilitybusinessmedia.com. Questions submitted are reviewed and answered by the iP editorial advisory board and other subject matter experts.