On January 1, 2001, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) delivered new rules addressing the Steel Erection, considering the changes in the principles of safety and security of applicants in the court. “The scope of these rules deliberates the approaches that could affect the construction-injury litigation along with the applied procedures to offer contractors, insurers and defense counsel in contradiction of the standard expenditure, addressed at the perception of appellant prosecutors. Many different elements address the new rules but the most influential of them are, “Site layout and Construction Sequence, Hoisting and Rigging, and Structural Steel Assembly” (Heil and Huber, n. d.). The Site layout and Construction Sequence adhere to the ASTM standards “asking for authorization on the steel erection stating that a contractor should insure to have all the announcements about the safety of work in the listed places”. This rule implies that there should always be a control over the access to the unsafe equipment. The Hoisting and Rigging address the issues regarding the visual examination of the hoists in advance of utilization. There should be a person responsible for the testing of “mechanisms, safety equipment, various lines of pressure, electricity”, etc. Finally, the Structural Steel Assembly addresses the means of “safer work that include different surfaces slipping and everything connected with the hazardous elements of the working environment”. It also addresses the notifications of places such as different holes and painted surfaces (Heil and Huber, n. d.).
During the last 30 years, the standards have been the same and now the time has come to deliberate the revisions towards the present Steel Erection in terms of the injuries at the workplace. In order to understand the reasons for such changes of OSHA, it is important to consider the straight relation of the “Integrated Management Information System (IMIS) that addresses the obedience problems, as well as the community observations, concerning misperception and uncertainty of the updated rules”. While tracing the history of accidents, “there were about 35 losses of life and more than 2 thousands of working injuries. By adhering to the new rules, such scenarios would not be possible as they are aiming to “decrease the danger of work-related experience towards the cases of various hazardous issues” (Gschwind, 2012).