The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner, Marlene Serrano ("Serrano"), should be awarded certification as a firefighter or, in the alternative, whether Serrano should be allowed to re-take the hose operation and ladder operation portions of the Firefighter Minimum Standards Written and Practical Examination.
Findings Of Fact Serrano was a candidate for certification as a firefighter in the State of Florida. The Department is the state agency responsible for testing all candidates for certification as a firefighter, for conducting such tests, and for issuing a certification upon successful completion of minimum requirements by a candidate. One such examination administered by the Department is the Firefighter Minimum Standards Written and Practical Examination ("Firefighter examination"). The Firefighter examination has a written portion, as well as three practical components: Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus, Hose Operations, and Ladder Operations. In order to meet the minimum requirements for certification, a candidate must obtain at least a 70-percent score on each component of the Firefighter examination. If a candidate fails the test, he or she is afforded one chance to take a re-test. The ladder component of the Firefighter examination is scored using a form listing five mandatory steps which the candidate must pass and ten evaluative component steps worth ten points each. A candidate taking the ladder component, who successfully passes the five mandatory steps, receives a total score of the sum of the scores from the ten evaluative component steps. A candidate who does not successfully complete one or more of the mandatory steps automatically fails the ladder component section and receives a score of zero out of 100 points. Serrano initially took the Firefighter examination on December 22, 2010. That test was administered at the Firefighter Academy, a more controlled environment. She failed to obtain a passing grade on two components of the examination, the hose operations component and the ladder operation component. Specifically, she failed to successfully complete the components within the required time limit of two minutes, 20 seconds; and one minute, 25 seconds, respectively. Her times were two minutes, 40 seconds; and one minute, 41 seconds, respectively. As allowed by law, Serrano was given the opportunity to re-take those components of the examination one time only. On February 15, 2011, Serrano went to a training facility in Ocala, Florida, to re-take the examination. The Ocala site was more open than the Academy site; there were other non-firefighter personnel engaged in activities in close proximity. Thomas Johnson and Kenneth Harper were the examiners assigned to administer the examination to Serrano. Serrano received a score of 100 on the hose operation component of the examination. She completed that portion of the test in one minute and 25 seconds, within the prescribed time. When Serrano finished the hose operation component, she was going to begin the ladder operation section. However, one of the examiners "yelled" at her that her protective face shield was not in place. That is, the shield had been raised to the top of her helmet, rather than being in the lowered position required during testing. The instructor yelled for her to "put your shield down." Serrano interpreted that instruction as a sign that she had failed the prior (hose operation) test. She began to walk toward the examiners, but they pointed her back in the direction of the ladder test. Serrano was confused, but undertook the ladder operation component of the examination anyway. Her concentration was somewhat broken by the examiner's comments, and she was flustered. Then she heard loud noises coming from the field next to the testing site. Apparently, there were military maneuvers of some type going on at the adjacent field. Furthermore, there was a four-wheeler driving around the training ground, creating more distraction for Serrano. However, the Department's field representative said he had administered over 1,000 tests in the same conditions as were present for Serrano's test. During the test, ten points were deducted from Serrano due to her inability to maintain the ladder in a vertical position. Further, Serrano did not complete the ladder operation component of the examination within the prescribed time frame for that section of the test. Her recorded time was two minutes and 49 seconds, some 29 seconds longer than allowed. The examiner also noted that Serrano almost lost control of the ladder twice during the examination and struggled with the halyard and safety lines. There are numerous events going on at the training site during testing. The training grounds are intentionally somewhat hectic in order to simulate real "fire ground" conditions. There is no attempt made by the examiners to keep the testing site quiet. Conversely, at the Firefighter Academy where firefighters are initially trained, there is less noise and distraction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Respondent, Department of Financial Services, dismissing the Petition of Marlene Serrano, in full. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of July, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 7th day of July, 2011.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether the application for an initial license to operate an Adult Family Care Home ("AFCH") should be denied because the applicant submitted fraudulent or inaccurate information in the application.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is owned by Ms. Marvell Lawton, R.N. (the "applicant"). On June 3, 1996, the applicant applied for a license to operate an AFCH at 550 East Division Street, Deland, Florida (the "facility"). Respondent is the state agency responsible for licensing AFCHs. Respondent requires several documents to be submitted with the application including: a Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services ("HRS") Community Residential Homes Sponsor Certification Form (the "HRS Form"); a statement by the local zoning office that the facility is properly zoned (the "zoning approval"); and a fire inspection report. The applicant altered the HRS Form, the zoning approval, and the fire inspection report to indicate that the facility was approved for a maximum capacity of five residents. Respondent initially denied the license application solely on the basis of the fire inspection report. However, the basis of denial was amended to include the HRS Form and the zoning approval pursuant to an order entered by Judge Stephen F. Dean on October 16, 1996. By letter dated July 11, 1996, Respondent notified the applicant that her application was denied. The letter stated, in relevant part, that the specific basis for denial was: . . . Submission of fraudulent or inaccurate information to the agency. The fire safety inspection report submitted with the application package was altered to indicate approval for five residents when the fire marshal's office had only approved three residents. The local fire marshal's office has verified that the original approval was for three residents because Ms. Lawton did not want to install a manual alarm system which is required for four or five residents. Submission of fraudulent or inaccurate information to the agency is grounds for denial of the AFCH application, s. 400.619(11)(e),F.S. On April 2, 1996, the applicant obtained a fire inspection report from the City of Deland Fire Department (the "Fire Department"). The fire inspection report limited the maximum capacity of the facility to three residents because the applicant did not have the manual alarm system required for four or five residents and did not wish to install such a system. The applicant altered the fire inspection report that she submitted with her application. She changed the number "3" to a "5" so that the fire inspection report appeared to approve the facility for a maximum capacity of five residents. As part of its review of the application, Respondent attempted to verify the fire inspection report included in the application by calling the Fire Department. When the Fire Department did not verify that the maximum capacity was five residents, Respondent obtained a copy of the original fire inspection report from the Fire Department. On March 22, 1996, the applicant obtained a zoning approval from the City of DeLand stating that the maximum capacity of the facility is three residents. The applicant added the phrase "to 5" after the number "3" in the zoning approval so that the zoning approval authorized a maximum capacity of "3 to 5" residents. On June 3, 1996, the applicant submitted the HRS Form to Respondent. The applicant amended the portion of the HRS Form requiring a designation of capacity for facilities with six or fewer residents as well as that for facilities with 7-14 residents. The latter category does not apply to Petitioner. The applicant did not submit fraudulent information to Respondent. The applicant did not intend to defraud Respondent. She misunderstood the application process. The facility has space for only three residents. It is physically impossible to house more than three residents in the facility. The applicant would have gained nothing from an authorized capacity of more than three residents. The applicant's refusal to add the manual alarm system required for four or five residents is consistent with the facility's limit of three residents. The applicant assumed that Respondent's minimum license category is for a license of 1-5 residents. The applicant altered the HRS Form, the zoning approval, and the fire inspection report under the mistaken belief that the capacity designation in each document should conform to the maximum capacity in Respondent's license category. In the HRS Form, the applicant even altered the licensed capacity for facilities with 7-14 residents. The applicant mistakenly submitted inaccurate information to Respondent within the meaning of Section 400.619(11)(e), Florida Statutes.1 The maximum licensed capacity of the facility must be consistent with fire safety requirements for the welfare of the residents. The licensed capacity of the facility must also conform to applicable zoning laws.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order and thereinGRANT a license to operate an AFCH for three residents. RECOMMENDED this 21st day of February, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 21st day of February, 1997.
The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether the proposed amendment to Florida Administrative Code Rule 69A-39.005(1)(b)2.d. is an invalid exercise of legislatively granted authority in violation of section 120.52(8)(b), (c), (e), and (f), Florida Statutes (2020).
Findings Of Fact The Parties Respondent, Department of Financial Services, Division of State Fire Marshal, is headed by the Chief Financial Officer of the state, who serves as the Chief Fire Marshal pursuant to section 603.104(1), Florida Statutes. The State Fire Marshal is charged with the responsibility to minimize the loss of life and property in Florida due to fire, and to adopt rules, which must “be in substantial conformity with generally accepted standards of firesafety; must take into consideration the direct supervision of children in nonresidential child care facilities; and must balance and temper the need of the State Fire Marshal to protect all Floridians from fire hazards with the social and economic inconveniences that may be caused or created by the rules.” § 633.104(1), Fla. Stat. Petitioner is a Florida corporation authorized by the Department to offer fire certification training courses in both online and blended learning formats. A blended learning course is one that has both online and in-person components. The blended learning courses Petitioner currently offers have 37 hours of online learning and eight hours of in-person instruction to address those portions of the course that may need “hands on” instruction. Section 633.216, Florida Statutes, requires Respondent to certify fire safety inspectors, and to provide by rule for the development of a fire safety inspector training program of at least 200 hours. The program developed by Department rule must be administered by education or training providers approved by the Department for the purpose of providing basic certification training for fire safety inspectors. § 633.216(2), (8), Fla. Stat. Current Certification Requirements Section 633.406 identifies several certifications in the fire safety arena that may be awarded by the Division of State Fire Marshal: firefighter, for those meeting the requirements in section 633.408(4); fire safety inspector, for those meeting the requirements in section 633.216(2); special certification, for those meeting the requirements in section 633.408(6); forestry certification, for those meeting the requirements of section 590.02(1)(e); fire service instructor, for those who demonstrate general or specialized knowledge, skills, and abilities in firefighting and meet the qualifications established by rule; certificate of competency, for those meeting certain requirements with special qualifications for particular aspects of firefighting service; and volunteer fire fighter certifications. In order to become a fire safety officer, an applicant must take the courses outlined in rule 69A-39.005, and pass an examination with a score of 70% or higher. The five courses as listed in the current version of rule 69A- 39.005 are Fire Inspection Practices; Private Protection Systems; Blue Print Reading and Plans Examinations (also known as Construction Documents and Plans Review); Codes and Standards; and Characteristics of Building Construction. The Rulemaking Process On November 5, 2015, the Department held the first of a series of rule workshops and “listening sessions” as it began the process for making changes in the certification program for fire safety inspectors.1 These workshops and listening sessions were held on November 5, 2015; July 10, 2016; November 10, 2016; January 17, 2017; August 8, 2018; November 8, 2018; and October 29, 2019. As described by Mark Harper, who is now the assistant superintendent of the Bureau of Fire Standards and Training at the Florida State Fire College, the Bureau conducted the first few listening sessions to hear the industry’s view on what changes were needed, followed by drafting proposed rule language and conduct of rule workshops. 1 Curiously, neither party introduced the notices for any of these workshops or listening sessions, so how notice was provided to interested persons wanting to give input on possible changes cannot be determined. The first workshop/listening session was conducted on November 5, 2015, in Palm Beach Gardens, and was moderated by Mark Harper. At this workshop, a variety of comments were received regarding the quality of the existing program and the quality of the fire safety inspectors being certified. Those comments included the need for more field training and more hours of instruction; suggested use of a “task book” in training; the view that classes should be taught by more experienced inspectors, not just people who have passed the classes; and the need for more practical training. The view was expressed by at least one attendee that the quality and method of delivery needed to be examined, and that Codes and Standards and Construction Documents and Plans Review should not be taught online. In December 2015, Tony Apfelbeck, the Fire Marshal for Altamonte Springs, provided to Mr. Harper proposed draft revisions to chapter 69A-39, which included increasing the number of training hours to 315 hours (as opposed to the 200 hours required by section 633.216), and requiring use of a task book, as well as other changes. The draft did not include any language regarding course methodology in terms of classroom, online, or blended format classes. At the next workshop, held July 10, 2016, a draft proposal was provided to the audience, but it is not clear whether the draft provided is the one Mr. Apfelbeck suggested or something else. Concerns were expressed regarding the implementation of the use of a task book, and at least one speaker speaking against the suggested changes opined that the changes suggested in the draft would cost more money. Another commented that increasing the hours may not help the issue. Instead, there should be a greater emphasis on the quality of the educational delivery, and that instruction needed to be tied more closely to field work. Late in the workshop, comments were made regarding online and classroom delivery, and it was suggested that some classes should not be held online. While the drafts that were provided at the various workshops are not in the record, at some point, language was added that would require two of the five courses for fire safety certification, i.e., Codes and Standards and Construction Documents and Plans Review, be taught in a traditional classroom setting only. The subject of online classes was discussed more thoroughly at the next workshop held November 10, 2016. During this workshop, there were comments both in favor of and against the use of online classes. While the speakers cannot always be identified from the recordings of the workshops, some attendees stated that some of the online providers were doing a really good job, and the concern was raised that if online classes were eliminated, it might be an exchange of convenience for quality.2 At least one person expressed the opinion that the speaker was not a fan of online classes, and Mr. Harper suggested that blended learning might be a way to meet some of the concerns expressed, and that the method of delivery would be up to the institution. Others who participated in the workshop spoke highly of blended classes. The remaining workshops also had discussions regarding the online class change, as well as other changes in the proposed rule. Opinions were voiced on both sides of the issue. The primary source of comments seeking a traditional classroom setting only were fire marshals at various municipalities around the state concerned about the need for “hands-on” training and the current lack of preparation encountered with new staff. On July 10, 2019, the Department filed a Notice of Proposed Rules for rules 69A-39.003, 39.005, and 39.009. The proposed rule amendments included the following amendment to rule 69A-39.005(1)(b)2.d.: d. The courses “Codes and Standards” and “Construction Documents and Plans Review” 2 The identity of the speakers is not important, and the comments are not relayed for the truth of the statements made. They are listed simply to show that the Department heard several viewpoints during these listening sessions. required under this paragraph (1)(b) will only be approved by the Bureau when taught in a traditional classroom delivery method. No definition for “traditional classroom delivery method” is provided. On January 15, 2020, Respondent conducted a public hearing on the proposed rule. As was the case with the workshops, people voiced both support and opposition to the proposal to require a traditional classroom setting for the Codes and Standards and Construction Documents and Plans Review courses. Counsel for Petitioner appeared and spoke against the proposed language to eliminate online and blended learning for the two classes, and asked whether any type of data existed to support the change in the rule, or whether any type of study had been conducted to gauge the need for the change. Respondent’s representative stated that the proposed language was based upon “extensive testimony” from employers requesting the change. Counsel also asked that Respondent consider defining what is meant by traditional classroom delivery. No such definition has been added to the rule. The Notice of Proposed Rule does not include a Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs. Instead, it states: The Agency has determined that this will not have an adverse impact on small business or likely increase directly or indirectly regulatory costs in excess of $200,000 in the aggregate within one year after the implementation of the rule. A SERC has not been prepared by the Agency. The Agency has determined that the proposed rule is not expected to require legislative ratification based on the statement of regulatory costs or if no SERC is required, the information expressly relied upon and described herein: The Department’s economic analysis of the potential impact of the proposed rule amendments determined that there will be no adverse economic impact or increased regulatory costs that would require legislative ratification. Any person who wishes to provide information regarding a statement of estimated regulatory costs, or provide a proposal for a lower cost regulatory alternative must do so within 21 days of this Notice. Petitioner addressed the increased costs under the proposed rule during at least one of the workshops. There is no evidence, however, that Petitioner submitted, in writing, a proposal for a lower cost regulatory alternative within 21 days of the Notice of Proposed Rule. On January 27, 2020, Petitioner filed its Petition to Challenge Specific Changes to Proposed Rule 69A-39.005(1)(b)2.d. The Petition is timely filed. Current Online Providers and Course Review Process As of April 10, 2020, there are approximately 20 organizations approved by the Bureau of Fire Standards and Training that offer distance learning delivery for courses in programs leading to a certification pursuant to rule 69A-37.605. Of those providers, two are approved to teach Codes and Standards and three are approved to teach Construction Documents and Plans Review. In addition, as of June 1, 2020, there are 13 state colleges and/or universities in Florida also approved to provide distance learning. Of those, ten are approved to offer Codes and Standards, and ten are approved to offer Construction Documents and Plans Review. Petitioner has been approved to teach these two courses in a blended format since at least 2015. It also has articulation agreements with some educational institutions, including Waldorf University in Iowa, and Columbia Southern University in Alabama. The Department previously sought to take action against Ricky Rescue related to the type of courses taught, although the statutory basis for taking action against Ricky Rescue is not part of the evidence presented in this proceeding. The Consent Order entered to resolve the prior proceeding expressly provides, “Respondents agree that they will not offer any on-line courses until such time as they obtain approval from the Bureau, which will not be unreasonably withheld.” In order to be approved to teach any of the courses for certification in an online or blended format, a provider is required to go through an extensive review process. Initially, Respondent used a Quality Matters Higher Education Rubric to evaluate the courses a provider sought to offer. Course approvals initially took anywhere from four months to a year and a half to meet the standards and be approved. Respondent no longer uses the Quality Matters rubric, because it has transitioned to the accreditation process used by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. With this change, the length of time for class approvals has shortened considerably. Susan Schell used to be the Department’s Training Programs Manager and was in charge of the review and approval of classes for online learning. She has since moved on to another position within the Department. Ms. Schell would take the submitted course herself, view the different videos and discussion boards, and work through some of the projects, as well as review some of the case discussions and questions. Ricky Rescue’s courses that she reviewed met all of the state requirements to be approved. According to Ms. Schell, classes taught in the traditional format did not go through the same review process. Ricky Rescue’s accreditation verification from AdvancED Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Council on Accreditation and School Improvement indicated that Ricky Rescue’s accreditation was confirmed on March 31, 2017, for a five-year term expiring June 30, 2022. There is no credible dispute regarding whether Ricky Rescue complies with the requirements for offering its courses in a blended format. The report of the external review team prepared by AdvancED Education, Inc., noted that the school’s website is exemplary and stated in its conclusions: Once a month, students attend a day on site blended learning instruction where students can collaborate and complete and present projects. Given that the owners are brother fire fighters, there is a genuine feeling of camaraderie and collegiality. It is apparent to the Team that the Ricky Rescue Training Academy is an ideal institutional opportunity to obtain classes for firefighter training and certification classes. … The school has embraced the continuous improvement model to insure that they continue to deliver high quality online educational programs with rigor, relevance, and fidelity. Two Different Views Petitioner and Respondent approached the proposed rule amendment, both at the workshops and public hearing conducted by the Department and at the hearing in this proceeding, from different perspectives. Ricky Rescue focused on the needs and opinions of students seeking to take the courses. Its witnesses testified that the blended courses had significant substantive content; that the in-person component gave the necessary opportunity for completion of group projects and hands-on instruction or field trips; and that the ability to complete the course at any time during a 30-day period was essential in terms of both costs and scheduling for the student, and completing the classes while managing job and family responsibilities. For example, Ryan Russell has worked for over ten years in the fire service and is a battalion chief for the Haines City Fire Department. He has a variety of certifications and oversaw the training division for his department. Mr. Ryan has taken five courses from Ricky Rescue, and speaks highly of them. Mr. Ryan agrees that there are some advantages to traditional classroom settings, because they provide more opportunities for engagement, but that ultimately, a class is only as good as the instructor. Similarly, Robert Morgan is also a battalion chief at another fire department, and took Documents and Plans Review from Ricky Rescue. Mr. Morgan believed that the online blended course is just as good as a traditional classroom setting, and believes that in the blended setting, a student has to work harder than just sitting at the back of the classroom. Both men spoke of the convenience and accessibility that online learning provides that a traditional classroom does not. Matthew Trent also testified in favor of the availability of online and blended courses. Mr. Trent has a master’s degree in public administration and is a Ph.D. student in public policy administration. He is also a certified state firefighter II; pump operator; Fire Officer I, II, III, and IV; fire inspector I and II; fire investigator I; and fire life safety educator I. About half of Mr. Trent’s certifications have been based on classes taken online, and all of his classes for his masters’ and doctoral degrees have been online. Mr. Trent felt both courses at issue could be taught in an online format, and stated that both as a student and as an instructor, it is up to the student to choose the delivery method by which they want to learn. If not for online learning, he would not have been able to accomplish nearly as much in his professional life, because distance learning gives the student the ability to work around other responsibilities. The Department, on the other hand, was influenced more heavily by (and sought information from) the fire safety officials across the state who employ fire safety inspectors. Many of those officials spoke at the public workshops and some testified at hearing. The major concern voiced by these officials was that new fire safety inspectors certified by the state were not really prepared to do their job. Although most acknowledged that some on the job training would always be necessary to deal with local codes and ordinances that are not part of the state curriculum, they felt that new inspectors did not have a good grasp of the concepts necessary to be effective, especially with respect to the skills taught in the classes at issue in this case. For example, Anthony Apfelbeck is the Director of the Building and Fire Safety Department for the City of Altamonte Springs. He has worked in that department for approximately 20 years and served as Fire Marshal for a significant portion of his tenure there, and served in other cities as well. Mr. Apfelbeck has an impressive array of certifications and currently supervises approximately eight fire safety inspectors. He attended almost all of the workshops and was an active participant. Mr. Apfelbeck testified that he concurred with the State Fire Marshal’s Association that both classes should be offered only in a traditional classroom environment. He stated that there is a limited period of time to get someone trained and certified as a fire safety inspector, and he has seen some of the deficiencies in the current training. In his view, requiring these two classes to be given in a traditional classroom environment allows the instructor to keep the student engaged, and to get into critical thinking with probing questions and real-life examples. Instructors can have interactions with students that address issues the students may be having in the students’ jurisdictions, and read the body language of the students to gauge involvement. He also spoke of the ability to develop relationships with other individuals in the class and develop a peer group within that body. Mr. Apfelback has used the virtual environment extensively during the COVID-19 pandemic, and does not feel that it has the spontaneity and free- flow of information that a traditional classroom affords. Mr. Apfelbeck has not taken any of Ricky Rescue’s classes, and does not know what it has done to make sure its students get 200 hours of education. Likewise, he is not aware of the review Ricky Rescue went through to get its courses approved. He stated, correctly, that the rule is not written specifically about Ricky Rescue’s programs. It is written for all educational programs that are provided pursuant to this rule. Michael Tucker is the assistant superintendent for the State Fire Marshal’s Office. His experience includes serving as battalion chief for the Reedy Creek Improvement District (i.e., Disney) for 13 years, and serving as the Chief of the Fire Department for the Villages for 13 years. He has taught fire safety classes both in the classroom setting and online. While at Reedy Creek, he was the training officer responsible for providing training to fire inspectors, firefighters, paramedics, and EMTs. Mr. Tucker believes that the two classes addressed in the proposed rule are very intricate classes with a lot of detail. He believes that the traditional environment gives more opportunity for students to get hands-on instruction and have more interaction with the instructor. He acknowledged that there is a possibility that fees could increase under the proposed rule, but thinks that the increased cost is outweighed by the value that employers would get when they hire people trained in a classroom setting. Cheryl Edwards is the Fire Marshal for the City of Lakeland, and her views regarding traditional versus online learning are similar to those already expressed. She believes that the traditional classroom environment promotes collaborative learning and enhances critical thinking skills, through live discussions, and the need to think on your feet. She also felt that in person, an instructor is better able to gauge students’ learning styles and provide activities and modalities for all to learn, regardless of learning style. Ms. Edwards believes that the traditional classroom setting allows for more “teachable moments,” and guided practice before a student has to put that knowledge into use. Finally, David Abernathy is the Fire Chief of the City of Satellite Beach and has worked with the City for 35 years. Mr. Abernathy has an impressive list of certifications and has taught all five of the courses necessary for fire safety inspector certification, but has never taught them in an online or blended learning format. Mr. Abernathy believes that for these two courses there is a benefit to the traditional classroom setting. He believes that both classes need a hands-on approach to be the most effective. Mr. Abernathy also believes that requiring these two courses to be taught in a traditional classroom setting will cost more, but as an employer is more willing to pay for it than for online classes. Mark Harper testified that during the workshops, the Department wanted to hear from everyone, because all would be impacted by the changes. However, he believes that there is a heavier weight of responsibility on employers as opposed to students, because they are the ones trying to fill positions, and they are the ones having to deal with additional costs occasioned by failures in training. As a practical matter, employers are more cognizant of the potential liability jurisdictions face when a fire safety inspector, who looks at everything from mom and pop businesses to industrial sites with large containers of hazardous materials, is not adequately trained. The decision to go forward with the proposed rule amendment requiring a traditional classroom delivery method with respect to Codes and Standards and Construction Documents and Plans Review is based on the feedback received through the workshop process. It is not based on data. The Department does not track how students who took certification classes online or in a blended format score on the certification examination as opposed to students who took the same classes in a traditional setting. It would be difficult to collect that type of data, because there is no requirement that a student take all five courses the same way. In preparation for the hearing in this case, the Department conducted a survey of employers regarding their views on traditional versus distance learning. The Florida Fire Marshals and Inspectors Association distributed the survey to its members, and of the 358 addressees, 114 responded. There was no evidence to indicate that the Department attempted to survey people taking the classes. The questions asked in the survey were quite limited, and frankly, provide no guidance because they provide only two alternatives, and do not address blended learning formats at all. There are three questions, and they are as follows, with the responses in parentheses: Is there is current need to increase the proficiency of newly certified Firesafety Inspectors in Florida? Yes (59.65%) No (16.67%) Neutral opinion (12.68%) When a prospective Firesafety Inspector attends a Codes and Standards class, which class setting would produce a more proficient inspector? Traditional classroom delivery method (71.17%) Online (distance learning ) delivery method (9.91%) Neutral opinion (18.92%) When a prospective Firesafety Inspector attends a Construction Documents and Plans Review Class, which class setting would produce a more proficient instructor? Traditional classroom (76.32%) Online (7.02%) Neutral opinion (16.67%) Questions two and three assume that one format must be better than the other, rather than allowing for the possibility of equivalency. Had there been some recognition of a blended learning format, the answers might be different. The survey was informative in terms of the comments that were provided by the respondents. Similar to the views expressed at the workshops, there were strong opinions both in favor of limiting the classes to the traditional setting, and strong opinions advocating for the option of online learning. Petitioner presented information related to the increased costs that will be incurred should the rule go in effect. Those costs include the need for space rental for five-day periods in order to teach in multiple locations; the costs related to conversion of the material to a classroom setting versus online; and the need to pay instructors for more days each time the course is taught. It does not appear from the evidence presented that Ricky Rescue would experience increased costs of $200,000 in one year. However, Ricky Rescue is just one provider, and section 120.54 speaks in terms of an increase in costs in the aggregate, meaning as a whole. It is not known whether the other approved providers who teach these two courses will continue to do so should the rule be amended to require a classroom setting. It is also unknown what types of costs would be borne by state colleges and universities in order to recast the courses for traditional classroom settings. Finally, the litigants to this proceeding were well aware that this rule was being developed and was noticed as a proposed rule before the world began to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic. It is open to speculation whether some of the impetus to require a traditional classroom setting would have changed in light of the changes society has had to make over the last six months. Department employees were questioned regarding the Fire College’s response to the pandemic, and both Mark Harper and Michael Tucker testified about the precautions being taken on the campus to insure safety, such as taking temperatures, having students complete a questionnaire regarding possible exposure, limiting the number of students per class, and spacing people six feet apart to maintain effective social distancing. Mr. Tucker testified that they would be ready to postpone some classes until they could be taught safely in person. When asked whether Respondent would consider postponing the effective date of the proposed rule, he indicated “that would be something we would have to take into consideration, and again, the feedback from our constituents, but if it became necessary, then we would consider it.”
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Department of Financial Services, Division of State Fire Marshal (the Department), properly administered and graded the Firefighter Minimum Standards practical examination taken by Petitioner, Catalina Williams (hereinafter Williams).
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility for testing, monitoring and certifying firefighters. The Department conducts certification examinations at the Florida State Fire College in Ocala, Florida, and some thirty-plus other sites around the State. Those sites are located on college campuses, training facilities, fire stations, and other locales. The test at issue in this proceeding was administered at the Fire College site. Catalina Williams is an Hispanic woman who desires to become a certified firefighter. Her interest in firefighting began when she worked as a photographer covering fire-related events for a magazine and thought it would be exciting and interesting to be on “the front line.” Williams has also served as a caregiver, giving her experience in providing assistance to others, and is a certified lifeguard. In order to accomplish her goal of becoming a firefighter, Williams entered into schooling to learn the trade. Williams first attended First Coast Technological College (First Coast) in 2009. She completed the Firefighter Minimum Basic Standards Course (Firefighter I) that year. In 2010, she enrolled at the school for the summer semester to begin training in the advanced (Firefighter II) curriculum. That school term was shorter and more compressed than a regular semester. Despite her best efforts, Williams did not successfully complete the Firefighter II course. Rochford was one of her instructors during her first unsuccessful enrollment at First Coast. In 2012, Williams entered First Coast again. At that time, she was working as a paid volunteer firefighter for Volusia County. The county paid her tuition costs at First Coast when Williams entered the school for the Firefighter II course work. The second time, Williams was able to successfully complete the course material and pass her final examination. Passing the final examination was a prerequisite to taking the State certification exam. While attending First Coast, Williams took hundreds of practice exams, especially on the practical portions of the tests. She took exams as part of her classes, took exams voluntarily with someone timing her, and took exams just to practice. The State Certification Exam There are four primary segments of the State certification exam: A written examination of 100 multiple choice questions; A hose evolution involving a self- contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) and personal protection equipment (PPE); A ladder/search and rescue evolution; and A skills portion, involving ropes and knots, two fire ground skills, and a short test on the emergency response guide (ERG). The ladder/search and rescue evolution is a practical portion of the exam; it is the singular portion of the test at issue in this proceeding and will be referred to as the ladder evolution. The ladder evolution portion consists of the following tasks and assignments: The candidate inspects ladders hanging on a simulated fire truck. He or she then takes a 24-foot ladder from the truck and extends it against the wall of a building up to the second floor. Once that ladder is properly hoisted, the candidate confirms that a ladder guard (another candidate acting as a spotter) has control of the ladder. The candidate then initiates radio contact and then walks quickly around the building to another ladder that is already in place. He/she must ascend the ladder to the second floor, test the floor inside the building to make sure it is safe, and enter the building through a window. Upon entry the candidate must find a “victim” (a 125-pound mannequin) on the lower floor, secure the victim in an approved manner, and then exit the building with the mannequin. Upon exit, the candidate must safely deposit the victim on the ground and provide notice by way of radio contact that he/she and the victim are outside the building. The radio transmission is something along the lines of: “PAR 2 [Personnel Accountability Reporting, two people]. Firefighter No. “X” and victim have safely exited the building.” The entire ladder evolution sequence must be done within four minutes and 30 seconds although, as will be discussed below, there are differences of opinion as to when the timed portion of the evolution ends. It is necessary for candidates taking the test to pass each of the four sections. Failure of any one portion would result in failure overall. Should a candidate fail the examination, they must reschedule their retest within six months of the failed test. All retest examinations are administered at the Fire College. On test day, there may be dozens of applicants taking the test at the same time. The procedure dictates that candidates arrive at the test facility in time to process paperwork prior to the 7:30 a.m., test commencement. Candidates must first provide identification to an instructor and be assigned a candidate number. They then fill out paperwork, including a waiver should any injuries occur during testing. Candidates will have their gear inspected to make sure it is in compliance with State standards. Prior to commencement of testing, one of the instructors or examiners will read a document called the “Minimum Standards Pre-Exam Orientation” (the Orientation) to the candidates. During the reading of the Orientation, which may take 45 minutes to an hour or more, candidates are allowed and encouraged to ask questions. Unless a question is asked, the Orientation will be read verbatim, word for word, with no additional comment. After the Orientation is read, candidates are walked through the facility so they can familiarize themselves with the test site. Once the test commences, candidates are not allowed to ask any questions. Williams’ Test Experience In October 2012, after successful completion of the Firefighter II course at First Coast, Williams applied for and was approved to take the State certification examination. The exam was conducted at First Coast on the school’s training grounds. The test was conducted by certified employees of the Department. Williams did not pass the examination. One of her shortcomings in that test was a failure in the ladder evolution. Her timed completion of that evolution was in excess of the required time of four minutes and 30 seconds. Williams had been confident she would pass the certification exam because it was similar to the final exam she had passed at First Coast during her schooling. She believes she failed because she was too nervous when she took the exam when it was administered as the actual State certification test. After failing the exam, Williams then applied for a retest which would be held at the Fire College on February 7, 2013. That re-test is the focus of the instant proceeding. On the morning of the retest, Williams arrived well in advance of the 7:30 a.m., start time. As she inspected her gear in anticipation of the start of the exam, she found that the SCBA regulator she was supposed to use did not properly fit the face mask on her helmet. There were extra regulators behind one of the tables being used to process applicants for that day’s test. Examiner Harper was sitting at that table and was providing paperwork to applicants who had already signed in at the first processing station. Williams went to Harper’s table and was allowed to obtain a new regulator. Inasmuch as she was already at Harper’s table getting her replacement regulator before going to the first processing station, Williams went ahead and filled out the paperwork Harper was providing to candidates at his processing station. That is, she filled out the paperwork before actually checking in at the first station. Williams then went to the first check-in table which was manned by Examiner Rochford. She provided her identification to Rochford and was assigned candidate number 37. Rochford then told Williams to go to Harper’s table to fill out the paperwork at that station. Williams told Rochford she had already done so and walked away. (At that point, Williams remembers Rochford yelling at her, asking whether she understood his order and telling her in a harsh manner to obey him. Rochford does not remember talking to Williams at all. Neither version of this alleged confrontation is persuasive. Inasmuch as the conversation was not verified one way or another by a third person -- although there were probably a number of other people around, it will not be considered to have happened for purposes of this Recommended Order.) The Orientation was then read to the candidates. The various portions of the test were addressed in the Orientation. The ladder evolution contained the following language, which Rochford read verbatim to the candidates without anything added or deleted: “Time starts when you touch anything. Time ends when the candidate and victim fully exit the building.” There is no evidence that any of the candidates asked a question concerning this part of the Orientation. Rochford’s timing policy regarding the ladder evolution differs from what he read to the candidates. He takes the position that time stops when the candidate exits the building with the victim, places the victim on the ground in an appropriate manner, and issues a verbal statement into the radio indicating that the firefighter and victim are out of the building. By his own admission, Rochford could not speak to how other examiners handle this timing issue. Harper, who was Williams’ assigned examiner on the test, also seemed to require candidates to lay the victim down and make radio contact before stopping the time. Neither Rochford nor Harper satisfactorily explained why their timing policy was different from what was stated in the orientation. The testimony concerning the correct way of timing the evolution was, at best, confusing. The following statements from the record provide contradictory and disparate opinions by various examiners: Rochford: “As soon as they lay the mannequin on the ground [and] announce they have exited the building . . . the time stops.” Tr. p. 45, lines 9-18 “The mannequin’s feet have got to be outside the plane from the door opening. That’s when the time stops.” Id. Lines 23- 25. “Until they talk on the radio is – - when they finish talking on the radio is when the time would stop.” Tr. p. 255, lines 7-9. Johnson: “At that point, they’ll use one of the prescribed methods for rescue to take the victim and themselves past the threshold out to the fresh air. At that point, the time stops.” Tr. p. 111, lines 11-14 “I read [the Orientation] word for word.” Tr. p. 114, line 23 “On the ladder rescue evolution . . . we [examiners] all stop when they pass the threshold.” Harper: “Then they’re told to lay the victim down, make radio contact you’re out of the building. Time stops.” Tr. p. 138, lines 7-8 “After they make radio contact.” Tr. p. 147, line 3 “[Orientation] says time starts when they touch anything, time ends when the candidate and the victim fully exit the building.” Tr. P. 148, lines 15-17 Hackett: “It stops when the victim comes out of the building.” Tr. p. 222, lines 7-8 [If the victim was thrown out of the building by the firefighter] “I think they would stop the clock.” Id., lines 9-11 “It is part of the timed part that they have to designate that they’re out of the building safely and lay down the victim.” Tr. pp. 222, line 24 through 223, line 1 Question to Hackett: “If [Williams] is coming out and she dropped the victim and picked up -- and presumably picked it up or whatever and then radioed, would that add time?” Answer: “No.” Tr. p. 246, lines 5- 10 Williams was timed by Harper when she took the ladder evolution portion of the exam. According to Harper’s (deposition) testimony, he subscribes to the version of timing that requires the victim to be laid down on the ground and the firefighter to make radio contact. Using that version of timing, Williams received a time of four minutes and 35 seconds for the entire ladder evolution portion of the test. In March, the Department mailed out notices to all the candidates that had tested on February 7. Notices of failure were sent by registered mail, return receipt requested. Williams’ letter was returned to the Department as unclaimed. Williams at some point in time found out from Chief McElroy, head of the Fire Academy, that she had purportedly failed the exam. She began calling examiner Harper in March seeking to find out what portion of the exam she had not successfully completed. She had at least two telephone conversations with Harper in March 2013. On April 4, 2013, the Department re-sent the failure letter to Williams, again by certified mail. This time, the letter was claimed by Williams and she became officially aware that she had not passed the exam. The basis given for Williams’ failure was that she did not complete the ladder evolution within the prescribed time parameters. She was timed at four minutes and 35 seconds, just five seconds beyond the allowable limit. It is her contention that she exited the building with the victim within the four minute/30 second time frame. The basis for her belief is that she has done the test so many times that she knows when she is behind schedule. During the test she did not stumble, drop any equipment, or have any other problem that would have added to her time. So, she concludes, she must have completed the evolution timely. Her personal feelings on the matter, without further corroboration or support, are not persuasive. Harper did not testify at final hearing. The transcript of his deposition taken in this case was admitted into evidence. In that transcript, Harper talks about his policy regarding timing of the evolution. His policy is the same as Rochford’s and is discussed above. He does not specifically say if he employed that policy when timing Williams during her test on February 7, 2013. He does not explain the difference between the Orientation statement about timing and his personal policy. The most persuasive evidence at final hearing established that it would have taken ten to 15 seconds after exiting the building to lay the victim down and make radio contact. The radio contact itself would have taken about four seconds. If Harper had stopped his timing when Williams and the victim broke the threshold of the building, her time would have likely been less than four minutes and 30 seconds. If he used his personal timing policy, then the time of four minutes/35 seconds was probably accurate. Harper deducted points from Williams’ score because of other minor mistakes. The totality of those points would not have caused Williams to fail the test. It was the ladder evolution time that caused the failure. In fact, Williams successfully completed all portions of the re-test except for the timing issue in the ladder evolution portion.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Financial Services, Division of State Fire Marshal, rescinding the failing score on the State Firefighter Certification Examination for Catalina Williams and certifying her as a Firefighter. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of November, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 19th day of November, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Seth D. Corneal, Esquire The Corneal Law Firm 904 Anastasia Boulevard St. Augustine, Florida 32080 Michael Davidson, Esquire Department of Financial Services Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Department of Financial Services Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390
The Issue The issues are: (1) whether Respondent properly scored Petitioner's retake of the Practical Examination for Firefighter Retention; and (2) whether Petitioner's application for firefighter recertification was properly denied.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has worked in the fire service for almost 28 years. During that time, Petitioner served as the assistant fire marshal and the fire marshal for the City of Orlando. After Petitioner retired from the City of Orlando, he served as fire chief, building official, and code enforcer officer of Eatonville, Florida. After more than a three-year time period of not working as a firefighter or in the fire service field, Petitioner accepted a job as fire marshal in Hillsborough County, Florida. Although there is no legal requirement that a fire marshal be certified as a firefighter, a condition of Petitioner's employment with Hillsborough County was that he be recertified as a firefighter. In Florida, a firefighter retains his firefighter certification if he remains an active firefighter with an organized fire department. However, a firefighter who has not been active for a period of three years must successfully complete the Retention Examination in order to retain his certification. The Retention Examination is the practical portion of the examination given to new applicants. Because Petitioner has not been an active firefighter for the past three years, in order to be recertified as a firefighter, he was required to successfully complete the Retention Examination. The Retention Examination consists of the following four parts: Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus ("SCBA"), Hose Operations, Ladder Operations, and Fireground Skills. To pass the Retention Examination, a candidate must achieve a score of at least 70 percent on each part. Petitioner applied for and took the Retention Examination that was given on May 16, 2007. He successfully completed the Fireground Skills part, but did not earn a passing score on the SCBA, the Hose Operations, and the Ladder Operations parts.2/ Petitioner applied for and took the September 13, 2007, Retention Examination re-test. During this re-test, Petitioner took only the SCBA, the Hose Operations, and the Ladder Operations parts, the ones that he had not successfully completed in May 2007. Petitioner passed the Hose Operations part of the Retention Examination re-test, but did not successfully complete the SCBA and the Ladder Operations parts, because he did not complete those components within the maximum allotted time. Each part of the Retention Examination has certain elements or skills that are graded. The SCBA and the Ladder Operations parts of the Retention Examination are each comprised of eleven skills or steps that the examinee must complete within the specified time. Ten of the 11 skills or steps for each part of the Retention Examination are assigned a point value of ten.3/ The other skill (the 11th skill or step) under each part is designated as a "mandatory step" for which the examinee is awarded a score of either "pass" or "fail".4/ Under the scoring system described in paragraph 10, an examinee receives ten points for each of the ten skills he successfully completes and a passing score for the one skill designated as mandatory. The SCBA and Ladder Operations parts of the Retention Examination have an established maximum time allotted for the examinee to complete a minimum of 70 percent of the skills. The time requirements are a mandatory criterion/requirement. In order to successfully complete the Retention Examination, an individual must not only complete a minimum of 70 percent of the ten skills or steps for each part, but he must also successfully complete the two mandatory criteria for that part. If an examinee completes a minimum of 70 percent of the skills in a particular part, but fails to do so within the maximum allotted time specified for that part, he has not met the mandatory time requirement and, thus, is not awarded any points for that part. The Division established the minimum time requirements for completing the various parts of the practical examination for firefighters after consulting the NFPA standards and soliciting input from fire departments, fire chiefs, and other individuals in firefighter profession. Among the factors that were considered in establishing the minimum time frames were the nature of fires (i.e., how quickly they spread) and the need for firefighters to perform their job duties both safely and quickly. The Division uses these time requirements in testing the 3,500 to 3,800 firefighters a year that go through the testing process. On the September 13, 2007, re-test, Petitioner exceeded the maximum time allotted for the SCBA and the Ladder Operations parts. The maximum time allotted for completion of the SCBA part of the Retention Examination is one minute and 45 seconds. Petitioner's completion time on the September 2007 Retention Examination re-test was three minutes and ten seconds. The maximum time allotted on the Ladder Operations part of the Retention Examination is two minutes and 45 seconds. Petitioner's completion time on the September 2007 Retention Examination re-test was three minutes and ten seconds. Because Petitioner failed to complete a minimum of 70 percent of the skills in the SCBA and the Ladder Operations parts of the Retention Examination within the maximum time allotted, the Bureau properly awarded him no points. Therefore, Petitioner did not earn a passing score on the Retention Examination re-test. As a result of Petitioner's failing to pass the Retention Examination, his Firefighter Certificate of Compliance No. 3381 expired as of September 13, 2007. The Division's Bureau of Fire Standards and Training ("Bureau of Standards") employs field representatives to administer the Retention Examination to examinees in accordance with the applicable rules and procedures. Philip D. Oxendine is and has been a field representative with the Bureau of Standards for four years. As a field representative, Mr. Oxendine administers and scores the minimum standards examination for firefighters, including the Retention Examination. Prior to being employed as a field representative, Petitioner worked as a firefighter for 27 years, having retired as a lieutenant. He also has ten years of experience as an instructor in the fire science division of the then South Technical Institution in Palm Beach County, Florida. Mr. Oxendine administered and scored the three parts of the Retention Examination re-test that Petitioner took on September 13, 2007, in accordance with the Division's procedures. All examinees at the September 17, 2007, Retention Examination re-test location, were assigned a number. In an effort to avoid bias, throughout the testing process, examinees' assigned numbers were used instead of their names. On the day of the Retention Examination re-test, Petitioner was assigned a number by which he was identified. When Mr. Oxendine administered and scored Petitioner's re-test, he did not know Petitioner's name or anything about him. Prior to Petitioner's starting the Retention Examination re-test, Mr. Oxendine took Petitioner and other examinees to each station and told them what they had to do at that station. Mr. Oxendine also told the examinees, including Petitioner, how each part of the Retention Examination would be graded.5/ Mr. Oxendine's usual practice is to instruct examinees to touch the apparatus when they are ready for time to begin on a particular part of the examination. He also gives specific instructions to the examinees regarding how they should indicate that they have completed each part. Once an examinee touches the apparatus and says he is ready to begin, Mr. Oxendine starts the stop watch. Mr. Oxendine instructed the examinees to indicate that they had completed the SCBA part by standing up and clapping their hands. The examinees were told that the Ladder Operations part was considered completed when they were behind the ladder and holding it and when they announced that the ladder was ready to be climbed. Mr. Oxendine used the procedures described in paragraph 30 in timing Petitioner on the three parts of the Retention Examination re-test. Mr. Oxendine timed Petitioner's performance on each part of the Retention Examination re-test using a stop watch. This is the method that Mr. Oxendine was trained to use when timing the examinees' performances on the practical portion of the examination. An individual is allowed to re-take the Retention Examination one time. If the person does not pass the re-test, he must repeat the Firefighter Minimum Recruit Training Program before he is eligible to re-take the Retention Examination. See § 633.352, Fla. Stat., and Fla. Admin. Code R. 69A-37.0527. As noted above, Petitioner did not pass the SCBA and the Ladder Operations parts of the Retention Examination re- test. Therefore, before he is eligible to re-take that examination, he must repeat the Firefighter Minimum Recruit Training Program. Petitioner failed to establish that he was entitled to a passing grade for his performance on the Retention Examination re-test. The greater weight of the credible evidence established that Petitioner's performance on the Retention Examination re-test was appropriately and fairly graded.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order denying Petitioner's application to retain his certification as a firefighter in the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of May, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 20th day of May, 2008.
The Issue The issue is whether Florida Administrative Code Rules 69A- 62.001, 69A-62.003, 69A-62.006, and 69A-62.007, constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority as defined in Sections 120.52(8)(d), 120.52(8)(e), and 120.52(8)(f), Florida Statutes (2004).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is and, at all times material to this case, was a volunteer firefighter. The size of the volunteer firefighter population is dependent on the ability of volunteer fire departments to attract and keep volunteers. People are willing to volunteer as firefighters if the experience is rewarding, training is not excessive, and conflict is minimized. However, the greater weight of the evidence indicates that the subject rules do not detract from the volunteer experience, impose excessive training, or create between conflict between professional and volunteer firefighters. Petitioner testified that a reduction in volunteer population will result in increased hazards to volunteers and a reduction in the delivery of services to citizens. This testimony is not persuasive for two reasons. First, there is no persuasive testimony that the subject rules will result in a reduction of the number of volunteer firefighters. Second, the most persuasive evidence indicates that the subject rules will reduce hazards to volunteers without impairing the delivery of services to Floridians. Some labor unions that represent career firefighters discourage their members from volunteering their services with volunteer fire departments. The competition between the unions and the volunteer fire departments is commonly referred to as the "turf-war." There is no persuasive evidence that the subject rules contribute to the tension between the two groups of firefighters. The firefighter labor unions are usually very active in the political arena. It is undisputed that the unions support legislation that benefits their members. However, the subject rules were not promulgated to eliminate or place hardships on volunteer fire departments and volunteer firefighters. The safety needs and concerns of firefighters have evolved over time. Technology has improved firefighting equipment to such an extent that the greatest threat to firefighters is from heart attacks and transportation accidents. Nevertheless, the fact that the subject rules focus on safety enhancement at the scene of a fire instead of firefighter health and transportation safety does not render them invalid. Florida Administrative Code Rule 69A-62.003 provides as follows in pertinent part: (3) With respect to 29 C.F.R. Section 1910.134(g)(4), the two individuals located outside the immediately dangerous to life and health atmosphere may be assigned to an additional role, such as incident commander, pumper operator, engineer, or driver, so long as such individual is able to immediately perform assistance or rescue activities without jeopardizing the safety or health of any firefighter working at an incident. (a)1. Except as provided in subparagraphs 2., 3., and 4., no firefighter or any other person under the authority of the firefighter employer at the scene of a fire is permitted to participate in any operation involving two-in, two-out as one of the two or more persons inside the IDLH atmosphere or as one of the two or more persons outside of the IDLH atmosphere unless such firefighter or other person at the scene of a fire is certified in this state by the division as a Firefighter I or a Firefighter II, as established in subsections (1) and (2) of Rule 69A-37.055, F.A.C. Such training shall consist of the training described in subsection (6) of Rule 69A-37.055, F.A.C. This requirement specifically applies to volunteer fire departments and volunteer firefighters but is also applicable to any other person working under the authority of the Firefighter Employer at the scene of a fire. 2.a. A volunteer firefighter who possesses the State Basic Volunteer certificate previously issued by the division is exempt from the Firefighter I and Firefighter II requirement in subparagraph 1. The training encompassed in the basic volunteer certificate in itself may not meet “trained commensurate to duty” as defined depending upon duties or tasks assigned or undertaken in the exclusionary zone. A volunteer firefighter who provides evidence of having completed curriculum equivalent to the Florida Firefighter I course of study as provided in subsection 69A-37.055(6), F.A.C., prior to January 1, 2004, is exempt from the Firefighter I and Firefighter II requirement in subparagraph 1., if The fire chief or other chief administrative officer of the fire department of which the firefighter is a member files with the State Fire Marshal form DFS-K4-1594, “Firefighter I Training Exemption Application,” which is hereby adopted and incorporated by reference, and The said form is accepted by the State Fire Marshal after confirmation of the evidence provided. Form DFS-K4-1594 may be obtained by writing the Bureau of Fire Standards and Training, 11655 Northwest Gainesville Road, Ocala, Florida 34482-1486. Any volunteer exempted by sub- subparagraph a.or b. is permitted to take the Florida Firefighter I examination until December 31, 2005, upon the completion and filing with the division of form DFS-K4- 1380, “Firefighter I Training Record,” Rev. 03/00, adopted in Rule 69A-37.039, F.A.C., by a Florida certified instructor that verifies equivalent training and demonstration of competency. The above-referenced rule sets forth ways that a firefighter, trained prior to the current regulations, may keep his or her interior-firefighter status without becoming certified as a Firefighter I or Firefighter II. The rule will not disqualify all previously qualified firefighters as long as they are "trained commensurate to duty" for any type of work they are requested to perform. There is no persuasive evidence that Florida Administrative Code Rule 69A-62.003(3)(a) will cause a reduction in the number of volunteer firefighters due to newly created administrative hurtles. The rule, which has its basis in safety enhancement, clearly is not arbitrary or damaging to the safety of volunteers. Florida Administrative Code Rule 69A-62.003(3)(a)4. states as follows: 4. Volunteer firefighters having NWCG S- 130, S-190, and Standards for Survival certification by the Florida Division of Forestry are permitted to participate in wild land fire suppression without the Firefighter I certification. The above-referenced rule allows a volunteer to fight wild-land fires without earning Firefighter I certification. The rule sets forth an exception to the Firefighter I certification requirement; it does not mandate that the NWCG courses are the exclusive means to qualify as a wild-land firefighter. Florida Administrative Code Rule 69A-62.003(3)4. is not invalid or arbitrary because it requires volunteers to pass training courses that are accepted as setting national standards or because the training courses teach firefighting techniques that are applicable across the nation as well as Florida. Petitioner presented no persuasive evidence to the contrary. Florida Administrative Code Rule 69A-62.006 states as follows: 69A-62.006 Requirements for Recognition as a Fire Department. To be recognized as an organized fire department by the division, compliance with the following must be documented: Capability of providing fire protection 24 hours a day, seven days a week; Responsibility for response in an area capable of being depicted on a map; and Staffing with a sufficient number of qualified firefighters who are employed full-time or part-time or serve as volunteers and who shall have successfully completed an approved basic firefighting course recognized by the Bureau of Fire Standards and Training. (2)(a) A fire department shall meet the requirements of the Insurance Services Office (ISO) for Class 9 Protection, the 2003 edition, the Fire Suppression Rating Schedule, effective February, 2003, which is hereby adopted and incorporated by reference and which may be obtained from Insurance Services Office (ISO), 545 Washington Blvd., Jersey City, NJ 07310-1686 or at www.iso.com. If the fire department does not meet the requirements of this section, the fire department shall submit a plan of compliance which provides for meeting these requirements within 90 days of the date of submission of the plan. ISO measures the major elements of a community’s fire-suppression system and develops a numerical grade ranging from 1 to 10. Class 1 represents the best public protection rating and Class 10 indicates no recognized protection. The requirements for ISO 9 may be obtained at the ISO website located at www.iso.com, or it may be obtained by writing to the Division of State Fire Marshal, Bureau of Fire Standards and Training, 11655 Northwest Gainesville Road, Ocala, Florida 34482-1486. Florida Administrative Code Rule 69A-62.006(1)(a) is not invalid because it requires fire departments to document their capability of providing fire protection 24 hours a day/seven days a week. The requirement for full-time availability will provide significant safety enhancement for the communities being served. This is true because some voluntary fire departments in rural communities historically have provided only part-time service. There is no persuasive evidence that requiring full- time fire protection will result in the following: (a) the creation of a fire-suppression performance standard that is unauthorized by law; (b) the closing of some volunteer fire departments; (c) a reduction in services to the public; and (d) uncorrectable rule-violations; an increase in conflict between professional and volunteer firefighters. Florida Administrative Code Rule 69A-62.006(1)(c) requires that each fire department be staffed with a sufficient number of qualified firefighters. The rule is not vague because it uses the word "sufficient" to determine the number of firefighters that are required. One must read the applicable rules in their entirety and consider the needs of each community to determine adequate staffing. There is no persuasive evidence that the staffing requirement fails to establish adequate standards for determining compliance. Florida Administrative Code Rule 69A-62.006(2) requires fire departments to meet certain requirements of the Insurance Services Office (ISO) for Class 9 protection. This requirement determines the minimum equipment that is necessary to safely fight a structure fire. There is no persuasive evidence that requiring a fire department to provide Class 9 protection will make it impossible to start a new voluntary fire department. The rule clearly is not arbitrary in setting this minimum standard. Florida Administrative Code Rule 69A-62.007(1) states as follows in pertinent part: 69A-62.007 Minimum Requirements for Class 9 Protection. To be considered for Class 9 protection, the following minimum facilities must be available: Organization: The fire department shall be organized on a permanent basis under applicable state or local laws. The organization shall include one person responsible for operation of the department, usually with the title of chief. The fire department must serve an area with definite boundaries. If a municipality is not served by a fire department solely operated by or for the governing body of that city, the fire department providing such service shall do so under a contract or resolution. When a fire department’s service area involves one or more jurisdictions, a contract shall be executed with each jurisdiction served. Membership: The department shall have a sufficient number of firefighters/members to assure the response of at least 4 firefighters/members that can assemble at the scene of a fire as contemplated by subsection (1) of Rule 69A-62.003, F.A.C., to be compliant with Rule 69A-62.003, F.A.C., the two-in, two-out rule. The fire chief may be one of the 4 responding firefighters/members. The above-referenced rule does require fire departments to have four "interior-qualified" firefighters at the scene of a structure fire. The requirement is necessary to comply with the longstanding "two-in, two-out" rule. However, the rule does not preclude a fire department from relying on mutual-aid from other fire departments in order to comply with the rule. The rule clearly is not vague. Florida Administrative Code Rule 69A-62.007(4)(a) states as follows in relevant part: (4)(a) The chief of any fire department that includes volunteer firefighters shall annually submit a Roster of Volunteer Firefighters to the State Fire Marshal utilizing form DFS-K4-1581, effective 05/04, which is hereby adopted and incorporated by reference, no later than June 30 of each year. Form DFS-K4-1581 may be obtained by contacting the Division of State Fire Marshal, Bureau of Fire Standards and Training, 11655 Northwest Gainesville Road, Ocala, Florida 34482-1486 or at the division’s website located at http://www.fldfs.com/SFM/. The roster shall include: The fire department name, The fire department identification number (FDID), The complete fire department address, The fire department contact person, telephone number and the fire department fax number, if any, The certification level for each firefighter reported and, if any equivalency exemption has been issued, the number of persons for whom such exemption has been issued, and The firefighter certification number, the issue date of the certification, the status of the certification, i.e., volunteer or career, and the status of each firefighter who has been issued an equivalency exemption, i.e., volunteer or career, if any. The above-referenced rule requires the chief of a fire department to submit an annual roster of volunteer firefighters. Petitioner objects to the rule because some career firefighters volunteer their off-duty hours with the local volunteer fire department. Career firefighters who also perform volunteer work may do so contrary to their union rules. Publication of the roster might keep some professional firefighters from volunteering their services. Nevertheless, there is no persuasive evidence that losing some speculative number of career/volunteer firefighters will undermine the safety of firefighters or the public. The information that the roster contains is a public record. The information is necessary so that Respondent can perform statutorily-mandated studies involving injuries to firefighters. The rule clearly is not arbitrary.
