The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board should discipline the Respondent for alleged willful or deliberate disregard and violation of applicable building codes.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Henry C. Robertson, is a certified electrical contractor, holding license number C-2720. In June, 1993, the Respondent was the exclusive electrical contractor for a residential subdivision project in Pinellas County that had been underway since 1991. Altogether, it consisted of several hundred residential units. The Respondent pulled the electrical permits for all of the units in the project. There was a single entrance to the subdivision via security gate. At its end, the entrance road (Arabian Lane) formed a "T" with the other road in the subdivision. By June, 1993, most of the subdivision already was built out. On June 15, 1993, the Respondent called the Board staff for final inspection on one half of a duplex located at 1757 Arabian Lane. When the inspector arrived, electrical work was being done on the other half of the duplex. Neither of the two workers on the job was a master or a journeyman electrician. One declined to answer the inspector's questions and just walked off the jobsite; the other stayed but could not give any information as to the whereabouts of the journeyman. No other workers were in the vicinity, i.e., in either side of the duplex, at adjacent properties, or within sight. Section 7(a) of the Pinellas Countywide Amendments to the National Electrical Code, 1993 Edition, limits the issuance of electrical permits to licensed electrical contractors and provides: "Where any electrical work is being done a master or journeyman electrician shall at all times be present on the job." According to the Respondent's testimony, there was a journeyman electrician somewhere in the subdivision who could have been contacted by the two workers at 1757 Arabian Lane if they needed help or advice. The Respondent himself also visits all jobsites at least once a day. This testimony was not refuted or contradicted. The Board's Chief Electrical Inspector, Joseph Bolesina, testified that, in interpreting Section 7(a) of the Pinellas Countywide Amendments to the National Electrical Code, his office considers each electrical permit issued to define "the job" to which it applies. In the case of 1757 Arabian Lane, each side of the duplex had its own electrical permit. However, he conceded that, if work was in progress on both sides of the duplex, only one master or journeyman would be required for the two permits involved. Neither the Board nor his office has specified any other circumstances under which a single master or journeyman electrician could "at all times be present" at work being done on more than one permit. He testified that, in his view, it would depend on whether the master or journeyman electrician would be readily accessible and available to check work and to help and give advice as necessary. He testified that, in his view, the presence of a master or journeyman electrician "somewhere in the subdivision," rotating between individual jobsites, would not qualify, even if they could be contacted immediately by radio or cellular phone. In this case, neither of the workers was able to contact the journeyman electrician who was supposed to have been available and accessible to them. The Respondent testified that he believed his work methods on June 15, 1993, met the letter and the spirit of the building codes, especially in light of the difficulty he and other electrical contractors have finding and hiring journeymen. He testified that he thought the "job" consisted of all the work going on at the subdivision project, not each individual unit. In August, 1992, the Respondent stipulated to a $150 fine to resolve Board Complaint No. C92-330, alleging a violation of Section 7(a) of the Pinellas Countywide Amendments to the National Electrical Code by a company he qualified (although he was not involved personally in the violation). In that case, the journeyman left the jobsite to get supplies that were short. In May, 1993, the Respondent stipulated to another $150 fine to resolve Board Complaint No. C93-8, alleging another violation by the same company. (Again, the Respondent qualified the company but was not involved personally in the violation). In that case, the journeyman electrician was not due to arrive at work for an hour when the workers were found unloading and stretching out cord in preparation for beginning work without him. In April, 1994, the Board filed Complaint No. C94-96 for another alleged violation, this time by a company the Respondent was operating personally. The Respondent admitted the charges. In that case, the journeyman left the jobsite to get PVC cement. The prior incidents did not raise the identical issue present in this case. However, the Respondent testified that he has had several occasions to discuss with Board staff the subject of compliance with Section 7(a) of the Pinellas Countywide Amendments to the National Electrical Code. While those discussions may not have specified all circumstances under which a single master or journeyman electrician could "at all times be present" at work being done on more than one permit, they should have made it clear to the Respondent that the journeyman electrician at least had to be available and accessible to the workers. In this case, the two workers on the jobsite were unable to tell the inspector where the journeyman was. The Board has published "Guidelines for Disciplinary Action" which provide for a $300 fine as the "typical" penalty for the first "minor" infraction and, for repeat "minor" infractions: an "additional $500 up to three; then mandatory appearance before the Board." The Guidelines also list aggravating and mitigating circumstances which focus on the harm done by the offense, the licensee's efforts to rectify the situation, and whether there is a history of similar offenses by the licensee. They also authorize suspension or revocation and fines "not to exceed $1,000 per count."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board enter a final order: (1) finding the Respondent guilty of willfully or deliberately violating Section 7(a) of the Pinellas Countywide Amendments to the National Electrical Code, as charged; and (2) fining him $500. RECOMMENDED this 13th day of January, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of January, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-3. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. First sentence, rejected as not proven. (The Respondent does not contend that he is "exempt" but rather that the entire subdivision should be considered a single "job.") Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as not proven that he cannot find any journeyman electricians for residential work. (Proven only that the Respondent has had difficulty finding and hiring them.) Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: William J. Owens, Executive Director Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board Suite 102 11701 Belcher Road Largo, Florida 34643-5116 Henry C. Robertson Robertson Electrical Services, Inc. 15316 Indian Head Drive Tampa, Florida 33618
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board should discipline the Respondent for violating section 489.533(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2013),1/ by violating section 455.227(1)(j), which prohibits "[a]iding, assisting, procuring, employing, or advising any unlicensed person or entity to practice a profession contrary to this chapter, the chapter regulating the profession, or the rules of the department or the board."
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Michael Ellis, is licensed in Florida as an electrical contractor and holds licenses EC0000680 and EC13003559. He has been licensed in Florida since 1986 and has not been disciplined prior to this case. In the summer and fall of 2013, the Respondent was the primary qualifying agent of M. Ellis Electrical, Inc. (Ellis Electrical). In the summer and fall of 2013, Clark Huls was not licensed as an electrical contractor in Florida. In August 2013, Ellis Electrical had a subcontract with Powerhouse, Inc. (Powerhouse), which had a contract with 7-Eleven, Inc. (7-Eleven), for the installation of hot food cabinets at several different 7-Eleven retail locations in Florida. The installation required electrical work (including subpanels, new circuits, outlets, and breakers) and had to be done by a licensed electrical contractor. Someone at Powerhouse referred Huls to the Respondent, and the Respondent hired him to do the installations for $1,400 for each of nine different 7-Eleven jobsites. It was the Respondent's initial intent to hire Huls as a subcontractor. The evidence is disputed and not clear as to exactly what Huls represented to the Respondent about his license status when the Respondent hired him. The evidence is clear that Huls did not provide him with licensure and insurance information at that time and was supposed to provide this information to the Respondent at the first jobsite. The Respondent did not initially check DBPR's website to verify Huls' license status, which was the prudent and appropriate thing for him to have done. The first work performed by Huls for the Respondent was on August 21, 2013. The Respondent was there to supervise and direct the work. Huls did not provide license and insurance information. By this time, the Respondent clearly knew or should have known that Huls was not licensed. At the third installation Huls performed, on August 24, 2013, the Respondent had an employee named Jason Ippolito deliver an employment package to Huls. Huls refused to complete and sign the employment paperwork because it would change the terms of his agreement with the Respondent to be paid $1,400 per jobsite. The Respondent allowed Huls to continue to work on installations while trying to resolve the subcontract/employment issue. In all, Huls completed nine installations between August 21 and September 3, 2013. When Huls asked to be paid $1,400 per jobsite, as originally agreed, the Respondent refused to pay because Huls was not licensed as a subcontractor and refused to complete the paperwork to be paid as an employee. Huls then placed liens on all nine 7-Eleven properties and contacted Powerhouse to be paid. In order to save its relationship with 7-Eleven, Powerhouse paid Huls $5,806 and deducted that amount from what it owed Ellis Electrical. On October 12, 2013, the Respondent filed a DBPR complaint against Huls for subcontracting without a license. DBPR filed an Administrative Complaint against Huls for unlicensed activity. Criminal prosecutions of Huls also were filed and were pending at the time of the final hearing in this case. In mitigation, in addition to his clean record as a long-time licensee, the Respondent presented that he was dealing with his wife's serious health issues during the summer and fall of 2013, which affected his ability to manage his jobsites. In addition, no consumer or member of the public suffered financial harm. Ultimately, the financial harm was borne by the Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board find the Respondent, Michael Ellis, guilty as charged, fine him $1,000, require him to pay reasonable investigative costs, and take two additional hours of continuing education with an emphasis on laws and rules. Jurisdiction is retained for 30 days after the final order to determine reasonable investigative costs if the parties cannot reach an agreement. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of March, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of March, 2015.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for his responses to the "Principles and Practice" portion of the electrical engineer examination administered by Respondent in October 1996.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner took the electrical engineer licensing examination administered by Respondent in October 1996. Respondent is the agency of the State of Florida with the duty to regulate the practice of electrical engineering in Florida. Pursuant to Section 471.015, Florida Statutes, an applicant for licensure as an electrical engineer is required to successfully pass both parts of a licensure examination.1 The electrical engineer licensure examination at issue in this proceeding was developed and graded by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES). Following the initial grading of the "Principles and Practice" section of the exam, Petitioner was awarded a score of 68. A total score of 70 was required to pass that portion of the examination. Petitioner thereafter timely challenged the grading of two questions on the "Principles and Practice" portion of the exam. His challenge was limited to Questions 130 and 132. Petitioner did not specifically challenge Question 131. In response to that challenge, Respondent sent Petitioner’s examination package back to NCEES to have the "Principles and Practice" portion of the examination re-graded. NCEES re-graded all of Petitioner's answers to the "Principles and Practice" portion of the examination, including his responses to Questions 130, 131, and 132. NCEES initially awarded Petitioner a score of 2 points for his answer to Question 130. When the answer was re-graded, Petitioner was not awarded any additional credit for his answer to Question 130. The record in this proceeding established that Petitioner's answer to Question 130 was properly re-graded. Petitioner is not entitled to any additional credit for his response to Question 130. NCEES initially awarded Petitioner a score of 2 points for his answer to Question 132. When the answer was re-graded, Petitioner was awarded a score of 4 points for his answer to Question 132. The record in this proceeding established that Petitioner's answer to Question 132 was properly re-graded. Petitioner is entitled to a score of 4 points for his answer to Question 132. NCEES initially awarded Petitioner a score of 8 points for his answer to Question 131. When the answer was re-graded, Petitioner was awarded a score of 6 points for his answer to Question 131. The record in this proceeding established that Petitioner's answer to Question 131 was properly re-graded. Petitioner is entitled to a score of 6 points for his answer to Question 131. Petitioner is not entitled to a score of 8 for his answer to Question 131. Each of the three questions at issue in this proceeding is a problem that requires multiple steps and computations to solve. If a candidate correctly answers all parts of the question a score of 10 points is awarded. Partial credit can be awarded based on how many of the parts of the question are correctly answered. There is no allegation that the three questions involved in this proceeding are ambiguous or otherwise inappropriate for a licensure examination. The record is not clear when Respondent notified Petitioner of its position following the re-grading of the questions at issue. It is clear that Petitioner was aware of Respondent's position prior to the start of the formal hearing. During the formal hearing and in his post-hearing submittal, Petitioner challenged Respondent's right to re-grade Question 131 since he had not specifically challenged that question. Petitioner has not asserted that he was provided insufficient notice of Respondent's position.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order that awards Petitioner a score of 68 on the "Principles and Practice" portion of the October 1996 licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of December, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of December, 1997.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Joseph B. Smith is the holder of a registered electrical contractor's license, number ER 0007369, issued by the State of Florida. During the month of May, 1981, the Respondent obtained an electrical permit for work on apartments located at the corner of Stockton and Forbes Streets, in Jacksonville, Florida. The work was contracted for by Ronnie D. Norvelle. Gary Moore performed the electrical work on the project. Neither of these men was employed by or under the supervision of the Respondent. On March 3, 1982, the Construction Trades Qualifying Board for the City of Jacksonville, Florida, directed that a letter of reprimand be placed in the Respondent's permanent record. The basis for the action taken by the Construction Trades Qualifying Board for the City of Jacksonville, Florida, was the violation of Section 950.111(a), Code of Ordinances of the City of Jacksonville.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that license number ER 0007369 held by the Respondent, Joseph B. Smith, be revoked. THIS ORDER ENTERED this 28th day of June, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of June, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephanie A. Daniel, Esquire 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Joseph B. Smith 6335 Park Street Jacksonville, Florida 32205 Allen R. Smith, Jr., Executive Director Electrical Contractors Licensing Board 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, is an agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility, inter alia, for setting and enforcing health and safety standards for hospitals located within the state. In furtherance of this function, the Department has adopted rules set out Chapter 10D-28, Florida Administrative Code. Among these rules are provisions which set standards for hospital construction which are designed to assure the fire and electrical safety of patients, staff and visitors to hospitals. The Department enforces its rules by licensing or certifying hospitals which comply with them, and by refusing licensure or certification to those which do not. The Department's Rule 10D-28.79, Florida Administrative Code, relates to codes and standards for the physical plant of new and existing hospitals. The rule does not set out code provisions, but rather adopts various construction and life safety codes by reference. Rule 10D-28.79(5) provides in pertinent part: The following codes and regulations are herein adopted by the licensing agency [the Department], and it shall be the responsibility of the sponsor [licensed hospitals] to consult such codes for compliance with all matters not specifically set forth in this chapter. Standard Building Code, 1976 edition, Group I, Institutional Occupancy. National Fire Protection Association No. 101, Life Safety Code 1973 Edition; Appendix B of this Code adopts several other NFPA standards, which shall be met . . . This rule became effective on January 1, 1977. Copies of the codes that were adopted by reference did not accompany the rules as the were filed with the Office of the Secretary of State. The Life Safety Code is a publication of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). Appendix B to the Code, which is referenced in the Department's Rule 10D-28.79(5)(b) is titled "Referenced Publications" and provides in part as 7 follows: The following publications are referenced by this Life Safety Code and thereby comprise a part of the requirements or recommendations to the extent called for by the Code or Appendix A, respectively. The Appendix goes on to list more than fifty publications, including the 1971 National Electric Code, which is another publication of the National Fire Protection Association. The crux of this proceeding is a single paragraph of this publication. Paragraph 517-51(a) sets an electrical performance standard to be met in hospital areas where "electrically susceptible patients" are housed. The paragraph provides: In electrically susceptible patient areas the maximum 60-hertz alternating-current potential difference between any two conducting surfaces within thee reach of a patient, or those persons touching the patient, shall not exceed five millivolts measured across 500 ohms under normal operating conditions or in case of any probable failure. The Department has interpreted its Rule 10D-28.79(5)(b) as adopting as performance standards the provisions of all of the codes set out in Appendix B of the 1973 Life Safety Code, including the 1971 National Electric Code, and paragraph 517-51 thereof. There are conflicting provisions in the various Life Safety and Electrical Codes that the Department has adopted, and contends that it has adopted through its adoption of Appendix B of the 1973 Life Safety Code. The Department resolves these conflicts by requiring hospitals to develop solutions which will meet the provisions of all of the codes. The provisions of paragraph 517-51(a) of the 1971 National Electric Code are considerably more strict than similar provisions set out in later editions of the National Electric Code, including the 1975, 1978 and 1981 Codes. The Department contends that hospitals must comport with the most strict of these requirements, i.e. the ones set out in paragraph 517-51(a) of the 1971 Code. The Petitioner Memorial Hospital of Jacksonville is an accredited, licensed hospital in the State of Florida. Memorial Hospital is presently in the process of constructing a three million dollar renovation, including a renovation to its critical care unit. In order to comply with the provisions of paragraph 517-51(a) of the 1971 National Electric Code, Memorial Hospital would need to expend approximately $55,000 that would not need to be expended in order to comply with provisions of other codes. Memorial Hospital has requested a variance from the Department from the requirement of complying with this provision. The Petitioner St. Vincent's Medical Center is an accredited, licensed hospital located in Jacksonville, Florida. St. Vincent's Medical Center is currently involved in a project to renovate and add space to its existing facilities, including a thirty-two bed critical care unit. In order to comply with the provisions of paragraph 517-51(a) of the 1971 National Electric Code, St. Vincent's would be forced to expend from $75,000 to $80,000 which would not be necessary in order to comply with the provisions of other codes. St. Vincent's Medical Center has requested a variance from the requirements of that provision from the Department. Halifax Hospital Medical Center is an accredited, licensed hospital located in Daytona Beach, Florida. Halifax Hospital has been advised that it would be required to comply with the provisions of paragraph 517-51(a) of the 1971 National Electric Code in renovating and expanding its critical care unit. While the precise cost of complying with the provision cannot be determined, it is evident that Halifax Hospital would be required to expend more money to comply with the provision than would be required to comply with other provisions. The Petitioner Shands Teaching Hospital and Clinics, Inc., is an accredited, licensed hospital located in Gainesville, Florida. Shands Hospital is presently in the process of expanding and renovating its facility, including its critical care unit. Shands Hospital has been advised by the Department that it would need to comply with the provisions of paragraph 517-51(a) of the 1971 National Electric Code in connection with the critical care unit. The cost of complying with this provision would be approximately $140,000 over the cost of complying with other provisions. No evidence was presented with respect to the Petitioner Variety Children's Hospital. The Department's interpretation of its Rule 10D-28.79 as having adopted by reference the performance standard set out at paragraph 517-51(a) of the 1971 National Electric Code is in error. While the Department's rule references Appendix B to the 1973 Life Safety Code, it provides only that that Appendix adopts several other standards which must be met. While the Appendix references the 1971 National Electric Code, it adopts only the provisions of the 1971 National Electric Code and the other referenced publications to the extent that they are otherwise adopted in the 1973 Code or Appendix A thereto. Paragraph 517-51(a) of the 1971 Code is not referenced in Appendix A to the 1973 Life Safety Code, nor in any other pertinent place. The Department has, albeit erroneously, interpreted its rules as adopting paragraph 517-51(a) of the 1971 National Electric Code. This interpretation is being uniformly applied by the Department, and therefore itself constitutes a rule. The interpretation has not itself been adopted as a rule other than through the provisions of Rule 10D-28.79. The 1971 National Electric Code was not filed with the Office of the Secretary of State when Rule 10D-28.79 was filed, and is not generally available. It has been replaced by subsequent editions of the National Electric Code and is no longer generally available to members of the public at large. The effect of the Department's interpretation of its rules as adopting the standard set out in paragraph 517-51(a) is to require hospitals to install "isolated power sources" in critical care units. The standard by its terms applies to areas of a hospital where electrically susceptible patients are housed. Such patients are housed in operating rooms, rooms where highly flammable anesthetics are used, and in critical care units. Other standards adopted by the Department expressly require installation of isolated power sources in operating rooms and in rooms where flammable anesthetics are used. The fact that these are "wet" areas and areas where flammable materials are kept justifies those requirements. These conditions do not apply to critical care units. The electrically susceptible patients who are housed in critical care units are patients who have catheters inserted into their bodies, and extensions from the catheters protruding outside their bodies. The most common such patient is a patient with a pacemaker attached to his or her heart. With such patients an electrical device outside the body is connected through a catheter into a vein, and eventually to an area close to or actually at the heart. These patients are electrically susceptible because low levels of electrical current that might flow through the catheter could kill the patient. A power source of less than 100 millivolts if attached to the catheter in such a way that current could flow through the catheter could have the effect of fibrillating a patient's heart and killing him. This is much less power than would do any damage to a person under normal conditions, and considerably less voltage than would commonly result from short circuits or other malfunctions in equipment powered by conventionally grounded power sources. The amount of voltage that would be available given a fault or short circuit condition can be reduced through use of isolated power systems. Such a system includes a transformer which provides a demarcation between the incoming or primary power line, which is conventionally grounded, and the outgoing or secondary line. The secondary line is isolated from ground, neither wire being connected to ground. The secondary line runs into circuit breakers then to receptacles about the room. All of this equipment is installed in an electrical box. A monitor or gauge is installed on the face of the box. The monitor visually displays the extent of degradation of the secondary line, i.e. , whether the secondary line has become grounded. By observing the monitor, it is possible to avoid grounding a patient so that electrical currents cannot pass through the patient. The Department maintains that the 1971 Code standard can be met only through installation of isolated power sources. Under some fault circumstances this is correct, and, no other practical technology exists to meet the standard under any fault circumstances. Imposition of the standard set out at paragraph 517-51(a) of the 1971 National Electric Code is arbitrary and unreasonable. In the first place, no known technology can meet the standard. Even an isolated power system will meet the standard only in the case of line-to-ground faults. In cases where ground is lost, the isolated power system will not stay within the standard. The Department's action in requiring hospitals to install line isolation monitors thus meets the standard only under one fault circumstance, and it is not the one that most commonly occurs. Even as to those faults for which the line isolation monitor will accomplish the meeting of the 1971 standard, there is no valid reason for requiring their installation. The goal of protecting an electrically susceptible patient from electrocution can be easily and reliably accomplished by protecting the catheter from contact with electrical power sources. Basically, in order to create an electrical incident, or a shock, one part of a person's body has to touch some metal, another part has to touch some metal, and some current has to flow. This can be broken down into eight steps that would need to occur for a patient to be shocked: First, a power source or power line has to run close to the patient. Second, the line has to be exposed and touch metal. Third, the metal has to become live. Fourth, the metal must become ungrounded. Fifth, the patient has to touch the metal directly or through some conductive path. Sixth, a second conductive surface (more metal) has to be available. Seventh, the patient has to touch it. Eighth, the current has to be at a level that will cause harm. If any of these things does not happen, there will not be a shock. During the 1960's and early 1970's, the fact that very low levels of electrical current could cause fibrillation of the heart was not understood. This fact has been understood now for some time, and hospitals have looked to avoid placing patients in circumstances where the eight steps can occur. Looking at the problem in this manner allows hospitals to focus on what factors can easily be eliminated. Current practice is not to ground things which do not have to be grounded. It had previously been the practice to ground all of the metal around the patient, creating a "bathtub" effect. The line isolation monitor serves to eliminate the eighth of these steps by, in at least one fault circumstance, allowing only very low levels of current to flow. The other steps can be more easily eliminated. One means of accomplishing that is to isolate the power source to the catheter. Thus, battery powered equipment is now typically used, rather than equipment that attaches directly to the main power source. Furthermore, catheters protruding from a patient's body are now insulated, and critical care unit personnel are instructed not to touch them unless they are wearing rubber gloves. The taking of these steps eliminates the possibility for electrocution of an electrically susceptible patient through low voltage currents (microshock). There have been no documented deaths of patients through such microshock anywhere in the world since 1972. Even in that instance, which occurred in the United Kingdom, the accident did not happen in a critical care unit, but rather in an operating unit. The circumstances of the incident were that a hospital had been callously negligent in allowing its equipment to be modified so that inadequate switches were attached to an operating table and open current lines were exposed. Blood from a patient flowed to the open lines, and electrocution resulted. This incident bears no relevance to the instant rule. In the first place, it occurred in an operating room, where isolated power systems are properly required. In the second place, the hospital staff was incredibly negligent about its procedures and equipment. In addition to the fact that isolated power systems no longer accomplish any valid purpose in preventing microshock, there are disadvantages to their use. These disadvantages include: (1) Line isolation monitors limit the amount of power that is available at bedside in critical care units. There is a need for considerable available power at bedside, and line isolation monitors limit available power, and can contribute to power interruptions. (2) A component is added to the power distribution system so that an additional point of failure exists. (3) The isolation system is installed at the head of beds in a critical care unit, thus interfering with the possibility of putting other equipment in that place. (4) Isolated power systems with their transformers and monitors can produce an annoying hum. (5) Isolated power systems give off heat. (6) Line isolation monitors which go with isolated power systems can cause interference with other devices, such as electroencephalograms and electrocardiograms. (7) Several models of isolated power systems, including those required under the 1971 National Electric Code, require special electrical receptacles, thus limiting the use of various appliances in a critical care unit. (8) Personnel have to be trained as to the nuances of isolated power systems, and as to the meaning of readings on the monitor. (9) Isolated power systems can give personnel a false security and cause carelessness in preventing the factors which could cause and electrical current to flow through a catheter. Except for electrically susceptible patients as described herein, there is no reason to require installation of isolated power sources in critical care units. Petitioners have contended that other regulations of the Department which relate to the setting of fire protection standards in hospitals constitute invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority. No evidence was presented as to how these standards specifically affect any of the Petitioners. No evidence was presented to establish that any of the Petitioners are in any way injured or adversely affected by the rules.
