ANSI/ASSP A10.48-2023 sorts every rigging job on a communications structure into a construction plan class, and the class determines how much engineering oversight the lift needs before anyone touches a load. The 2023 edition made one structural change worth knowing up front: the old Class I was folded into Class II, so today's plans run from Class II through Class IV instead of I through IV. Heavier loads, and any lift that relies on an external device like a crane rather than the structure itself, generally push a plan up toward Class III; the most complex or structurally significant work triggers Class IV.
A10.48 is a paid ANSI/ASSP standard, not a public document — nothing here substitutes for reading the actual text with your qualified person or engineer before you plan a lift. This is a plain-English explainer of how the classification works, not a copy of it.
Why classification exists at all
The point of a construction plan class isn't paperwork for its own sake — it's matching the level of engineering review to the actual risk of the lift. A light component moved a short distance with hand tools doesn't need the same sign-off chain as a heavy antenna sector moved with an external crane onto a structure that's being modified as it goes. Classification is how the standard scales oversight to risk instead of applying one blanket process to every job.
What determines the class
A plan's minimum required class is identified from several factors together, not any single number in isolation:
- Scope of work — what's actually being installed, removed, or modified
- Weight of the load being lifted
- Type of lifting system — rigged to the structure itself versus an external device
- Sequence of the work — how the pieces come together
The general shape of the classes
In broad terms, as the standard's task force and industry training materials describe it: lighter, structure-rigged lifts within the lower weight range sit at Class II — the baseline, now absorbing what used to be the separate Class I. As load weight climbs past that range, or the lift depends on a detached lifting device such as a crane rather than the tower itself, the plan moves to Class III. The most demanding scenarios — the heaviest loads, non-standard or structurally significant modifications, or work that calls for a qualified engineer's direct involvement — land in Class IV, which carries the most extensive review and sign-off requirements of the four levels.
Exact weight thresholds and edge cases are defined precisely in the standard itself. Treat any number you see quoted online, including general ranges like the roughly 500 lb and 2,000 lb decision points industry training materials describe, as a starting point for a conversation with your qualified person — not a substitute for reading A10.48-2023 directly.
Heavier loads, and any lift that relies on an external device like a crane rather than the structure itself, generally push a plan up toward Class III.
Wind limits: operational vs. non-operational
A10.48-2023 also splits wind limits by whether a load is actively being rigged or already secured. The default operational limit — while a load is actively being lifted or positioned — is 30 mph, unless the plan itself specifies something different. The default non-operational limit — for a load that's secured but the work isn't complete — is 50 mph. Special conditions like ice, snow, or seismic loading escalate the requirement for Qualified Engineer involvement regardless of plan class.
Who signs off, by class
The standard names six stakeholder roles that can appear on a construction plan: the Competent Rigger, the Qualified Person, the Engineer of Record (EOR), the Qualified Engineer, the Supervising Engineer, and the Owner/Client. Not every role is required on every plan — which ones must sign depends on the class. Lower-class plans typically need the Competent Rigger and Qualified Person; Class IV plans, given the engineering judgment involved, typically bring in the Engineer of Record and often a Supervising Engineer as well. This is the same stakeholder structure NATE's Rigging Training Standard teaches — see NATE Rigging Training Standard explained for employers for how the training curriculum maps to these roles.
Recommended certification
Basic Rigging Principles on Communication Structures
$95 · ~4.5h online · certificate issued same day · valid 2 years
Also read: How to Build a Rigging Training Program for Your Tower Crew · Rigging on Antenna Mounts: When It's Allowed
Why this matters beyond compliance
Misclassifying a plan — running a Class III lift under Class II sign-off, for instance — isn't just a paperwork gap. It means the load never got the level of engineering review the standard says that weight and lift type require, which is exactly the gap that turns a routine lift into an incident. Getting the class right the first time is cheaper than an after-the-fact stop-work order.
Our Rigging Calc tool walks through plan setup, load weights, and wind limits using this same class logic, and generates the sign-off documentation your stakeholders need. For a full program built around A10.48 and NATE's RTS — three courses per worker plus the generated paperwork — see the Tower Rigging Training Program Kit. It is built around ANSI/ASSP A10.48 and NATE's RTS but is not a NATE certification and not NATE-affiliated.
Why classification isn't a one-time decision
A construction plan's class isn't necessarily fixed for the life of a job. If the scope of work changes mid-project — a lift that was planned as structure-rigged ends up needing a crane brought in, or the actual load turns out heavier than the original estimate — the plan's classification needs to be reassessed against the new facts, not left at whatever class it started as. This is one of the more common gaps an after-the-fact incident review finds: a plan correctly classified at the start of the job that was never re-evaluated after the scope shifted underneath it.
How this shows up in TTT-1 and TTT-2 exam content
Plan classification isn't only a rigging-crew concern — it's baked into both NWSA technician exams. TTT-1's Hoisting Equipment and Rigging domain (about 20% of that exam) covers recognizing how a rigging system impacts the structure, including loading distinctions between operational and non-operational conditions. TTT-2's version of the same domain (about 24% of that exam) goes further, testing whether a candidate can determine hoist type and rigging configuration and apply proof-testing requirements — decisions that depend directly on getting the plan's class right in the first place. A technician who understands classification well is better positioned on both exams, not just in the field.
Frequently asked questions
What happened to Class I in the 2023 edition?
The 2023 edition of A10.48 folded the former Class I into Class II, so current construction plans are classified from Class II through Class IV rather than I through IV.
What automatically makes a lift Class III or higher?
Broadly: heavier loads and any lift that relies on an external device like a crane rather than rigging to the structure itself. Exact thresholds are defined in the standard — confirm the specific weight and configuration with your qualified person or engineer rather than relying on general figures.
Who has to approve a Class IV plan?
Class IV plans, given the engineering judgment they require, typically involve the Engineer of Record and often a Supervising Engineer, in addition to the Competent Rigger and Qualified Person that lower-class plans use.
Is A10.48-2023 the same standard NATE's RTS is built on?
Yes — NATE's Rigging Training Standard explicitly builds its terminology and thresholds around ANSI/ASSP A10.48-2023, though RTS is a training curriculum and A10.48 is the underlying engineering standard.
Sources
- ANSI/ASSP A10.48 — order information — the standard itself (purchase required; this article paraphrases its general structure and does not reproduce its text)
- OSHA 29 CFR 1926 — construction standards