Findings Of Fact Petitioner James T. Steffens is currently employed as Chief of the Oneco-Tallevast Fire Control District located in Manatee County and has been so employed since June 1, 1982. The fire control district covers approximately 26 square miles southeast of Bradenton, and includes residential and commercial developments and some rural areas. The district employs six firefighters who, along with Petitioner, work a normal 3:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, work week. There are 28 volunteer firemen in the district who provide most of the firefighting services for the district. The career personnel are hired primarily to supplement the volunteer group during the ordinary work week. However, they and the Petitioner are also volunteer firefighters. During the period of his employment, Petitioner has taken charge of firefighting on six or seven instances, one of which occurred during his normal hours of employment. (Testimony of Steffens) Petitioner was hired as a result of a screening and interview process by the Board of Commissioners of the Oneco- Tallevast Fire Control District. They were interested in a person who could unify factions within the district and modernize district procedures. The Board of Commissioners was more interested in Petitioner's administrative skills rather than his qualifications as a firefighter. However, it was aware from prior communications with Respondent's personnel that either a certified firefighter should be hired, or if not, that the individual hired would have to be certified in Florida. Petitioner primarily performs administrative functions, such as personnel and budget matters, training and scheduling of personnel, procurement of supplies, and scheduling of fire inspection and prevention programs. Actual fire inspections are conducted by the district fire marshal. (Testimony of Petitioner, Skinner) Respondent's form FST-1 "Qualification of New Employee," was filed on behalf of Petitioner in June 1982 by Raymond F. Skinner, Jr., Secretary- Treasurer, Board of Commissioners, Oneco-Tallevast Fire Control District. The form reflected that Petitioner had completed the equivalency examination at the State Fire College, Ocala, Florida, on July 11, 1977, and the Report of Physical Examination that accompanied the form showed that he had no physical abnormalities. Upon inquiry by Respondent as to a discrepancy on the physical examination report that reflected Petitioner had adequate visual acuity, as compared to a prior medical report received by the Department showing that his uncorrected vision in the right eye was 20/200 and in the left eye, 20/400, the examining physician advised the Respondent that the earlier eye examination should be deemed correct. (Respondent's Exhibits 1-2) By letter of October 5, 1982, Mr. Skinner was advised by the Office of the State Fire Marshal that Petitioner could not be certified because he did not meet the requirements of pertinent law and regulations as to visual acuity, and also due to the fact that he had a "noticeable limp." Specifically, he was advised that Section 633.34(5), Florida Statutes, required that "Any person initially employed as a firefighter must be in good physical condition as determined by a medical examination as prescribed by the division," and that Rule 4A-37.37, Florida Administrative Code, implementing the statutory provision, provided in subsection (3) for adoption of the standards of NFPA 1001 (1974). The letter further stated that NFPA 1001, Chapter 2-2.7.2(b), provided that standard visual acuity, without correction, of less than 20/40 in one eye, and 20/100 in the other eye, was cause for rejection for appointment, and that Chapter 2-2.6.2.4(d) provided that shortening of a lower extremity resulting in any limp of noticeable degree was also cause for rejection. Subsequent to receipt of the letter from Respondent, Petitioner requested an administrative hearing. (Respondent's Exhibit 1) Petitioner does not meet the visual acuity standards set forth in the above-cited law and regulations in that his uncorrected eyesight is 20/200 in his right eye and 20/400 in his left eye. (Respondent's Exhibit 1-2, Stipulation) Respondent's ground for rejection of certification because Petitioner has a "noticeable limp" was based solely on observation of Petitioner by Mr. Raymond Schaffner, Program Coordinator for Fire Standards, Office of the State Fire Marshal. However, Mr. Schaffner has no knowledge of Petitioner having a shortening of either leg, nor is there any medical evidence in that regard. Although he is of the opinion that a person with a limp would have difficulty as a firefighter carrying heavy weights on stairs, or maintaining control on a ladder with his legs to free his hands, he is unaware of any actual limitations that Petitioner might have in this regard. (Testimony of Schaffner) Petitioner concedes that he has a slight limp, but can offer no medical explanation for it. He purchases trousers which have the same inseam for both legs. The problem becomes more pronounced if he becomes overweight. It has never hampered his sports activities in the past, or his prior activities as a volunteer firefighter since 1956. In 1977, he successfully completed the equivalency examination at the State Fire College in Ocala, which required that he perform field "evolutions" or practical exercises in firefighting. Although they do not necessarily test an individual's endurance, Petitioner participated in advancing heavy hoses and carried a man down from a ladder during his equivalency examination. He has performed "leg locks" on ladders "hundreds of times" in the past. (Testimony of Schaffner, Petitioner) Volunteer firefighters are not required to be certified by the state. However, Respondent's interpretation of applicable statutes is that the employed chief of a fire control district must be certified if he meets the definition of "firefighters" set forth in Section 633.31, Florida Statutes. (Testimony of Schaffner, Stark)
Recommendation That Petitioner James T. Steffens be determined unqualified for employment and certification as a firefighter pursuant to Chapter 633, Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 3 day of 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard W. Gross, Esquire Post Office Box 1302 Hialeah, Florida 33011 Susan E. Koch and Dennis Silverman, Esquires Department of Insurance 413-B Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Honorable William Gunter State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact When the events herein occurred, respondent, Shalom Manor, Inc. d/b/a King David Manor Retirement Home (King David), was licensed by petitioner, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), to operate an adult congregte living facility (ACLF) at 5800 N.W. 27th Court, Lauderhill, Florida. The corporate headquarters of Shalom Manor, Inc., were located at 901 South Federal Highway, Suite 200, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. On March 29, 1984 two HRS inspectors performed a routine annual survey of King David to determine whether King David was complying with all HRS requirements necessary for licensure. During the course of the survey, the inspectors noted that King David did not have an established fire and emergency plan. They accordingly charged respondent with having violated Section 3-8.a of HRS Manual 140-3. That manual is entitled "Fire Safety Standards for Adult Congregate Living Facilities." The manual is not a formal rule, but has been adopted and incorporated by reference in Rule 10A-5.23(15), Florida Administrative Code. The cited section (3-8.a) provides in relevant part that "a Fire and Emergency plan shall be established." It does not specifically require that the plan be in written form, or that it be posted in each resident's living area. According to the HRS inspectors, respondent was charged with a Class III statutory violation because it had no acceptable written plan, and the plan was not posted in each resident's room. When the survey was completed, the inspectors reviewed this deficiency with the facility's administrator, Graeme Burne, and advised him that the deficiency must be corrected within thirty days, or by April 29, 1984. They also described to him the type of plan necessary to comply with the HRS Manual, and told him it must be posted in each area where a resident resided. A thirty- day compliance period was used since the inspectors considered the deficiency to be a "paperwork" item that could be easily corrected within that time period. After returning to their office, the inspectors had a Form 1806 prepared. This form is entitled "ACLF Corrective Action Plan" and contains each deficiency noted during the survey, the class of violation, date for correction action, provider's plan of correction, when such correction is completed and the status of correction or follow-up. The form noted that the deficiency in question had to be corrected by April 29, 1984. The form was then signed by the HRS area supervisor and mailed to Burne on April 4, 1984. Burne received the form, inserted the comment "Being Prepared" in the column under the provider's plan of correction, signed it as respondent's administrator on April 27, 1984 and returned it to local HRS offices in Miami. On May 1, May 18, June 11, August 22 and October 31, 1984, the two inspectors made repeat surveys of King David's facility. They found no satisfactory fire and emergency plan had been established on any of those dates. On the August 22 visit Burne showed to the inspectors a diagram he had prepared, but was told it did not meet HRS requirements. On the March 29 visit, the inspectors also noted several other deficiencies besides the lack of a fire and emergency plan. All deficiencies, including the lack of a fire and emergency plan, were the subject of administrative complaints issued on July 12 and 26, 1984 in Case Nos. 85-0359 and 85-0360, respectively. 1/ By the issuance of these complaints, the corporate license received actual written notice of the surveys and cited deficiencies. Prior to that time, Burne had apparently neglected to tell the owners about the matter. On July 2, 1985, or approximately one year later, HRS issued the amended administrative complaint in this cause charging respondent with having failed to correct the deficiency by the August 22 visit. 2/ The complaint was served on Shalom Manor, Inc., at its Fort Lauderdale corporate address. After receiving the earlier complaints in July 1984 a representative of Shalom Manor contacted HRS offices in Miami and requested that all future correspondence regarding the matter be sent to the corporate owner's address in Fort Lauderdale. Respondent acknowledged that it had no fire and emergency plan posted on its premises. However, it established that the corporate licensee (Shalom Manor, Inc.) was never given any documentation regarding the alleged violation until the administrative complaints in Case Nos. 85-0359 and 85-0360 were filed. Moreover, neither the licensee or its administrator was given a document entitled "notice of deficiency" as required by Rule 10A-5.27, Florida Administrative Code. However, the corrective action plan sent to the administrator on April 4, 1984, contained all information referred to in the rule. Respondent also points out that after finally learning of the deficiency, it attempted to comply with HRS requirements, and through its administrator, presented a written plan to HRS inspectors on their August 22 visit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the amended administrative complaint filed on July 2, 1986, be DISMISSED, with prejudice. DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of August 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of August 1986.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this matter, Thomas E. Kehoe, d/b/a Kehoe on the Bay, Respondent, was licensed by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Petitioner, to operate the adult congregate living facility (ACLF), Kehoe on the Bay. Kehoe on the Bay serves young adult clients who suffer from drug overdose, mental retardation or alcohol abuse. On November 30, 1988, Richard Brickman, a fire safety specialist for Petitioner, performed a general inspection of Kehoe on the Bay for purposes of re-licensure. Mr. Brickman identified eighteen operating deficiencies which he discussed with Mr. Kehoe and Mr. Lindsey Smith, administrator of Kehoe on the Bay. On December 16, 1988, the Department issued a letter confirming the findings of the re-licensure survey conducted by Mr. Brickman. Enclosed with the letter was a form "Classification of Deficiencies for ACLF Licensure Requirements", which noted the deficiencies, the deadlines for correction, and citations to the administrative rules allegedly violated by the deficiencies. The deficiencies cited by Mr. Brickman appear on pages four through seven of the form and are under the headings ACLF 107-2, ACLF 107-3 and ACLF 107-4. Each of the deficiencies was classified as a class III violation with a civil penalty of $250 each and were to be corrected by December 30, 1988. On December 19, 1988, Mr. Kehoe requested a thirty day extension of the compliance date. The extension was granted on December 21, 1988. On January 31, 1989, Mr. Brickman made a return visit to Kehoe on the Bay and determined that each of the deficiencies, except for the four at issue had been corrected. These deficiencies form the basis of the administrative complaint and are indicated on the administrative complaint as follows: Quarterly fire alarm tests were not conducted and/or documented as required. Quarterly smoke detector inspections and tests were not conducted and/or documented as required. Resident room door closers did not close and latch as required. Seven resident room doors were not self closing. As to deficiencies one and two, existent law, as reasonably interpreted, by the Department requires that the fire alarm and smoke detectors in an ACLF be tested quarterly; that each test be documented in writing; and that the written documentation be made available for inspection. Kehoe on the Bay has a more than acceptable fire detection and alarm system which was installed by Mr. Issac Rodriguez of Quality Services Contractors. For approximately five years, Mr. Rodriguez has been performing annual inspections of the system. At the conclusion of each inspection, Mr. Rodriguez places a sticker on the control panel for the system. The control panel is located immediately outside the administrative office at Kehoe on the Bay. In addition to Mr. Rodriguez's tests, Kehoe on the Bay had followed the internal policy of testing the fire detection and alarm system at least once a month. The tests were performed by Mr. Smith or Mr. Carl Anderson, chief of staff at Kehoe on the Bay, but were not documented in written form. If a malfunction occurred and they could not fix it on site, Mr. Rodriguez was called to repair the system. On Mr. Brickman's first visit in November 1988, he requested and did not receive written documentation of the quarterly tests, although Mr. Smith verbally informed him that they had been done. After Mr. Brickman's review, Mr. Smith called Mr. Rodriguez to request an inspection and repair of a malfunction which Mr. Brickman had noted. The malfunction was corrected, and on January 4, 1989, Mr. Rodriguez performed the inspection and placed his sticker on the control panel. When Mr. Brickman returned on January 31, 1989, he again was not provided with documentation of tests performed on either the smoke detectors or the fire alarm. Mr. Brickman is an experienced fire safety inspector, having been employed by the Department for over three years and having worked with the New York City Fire Department for twenty-three years prior to moving to Florida. He is familiar with the inspection stickers used by commercial fire inspecting companies such as Quality Services Contractors. However, Mr. Brickman did not remember seeing the sticker on the panel, even though he had checked the panel during his investigation, and he had passed the panel on his way to the office in which he discussed his observations with Mr. Smith, nor was he shown the sticker on the panel. The sticker, if made available to Mr. Brickman, would have been sufficient to meet the requirement of written documentation of fire alarm and detection devices. In addition, Mr. Brickman would have accepted a copy of an invoice from Mr. Rodriguez as meeting the requirement for written documentation. Mr. Rodriguez is typically late in mailing his invoices. Although he did, in fact, bill Mr. Kehoe for the January 4, 1989 test, the invoice did not arrive until after Mr. Brickman's visit on January 31, 1989. Subsequent to Mr. Rodriguez's inspection of January 4, 1989, Kehoe on the Bay has implemented the documentation procedure suggested by Mr. Brickman at his November 30, 1988 visit and has made quarterly, documented inspections. Mr. Rodriguez inspected the fire detection and alarm devices on January 4, 1989 and placed the sticker on the panel at that time, making the sticker available to Mr. Brickman on his inspection. The oversight of the sticker by Mr. Brickman did not make the sticker unavailable to him. In fact, the first quarterly tests were performed, documented and made available for inspection within the time given for correction of the deficiencies noted on November 30, 1988. As to deficiencies three and four relating to alleged faulty door closures or lack of door closures, the deficiencies noted on the November 30, 1988 visit by Mr. Brickman were repaired prior to Mr. Brickman's return visit. Mr. Kehoe purchased new door closures for the errant doors, and they were installed by Mr. Anderson and Mr. Charles Woods, carpenter at Kehoe on the Bay. When Mr. Brickman returned on January 31, 1989, some of the closures would not latch as required by the Department and some were not operational. However, the clients at Kehoe on the Bay frequently break the door closures. Also, the closures which were installed require adjustment during the first six months of operation. Mr. Smith and Mr. Anderson walk the halls daily and fix the items which they note as broken, including adjusting the door closures. Mr. Brickman's visit was unannounced and, by chance, some of the closures ware not operational when he did his inspection. Kehoe on the Bay has been previously cited by the Department for deficiencies. However, the instant administrative complaint is the first action taken by the Department against the facility.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order dismissing the administrative complaint filed against Respondent. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 9th day of March, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. JANE C. HAYMAN 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 9th day of March, 1990.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent properly denied Petitioner's application for certification as a firesafety inspector.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an applicant for certification as a firesafety inspector. In order to be certified, Petitioner was required to successfully complete the Firesafety Inspector Training Course and pass a firesafety inspector certification examination. Petitioner successfully completed his required coursework at the Florida State Fire College and Daytona State College. To pass the written examination, an applicant must achieve a score of at least 70 percent. Petitioner took the exam the first time and did not receive a passing score. After a month or so, Petitioner took a "retest." He received a score of 68 on the retest, which is below the minimum passing score of 70. By letter dated October 11, 2011, Respondent notified Petitioner that he did not receive a passing grade on the retest. The notice also informed Petitioner that because he failed both the initial and retake examinations, it would be necessary for him to repeat the Inspection Training Program before any additional testing can be allowed. The notice further informed Petitioner that if he enrolled in another training program, he would have to submit a new application. Petitioner submitted a letter which was received by the Department on September 27, 2011, in which he raised concerns about the quality of instruction he received at Florida State Fire College. Petitioner asserted that in two classes he took, the instructors had not taught the class before. He also asserted that the books used for class were not always the books used for testing, and that he believed that some of the state inspector test questions were irrelevant to how or what he would need to know in performing an actual inspection. Attached to this letter were five questions which had been marked as being answered incorrectly on the examination. Petitioner's letter and attachments were treated as a request for administrative hearing, which was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings, which resulted in this proceeding. Marshall Shoop took classes with Petitioner at the Florida State Fire College. It was also Mr. Shoop's understanding that at least one instructor had never taught the class before. Karl Thompson is the Standard Supervisor for the Bureau of Fire Standards and Training. At hearing, Mr. Thompson reviewed each question offered by Petitioner and the answer Petitioner thought to be correct. Mr. Thompson concluded that Petitioner answered each of the five questions incorrectly. Mr. Thompson explained that the firesafety test is a secure document and, pursuant to a contract with a third party, persons who take the test and later review their incorrect answers are not allowed to write down the questions or copy anything from the test. The test must remain secure so that it is not compromised. The test questions and answers are not in evidence. Petitioner has been shadowing a part-time fire inspector for the City of Flagler Beach. Martin Roberts is the Fire Chief for the City of Flagler Beach. Chief Roberts would feel comfortable with Petitioner taking on the role of fire inspector despite Petitioner's grades on the fire safety inspector certification examination. While attending Daytona State College, Petitioner earned an "A" in a building construction course and a "B+" in a course in "construction codes and materials rating."
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for certification as a Firesafety Inspector, and permitting Petitioner to repeat the required coursework before retaking the Firesafety Inspector certification examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of February, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of February, 2012.
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not Petitioner qualifies for a certificate of tenure as a fire fighter on the basis that he was engaged in the duties of a full- time fire fighter on or before July 5, 1969.
Findings Of Fact On October 20, 1988, John C. Avery, Petitioner herein, filed an application for a Certificate of Tenure as a fire fighter pursuant to Section 633.41, Florida Statutes. On November 16, 1988, Respondent notified Petitioner that his application for a certificate was incomplete. Petitioner submitted additional information, however, on December 16, 1988, Respondent determined that Petitioner failed to substantiate that he was engaged in the duties of a full-time firefighter on or before July 1, 1969, and denied his application for a certificate. On July 5, 1969, Petitioner was employed in the position of fire and communication equipment operator. At the time Petitioner was hired by Pinellas County, a full-time firefighting and crash rescue entity existed at the Pinellas County Airport for the primary purpose of providing fire suppression, fire prevention, and crash rescue services to the Pinellas County Airport. On July 5, 1969, there existed a full-time firefighting detachment at the Pinellas County Airport and such fire fighting personnel, including Petitioner, were commonly known and referred to as the Airport Fire Department. Petitioner was intially employed as a full-time Airport Fireman in 1966, at which time he was issued fire protective clothing ("bunker gear"), a badge which bore the legend "Pinellas County Fireman" and was provided a jumpsuit which bore the words "CD Fire" on the back and patches on the sleeve. Petitioner, like all other firefighting detachment employees, who were engaged in firefighting duties at the time, were issued similar gear, badges, and uniforms but other civil defense personnel not engaged in fire fighting were not issued such equipment. At the time of his hire, Petitioner was told that his primary responsibility was fire prevention and extinguishment of fires, the protection of life and property, and enforcement of applicable fire prevention codes. Petitioner engaged in other duties related to the monitoring of civil defense radios and telephones after hours when civilian personnel charged with that responsibility were off duty. However, such duties were secondary and incidental to Petitioner's primary responsibility as an Airport Fireman. Likewise, all fire fighters, civil defense directors and the airport fire chiefs made it clear to all fire fighters that any civil defense activity would be abandoned in the event of an emergency requiring a firefighting or crash rescue response and to the contrary, Airport Fire Department employees never abandoned their fire fighting responsibility for any civil defense activity. From June 19, 1966 until 1984, the Airport Fire Department was operated under the Pinellas Civil Defense Department although a fire chief was in direct command of the fire fighters. The full-time Airport Fire Department was established at the Pinellas County Airport in the late 1950's to provide fire and crash protection in accordance with commercial air carrier requirements and about the same time a United States Air Force contract with Fairchild-Hi1ler, a private defense contractor, was executed which called for a full-time fire department at the airport. Fire protection equipment and personnel were to be present at the Fairchild-Hiller facilities during fueling, defueling, engine testing, and flight testing of multi-engine C-130 military transport and KC-135 refueling aircraft. While all five commercial aircarriers eventually withdrew from the airport, the Fairchild-Hiller operation continued through the mid-70's. Petitioner participated in fire protection and prevention duties on a regular basis during the life of the Fairchild-Hiller contract often standing by with fire protective clothing, a firefighting vehicle and another airport fireman to assist in the event of a fire emergency. The fire prevention and suppression activity engaged in by Petitioner and other fire fighters during the Fairchild-Hiller era was more intense than is customary by today's standards. During the mid-60's when Petitioner was initially hired, it was common practice throughout the United States to assign a fire chief or senior fire department official as the Civil Defense Director and to assign the local fire department additional civil defense duties which were generally unrelated to fire suppression, prevention or protection (i.e., radiological monitoring and other duties associated with the then prevailing threat of nuclear war), but which were thought to be sufficiently related to public safety and potential fire hazard as to be within the ambit and natural function of a local fire department. Fire fighting and crash rescue operations prior to and after July 5, 1969, were regularly logged in a ledger which bore the handwritten title "fire runs". No such similar ledger existed to document civil defense activities. Full-time civil defense employees and full-time fire fighting employees had distinctly separate functions with the latter working 24-hour shifts around the clock for the paramount purpose of providing a full-time fire and crash rescue capability at the airport. Petitioner, as other members of the Airport Fire Department, regularly engaged in firefighting or fire prevention activities at brush fires, controlled structure burns, aircraft crash alerts, military aircraft operations and were occasionally called to assist other fire departments at fires off the airport premises both before and after July 5, 1969. The duties and functions of the Airport Fire Department has remained substantially unchanged from the time of Petitioner's hiring to the present, although operational control has been transferred to various department heads over time for administrative and other reasons. Petitioner and other members of the Airport Fire Department frequently engaged in fire fighting training among themselves and with other fire departments, which training included the extinguishment of fuel fires and familiarization with explosive devices and typical training exercises for the maintenance of firefighting proficiency. Airport fire personnel infrequently engaged in civil defense training, and such training as was received was undertaken as additional training similar to that which was provided to other fire department personnel around the nation, use of gieger counters and similar radiological equipment). At no time was more than one airport firefighter (of three available and on duty to answer fire or crash calls) permitted to engage in other activities unrelated to their fire protection responsibility and even that temporarily indisposed firefighter was required to maintain radio contact and respond to any fire or crash emergency at the airport. From the date of his hiring up until mid-1988, neither Petitioner nor any other airport firefighter was required by the State of Florida or Pinellas County to be a certified firefighter. Petitioner was affirmatively informed by his employer that his status as airport firefighter did not require certification as a firefighter. The Bureau of Fire Standards, through its Bureau Chief, Fredrick C. Stark, rejected Petitioner's application for a certificate of tenure because Petitioner was not "engaged in the sole activity of a full-time firefighter as defined in Sections 633.30, Florida Statutes". The requisite requirement in Section 633.30, requires that a firefighter's "primary responsibility" be fire protection, fire prevention and protection and the protection of life and property. The requirement is not that such activity be the "so1e activity" of a firefighter. An airport fire department has considerable time periods between fire responses and no major crash of a large commercial aircraft has occurred at the county-owned airport. However, it is the potential for such an event and the likelihood of conflagration and catastrophic loss of lives and property on a massive scale. That is the reason for airport fire departments being located on aircraft property to be in such a high state of readiness.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a Final Order stating that Petitioner is eligible for the issuance of a Certificate of Tenure as a firefighter. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 7th day of July, 1989.
