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 is whether Respondent properly denied Petitioner's application for certification as a firefighter after Petitioner failed to successfully pass the practical portion of the Minimum Standards Examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner applied for certification as a firefighter in October 2002. In order to be certified, Petitioner was required to successfully complete the Minimum Standards Course. The course consists of taking a minimum of 360 hours of training at one of 30 certified centers in Florida. After completing the training course, Petitioner was required to take the Minimum Standards Examination, which is structured in two parts: a written portion and a practical portion. The practical portion consists of four sections or evolutions including the Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA), the hose pull, the ladder operation, and the fire skills section. To pass the four practical evolutions, an applicant must achieve a score of at least 70 percent on each one. Each evolution of the practical exam has certain elements or skills that are graded. The ladder test contains eleven skills and requires that the test be completed in not more than two minutes and forty-five seconds. The eleven skills for the ladder evolution include but are not limited to the following: ladder properly lifted, carried, (50 feet) and positioned for raise; maintains control of ladder during entire operation; extremities in safe position during entire operation; ladder halyard properly secured and proper safety applied; fly section extended without utilizing the wall; and fly section out and positioned correctly. After completing the Minimum Standards Course, Petitioner took the initial Minimum Standards Examination on February 19, 2003. Petitioner passed the written portion of the exam but did not pass the practical portion of the initial exam because he made a score of 60 on the ladder operations evolution of the practical examination. In a memorandum dated March 5, 2003, the Department formally advised Petitioner that he had failed the ladder portion of the practical exam for failure to maintain control of ladder. The memorandum also informed Petitioner that he was scheduled for a retake of the minimum standards practical retest of the ladder evolution. In another memorandum dated March 5, 2003, the Department advised Petitioner that he was scheduled to retake the ladder portion of the practical examination at the Florida State Fire College in Ocala, Florida, on May 22, 2003, at 8:00 a.m. Petitioner took the retest of the ladder portion of the practical examination as scheduled on May 22, 2003, in Ocala, Florida. Petitioner did not successfully complete the retest, losing points on three skills and not completing the test in the requisite amount of time. However, there was a problem with the ladder used by Petitioner on the retest in that the "fly" was not locked on the ladder. Ralph Chase is a field representative with the Division of State Fire Marshall of the Department. Mr. Chase was the examiner who tested Petitioner on the retake of the ladder portion of the practical exam on May 22, 2003. Mr. Chase is an experienced examiner. Because of the problem with the ladder on Petitioner's initial attempt on the ladder retest, Mr. Chase allowed Petitioner a second attempt to pass the ladder retest on May 22, 2003, although it is unusual to do so. On the second retest, Petitioner finished the test within the required amount of time but points were counted off for the following skills: ladder properly lifted, carried, (50 feet) and positioned for raise; extremities in safe position during entire operation; ladder halyard properly secured and proper safety applied; and fly section out and positioned correctly. Mr. Chase also made a notation that Petitioner had "poor control" but nonetheless gave Petitioner a passing score on the mandatory skill of maintaining control of ladder during the entire operation. Petitioner made a score of 60 on his second attempt of the retest which is below the required passing score of 70. Phillip Hershman was present at the retest in Ocala on May 22, 2003. Mr. Hershman was there to retake the hose pull portion of the practical exam. At the time of the hearing, he had been employed by the Suwannee County Fire Department for two months. Mr. Hershman was about 50 feet away from Petitioner during Petitioner's ladder retest. There was considerable noise near Mr. Hershman because the self-contained breathing apparatus test was also being conducted nearby. Mr. Hershman had a side view of Petitioner during the ladder retest. He could not see everything that was going on during the ladder retest. Mr. Hershman saw Petitioner look over the ladder and say something to Mr. Chase but could not hear what was said. He saw Mr. Chase speaking to Petitioner. When Petitioner picked up the ladder for the retest, Mr. Hershman saw the rungs of the ladder slide open. He saw Petitioner adjust the ladder and pick it up again. He did not see the ladder touch the wall until final resting of the ladder. Petitioner maintains that the ladder he used on the second retest attempt on May 22, 2003, was defective in the same manner as the first. However, Mr. Chase examined the ladder used in the second test to make sure it was in the correct position. Upon examining the ladder Petitioner used in the second retest, Mr. Chase found it to be "normal." It is unclear from the record whether Mr. Hershman witnessed both of Petitioner's attempts at the ladder retest on May 22, 2003. In any event, in instances where Mr. Hershman's testimony and Mr. Chase's testimony are in conflict, Mr. Chase's testimony of the events regarding Petitioner's retest is more persuasive. He is an experienced examiner, he was the person testing Petitioner, and he has a clear recollection of the events that occurred. While Mr. Hershman's testimony is credible, he was not in the same position, neither physically nor through experience, as Mr. Chase to determine how Petitioner should have been graded on the retake tests. In the First Amended Denial Letter dated August 15, 2003, Respondent informed Petitioner that since he passed the written portion of the Firefighter Minimum Standards Examination, a Firefighter I certificate was enclosed. Further, the August 15, 2003, letter informed Petitioner that he did not achieve a passing score on the 24" Ladder Carry, Raise and Extension evolution of the Firefighter Minimum Standards practical retest. He was informed that it will be necessary to either repeat the entire Minimum Standards Course or complete the Firefighter II Course before retaking the Firefighter Minimum Standards Examination.
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 and that Petitioner be permitted to either repeat the Minimum Standards Course or complete the Firefighter II course before retaking the Firefighter Minimum Standards Examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of October, 2003, 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 31st day of October, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Casia R. Belk, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0330 William Glenn Cone, Esquire 1530 Ryar Road, No. 7 Jacksonville, Florida 32216 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for her responses to Question Nos. 14 and 21 of the Special State Firesafety Inspector Certification Examination administered on November 13, 2003.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: Petitioner, Alma Elaine Carlus, is an applicant for certification as a firesafety inspector in the State of Florida. Applicants for certification as firesafety inspectors are required to complete a training course, which consists of 80 hours of training in firesafety inspection and must be completed prior to taking the Special State Firesafety Inspector Certification Examination. The approved textbooks for the Special State Firesafety Inspector Certification Examination training courses are Fire Inspection and Code Enforcement (6th Edition), which is published by the International Fire Service Training Association, and the National Fire Prevention Association Life Safety Code. Petitioner successfully completed the required training program and, thereafter, took the Special State Firesafety Inspector Examination on May 29, 2003. The Special State Firesafety Inspector Examination is a written examination containing 50 multiple choice, objective questions, worth two points each. The candidates are given two hours to complete the exam. In order to obtain a passing score, an applicant must earn a score of at least 70 percent. Petitioner did not pass the examination on May 29, 2003. On November 13, 2003, Petitioner retook the examination and earned a score of 66 percent. Because a minimum score of 70 percent is required to pass the examination, Petitioner needs an additional four points to earn a passing score. Petitioner challenged the scoring of two questions on the Special State Firesafety Inspector Examination, Question Nos. 14 and 21. Question No. 14 required the examinee to identify the "least important" characteristic involved in evaluating storage of flammable and combustible liquids. The answer choices given were: (a) the foundations and supports; (b) size and location of vents; (c) design of the tank; and (d) size of the tank. Question No. 14 is clear and unambiguous and the correct answer is included among the choices provided. The answer to Question No. 14 is found on page 325 of the textbook, Fire Inspection and Code Enforcement (Sixth Edition). The correct answer to Question No. 14 is "(d) size of the tank." Petitioner did not select "d" as the correct response and, thus, is not entitled to any additional points for Question No. 14. Question No. 21 states: In above ground tanks containing liquids classified as Class I, Class II, or Class IIIA, the distance between the tanks must be at least the sum of their diameters. The answer choices given were: a) 3/4; b) 1/2; c) 1/4; and d) 1/6. Question No. 21 is clear and unambiguous and the correct answer is included among the choices provided. The answer to Question No. 21 is found on page 327 of the textbook Fire Inspection and Code Enforcement (Sixth Edition). The correct answer to Question No. 21 is "(d) 1/6." Petitioner did not select "d" as the correct response and, thus, is not entitled to any additional points for Question No. 21. The knowledge tested in the Special State Firesafety Inspector Examination is essential for any firesafety inspector to know in order to properly conduct inspections required of individuals in that position.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Petitioner is not entitled to additional points for her responses to Question Nos. 14 and 21 of the Special State Firesafety Inspector Examination and denying Petitioner's application for certification as a special state firesafety inspector. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of April, 2004, 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 21st day of April, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Casia R. Belk, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Alma Elaine Carlus 2419 Paradise Drive Kissimmee, Florida 34741 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Respondents committed the violations alleged in the amended administrative complaint, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating fire extinguisher dealers. Respondent, Ricardo Cabrera, holds a fire extinguisher permit class 03 license (No. 109176000192) and is the qualifier for the company, B.C. & A.B.C. Fire Extinguisher Maintenance (license No. 702193000190 - Fire Extinguisher Dealer Class "C"). At all times material to the amended administrative complaint, Carlos Javier Gonzalez-Clavell was employed by Respondent but was not licensed or permitted to service fire extinguishers. In August, 1995, Respondents were placed on probation for a period of two (2) years. A special condition of Respondents' probation required Ricardo Cabrera to supervise all activities undertaken by the company to insure its employees complied with all regulations. In response to a complaint unrelated to the quality of Respondent's work performance, Ms. Barrow directed an investigation of the Respondent's business premises. Mr. Parks was assigned the investigation of whether Respondents were employing unlicensed workers to perform servicing or recharge of fire extinguishers. On January 29, 1996, Mr. Parks went to Respondent's place of business and observed someone loading a vehicle with fire extinguisher equipment and supplies. He also observed the male near a tank which he presumed was nitrogen. He assumed the person was recharging a fire extinguisher. During the described activity Respondent was not in sight. The person described in paragraph 7 later identified himself as Carlos Javier Gonzalez-Clavell. The vehicle being loaded belonged to Mr. Clavell. Respondent was on the business premises at all times noted above. He was out of view but supervising Mr. Clavell's activities. Mr. Clavell did not recharge fire extinguishers and was not permitted to perform license activities.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Insurance and Treasurer enter a final order dismissing the amended administrative complaint. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 5th day of February, 1997. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 5th day of February, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Joe Demember, Esquire Division of Legal Services 512 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Ricardo Cabrera 3340 South Lake Drive Miami, Florida 33155 Bill Nelson State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Daniel Y. Sumner General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, LL-26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Hugenna D. Outar, operates a twelve-bed adult congregate living facility (ACLF) under the name of Moorehead House Retirement Center at 1405 Northeast Eighth Street, Homestead, Florida. The facility is licensed by petitioner, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), and as such, is subject to that agency's regulatory jurisdiction. Outar serves as administrator of the facility. On or about August 15, 1987, Paul Grassi, an HRS fire inspector, conducted a routine annual inspection of respondent's facility. The purpose of the inspection was to determine if the facility was in compliance with the fire safety requirements of Chapter 10A-5, Florida Administrative Code (1987). The inspec- tion was made in the presence of Outar's mother since Outar was not at the facility that day. Grassi requested documentation showing that all facility fire alarms and smoke detectors had been checked by facility personnel on a quarterly basis. Also, he requested documentation to evidence that all employees had been given monthly training in procedures to be followed in the event of a fire. The former set of records is required by Department of Insurance Rule 4A-40.017, which has been adopted by reference by HRS. The latter requirement is imposed by Rule 10A-5.023(15)(b) and pertains to ACLF's having thirteen or more licensed beds. Because Outar's mother did not know where such documentation was kept, she was unable to comply with Grassi's request. Next, Grassi observed that Room D had a "pocket type" door with no hinges. According to Grassi, a state fire marshal regulation prohibits the use of this type of door in a resident's room and requires instead that a resident's room located by an exit have a door mounted on a hinge that swings outwardly to the corridor. The Classification of Deficiencies refers to the regulation imposing this requirement as "L.S.C. 85, 17-3.6.2" but the regulation itself is not of record or officially noticed. Finally, Grassi observed two residents' rooms with no door closures. According to Grassi, such closures are required on all residents' rooms, pursuant to a state fire marshal regulation, for the purpose of containing and confining a fire in the event of a fire in a room. The regulation was not identified at hearing nor made a part of the record but is referred to in the Classification of Deficiencies as "N.F.P.A. 101-85, 17.3.6.3." After noting these violations, Grassi explained them to the mother and gave her a brief explanation as to how they might be corrected. Each of the three deficiencies were categorized as Class III deficiencies. By letter dated September 24, 1987, HRS advised Outar in writing of the nature of the violations. Although the letter was not prepared until September 24, it instructed Outar to correct the deficiencies by September 14, 1987, or ten days earlier. Attached to the letter was a copy of the Classification of Deficiencies which identified the deficiencies, their class and the date by which they had to be corrected. On October 29, 1987 Grassi made a follow-up survey of respondent's facility. Since Outar was not at the facility that day, the survey was conducted in the presence of Outar's mother. Grassi found none of the deficiencies had been corrected. Accordingly, Outar was sent a letter by HRS on November 6, 1987 advising her that a second follow-up visit would be made. On December 14, 1987 Grassi returned for a third visit. This time Outar was present. Again, Grassi found none of the deficiencies corrected to his satisfaction. However, he conceded that the documentation pertaining to monthly fire drills and quarterly checks of fire alarms and smoke detectors was available for inspection but maintained it was unsatisfactory because all reports were identical and did not vary from month to month. He reasoned that this was contrary to the "intent" of the rule. During the inspection, Outar requested specific advice as to how to comply with the door regulations for which she had been cited. After receiving advice, these changes were made, and her doors now meet all fire safety requirements. Outar operates a small facility with only twelve beds. She pointed out that she had difficulty in installing closures on the two doors in question since two residents used walkers and had placed door "jams" on the doors to give them easy access through the doorway. As to the other door violation, the building was purchased with an archway leading into Room D which made it difficult to install a door mounted on hinges. Outar attempted to comply with Grassi's instructions but her carpenter was unable to make the necessary changes until Outar received specific advice from Grassi on December 14. Finally, Outar stated that the fire drill documentation was available for inspection on August 15 and October 29 but her mother did not know where it was. Outar did not learn it was filled out improperly until she personally spoke with Grassi on his third visit. She now has satisfactory records.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the administrative complaint filed against respondent be dismissed with prejudice. DONE AND ORDERED this 30th day of September, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, 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 30th day of September, 1988.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the administrative complaint dated July 23, 1992; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent filed an application for fire safety inspector certification on or about March 4, 1992. One of the questions on the application for fire safety inspector certification posed the following: Have you ever been convicted of a felony, or a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude? Respondent answered the foregoing question by marking the space before "NO." On or about March 8, 1989, Respondent was charged by information issued through the State Attorney's Office in Lake County, Florida, with aggravated assault. Aggravated assault is a felony. On or about June 2, 1989, the information referenced above was amended but continued to allege aggravated assault. On June 8, 1989, the Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to the offense of aggravated assault and was placed on probation for a period of three years. Adjudication of guilt was withheld at that time. Subsequently, the Respondent was discharged from probation and the proceedings in the criminal case were terminated. Respondent had completed his probation at the time his application for certification as a firesafety inspector was made. Respondent is currently certified as a firesafety inspector, certificate number FI-66318. Additionally, Respondent is employed as a firefighter with the Reedy Creek Fire Department. Subsequent to the receipt of Respondent's application for certification, the Department requested information from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the Federal Bureau of Investigation regarding Respondent's criminal record. The information received from those sources led to the discovery of the facts addressed in paragraphs 3, 4, 5, and 6 above and the initiation of these proceedings.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Insurance and Treasurer enter a final order revoking Respondent's certification as a firesafety inspector. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 27th day of January, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 27th day of January, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-4921 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 11 are accepted. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph Egan, Jr. EGAN, LEV & SIWICA, P.A. Post Office Box 2231 Orlando, Florida 32802 Daniel T. Gross Division of Legal Services 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Tom Gallagher, Commissioner Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Bill O'Neil, General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated October 22, 2001, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Office of the State Fire Marshall is the governmental entity responsible for regulating fire safety in Florida, including the installation, maintenance, and inspection of fire protection systems. Section 633.01, Florida Statutes (2000). Mr. Cabrera is currently licensed by the State Fire Marshall as a Class C and D fire equipment dealer (Class 0703 and 0704) and as a fire extinguisher and preengineered systems permittee (Class 0903 and 0904).2 At the times material to this proceeding, Mr. Cabrera was issued preengineered systems permit number 435249000198. At the times material to this proceeding, Mr. Cabrera was the qualifier for A Fire Prevention Company, was authorized to act for the business organization in all matters connected with the business, and was required to supervise all activities undertaken by A Fire Prevention Company. A Fire Prevention Company has been in business since 1998. Prior to this time, a company referred to as "South Florida Fire" employed Mr. Cabrera. Mr. Cabrera currently holds, and, at the times material to this proceeding, held jointly with A Fire Prevention Company, a certificate qualifying A Fire Prevention Company to engage in business as a fire equipment dealer. At the times material to this proceeding, A Fire Prevention Company and Mr. Cabrera engaged in the business of servicing, repairing, recharging, testing, inspecting, and installing fire extinguishers and preengineered fire suppression systems. At the times material to this proceeding, Banner Beef and Seafood operated an industrial food processing facility in Miami, Florida. In the facility, meat and seafood moved through an industrial deep fat fryer on a conveyor belt and were then frozen, packaged, and sold for resale. An oil-heating unit, located in an alcove off the room containing the deep fryer, was attached to but separate from the deep fryer, and hot oil moved from the oil-heating unit through a filter into the deep fryer. The oil-heating unit held 200 gallons of oil, which was heated to 460 degrees Fahrenheit before flowing into the deep fryer. The oil-heating unit was made of stainless steel, with a stainless steel lid. The oil-heating unit was protected by a Kidde Sentinel HDR 25DC, DOT E-7042-360-K, Serial #33996, ("Kidde HDR 25DC") preengineered dry chemical fire protection system. On June 19, 2000, approximately three months after Mr. Cabrera performed a semi-annual inspection and maintenance of the Kidde HDR 25DC system, a fire originating in the oil- heating unit destroyed much of the Banner Beef facility. The Kidde HDR 25DC system was probably installed at Banner Beef in or around 1981. Mr. Cabrera was not involved in the installation of the system, but he began inspecting and maintaining the system approximately ten years before the fire. He occasionally performed the semi-annual inspection and maintenance of the Banner Beef system when he was employed by South Florida Fire, and he performed all of the semi-annual inspections and maintenance subsequent to March or July 1998, after he left South Florida Fire and established A Fire Prevention Company. Mr. Cabrera completed an inspection report and an invoice each time he inspected the Kidde HDR 25DC system. Mr. Cabrera was, however, able to produce to the State Fire Marshall only an invoice for a semi-annual inspection on October 5, 1998; an invoice and "Range Hood Inspection Report" for a semi-annual inspection on April 12, 1999; an invoice and "Range Hood Inspection Report" for a semi-annual inspection on September 27, 1999; and an invoice for a "semi-annual inspection and maintenance" on March 15, 2000. The Kidde HDR 25DC is a preengineered system, which means that components manufactured by Kidde were put together into a system designed to protect against a particular hazard. Kidde publishes a manual, bulletins, and memoranda that specify how the Kidde HDR 25DC system is to be installed, serviced, repaired, maintained, tested, and inspected. The Kidde HDR 25DC system was submitted to the Underwriters Laboratory ("UL") for testing. The system was found to be effective and to operate as specified, and the system and the manual for the system received UL approval. Once the system and manual received UL approval, the components of the system could not be changed except in accordance with the UL listing and the approved manufacturer's specifications. The Kidde HDR 25DC system uses a dry chemical as a fire suppressant. The NFPA Standard 17 contains requirements for the installation, maintenance, operation, and care of dry chemical fire suppression systems. The Kidde HDR 25DC system is approved by the UL to protect commercial cooking installations, specifically hoods, ducts, and cooking appliances. Cooking appliances are classified into two categories in the manufacturer's specifications, surface appliances and broilers; deep fryers are considered surface appliances. Commercial cooking installations are used in food preparation areas of restaurants. The oil-heating unit and deep fryer used by Banner Beef are considered industrial appliances because they were designed to process a high volume of food to be sold for resale rather than to be consumed on the premises. The Kidde HDR 25DC system was composed of several components, including a cylinder containing dry chemical fire suppressant under 360 pounds of pressure; a valve assembly attached to the cylinder; a manual release mechanism; an elbow mounting bracket that connected the cylinder to discharge piping; a nozzle attached to the discharge piping through which the dry chemical fire suppressant would be discharged on the hazard protected by the system; a fusible link designed to melt at a specified temperature; a control head, with a control head cover, that was attached to the cylinder valve assembly; cables running from the fusible link to the control head; electrical metal tubing protecting the cables; and corner pulleys that allowed the cables to change direction at a 90-degree angle. The Kidde HDR 25DC system was designed so that, when the fusible link melted, the cables would release, causing the system to actuate and discharge the dry chemical fire suppressant. Banner Beef's 200-gallon oil-heating unit protected by the Kidde HDR 25DC system was located in an alcove opening off of a larger room that housed the deep fryer. The cylinder containing the dry chemical fire suppressant was mounted on the outside wall of oil-heating unit, at the far end of the alcove, only a few inches away from oil that was maintained at 460 degrees Fahrenheit when the oil-heating unit was in operation. The oil-heating unit was turned off at the end of each workday, and the cylinder was regularly exposed to a cycle of high temperatures when the unit was in operation and cooler temperatures when it was not. Because it was attached to the hazard it was intended to protect, the cylinder would be exposed to any fire that originated in the oil-heating unit, and, in fact, the exterior of the cylinder at Banner Beef was damaged by the fire and covered in grease when it was inspected after the fire. NFPA Standard 17-8, Section 3-8.3, 1994 edition,3 specifies that "[t]he dry chemical container and expellant gas shall be located near the hazard or hazards protected, but not where they will be exposed to a fire or explosion in those areas." NFPA Standard 17-8, Section 3-8.3.1, provides that "[t]he dry chemical container and expellant gas assemblies shall be located so as not to be subjected to severe weather conditions or to mechanical, chemical, or other damage." The location of the cylinder at Banner Beef was not consistent with these NFPA requirements. A manual release handle, or manual pull station, is used to manually actuate the Kidde HDR 25DC system. At Banner Beef, the manual release handle was located on the far end of the oil-heating unit, at the top of the dry chemical cylinder and next to the controls used to operate the oil-heating unit. The means of exiting the alcove containing the oil-heating unit was through the room containing the deep fryer, although Banner Beef advised Mr. Cabrera that someone was always standing at the controls of the oil-heating unit whenever the unit was in operation. NFPA Standard 17-8 provides in pertinent part: 3-7 Operation and Control of Systems 3-7.1 Methods of Actuation. Systems shall be provided with both automatic and manual means of operation. 3-7.1.1 Operation of any manual actuator shall be all that is required to bring about the full operation of the system. At least one manual actuator shall be provided for each system. * * * 3-7.1.3 At least one manual actuator shall be located no more than 5 ft (1.5 m) above the floor and shall be convenient and easily accessible at all times, including the time of fire. Although only one manual actuator was required, the location of the manual release handle was not consistent with NFPA Standard 17-8, Section 3-7.1.3. The date of manufacture was stamped into the metal of the cylinder containing the dry chemical fire suppressant. The system's serial number and a United States Department of Transportation exemption code, DOT-7042, were also stamped into the metal of the cylinder. The Kidde Guidelines for Hydrostatic Retest & Qualification of Kidde Models HDR, IND, WHDR, and DRS- 700 System Cylinders provides that "[d]ry chemical and wet chemical agents, when super-pressurized with nitrogen, are classified as hazardous materials and must be shipped in DOT approved cylinders (containers). The United States Department of Transportation has jurisdiction during cylinder manufacturer, testing, marking, retest and shipment." According to the information contained in the Guidelines, Kidde cylinders manufactured under the DOT E-7042 exemption must be hydrostatically tested, using "the water jacket volumetric expansion method or the direct expansion method," at least every 12 years by a retester authorized by the United States Department of Transportation. According to the Guidelines, after the hydrostatic retest, the federal Department of Transportation requires that the cylinder must be stamped, "'plainly and permanently,'" with a marking that includes the date of the retest and the designation "3AL"; such a stamp is usually imprinted into the metal of the cylinder. The Guidelines include a warning, identified as such and set off from the rest of the text, that provides: "Use of pressure sensitive hydrostatic test labels, in lieu of stamping the cylinder, DOES NOT comply with the DOT requirements." (Emphasis in original.) Because the cylinder installed with the Kidde HDR 25DC system at Banner Beef was manufactured in 1981, the cylinder should have been hydrostatically tested in 1993. The cylinder did not, however, bear a permanent stamp with the "3AL" designation and the date of a hydrostatic test. Mr. Cabrera nonetheless reported on the Range Hood System Report dated April 12, 1999, that the system had been hydrostatically tested in April 1998, and he reported on the Range Hood System Report dated September 27, 1999, that the system had been hydrostatically tested and recharged in 1998. Mr. Cabrera obtained this information from labels carrying the name of South Florida Fire that were affixed to the outside of the cylinder; a few remnants of the labels remained on the outside of the cylinder after the fire. Pursuant to the federal DOT requirements and the manufacturer's specifications, Mr. Cabrera could not rely on these labels as proof that the cylinder had been subjected to hydrostatic testing. An examination of the cylinder after the fire revealed that the outlet valve on the cylinder and the elbow mounting bracket attached to the valve were completely blocked by a caked, rock-hard white substance, and the area around the cylinder's relief valve was also coated with white powder. In addition, there were chunks of hardened white powder loose in the discharge piping that connected the cylinder to the nozzle inside the oil-heating unit, although the discharge piping was not blocked. The white powder was identified as dry chemical fire suppressant, which had discharged from the cylinder but had not been discharged through the nozzle into the oil-heating unit because of the complete blockage of the valve outlet and elbow mounting bracket. Finally, there was a residue of what appeared to be grease in the discharge piping connected to the elbow mounting bracket. The manufacturer's specifications require that, at the semi-annual inspection of the Kidde HDR 25DC system, the person providing the maintenance should "[c]heck the discharge piping for obstructions. Remove cylinder and valve. Blow out piping with clean dry air or nitrogen." Mr. Cabrera blew out the piping with nitrogen to clear obstructions each time he performed a semi-annual inspection of the Banner Beef system. The discharge piping was clear when he completed the semi-annual inspection and maintenance on March 15, 2000. In the Banner Beef system, approximately six inches of discharge piping ran from the elbow mounting bracket through the exterior wall of the oil-heating unit, where it emerged just above the level of the oil when the oil-heating unit was full. The discharge nozzle for the system was attached to a portion of the pipe that extended a few inches into the oil-heating unit, where it would be exposed to grease splatter. The male coupling on the discharge nozzle should have threaded into a female coupling in the pipe. However, the inside of the pipe was not threaded to receive the nozzle, and it appeared that the person installing the system had "screwed" the nozzle into a smooth pipe. Because the seal was not tight, grease had accumulated on the threads of the nozzle, and the nozzle might have blown off if the system had actually discharged. There are four nozzle configurations available for the Kidde HDR 25DC system, two of which are relevant to this proceeding: The SP-2 nozzle is designed to protect the plenum4 and exhaust duct of a commercial cooking installation; the SW-2 nozzle is designed to protect surface cooking appliances. One SP-2 nozzle was used with the Kidde HDR 25DC system at Banner Beef, which was inconsistent with NFPA Standard 17-6, Section 2- 3.1, which requires that "[d]ischarge nozzles shall be listed for their intended use," and with the manufacturer's specifications for the system. First, there is no recognized nozzle configuration for the system using only one SP-2 nozzle. Second, the SP-2 nozzle was not appropriate for the Banner Beef system: Deep fryers are classified in the manufacturer's specifications as surface appliances, and the proper nozzle was the SW-2 nozzle. The discharge pattern of the SP-2 nozzle is horizontal, and, had the dry chemical fire suppressant actually been discharged through the nozzle into the oil-heating unit, the dry chemical would have blown across the surface of the hot grease; the SW-2 nozzle is designed to be installed above the appliance, so that its discharge pattern is vertical, with the spray distributed over the surface of the oil. Protective grease covers are required by the manufacturer's specifications and by NFPA Standard 17-6, Section 2-3.1.4, which provides: "Discharge nozzles shall be provided with blowoff caps or other suitable devices or material to prevent the entrance of moisture or other environmental materials into the piping. The protective device shall blow off, open, or blow out upon agent discharge." When Mr. Cabrera inspected the Banner Beef system in March 2000, a grease cover protected the discharge nozzle, but, after the fire, no grease cover for the nozzle could be located. In addition, an examination of the nozzle and discharge piping after the fire revealed grease build-up on the inside of the nozzle and in the discharge piping. Protective nozzle covers are easily lost; Mr. Cabrera had advised Banner Beef to call him if they needed a replacement cover, but he was never asked for a replacement cover. To the best of Mr. Cabrera's recollection, there was always a grease cover on the nozzle whenever he conducted his inspections of the system. A fusible link is designed to melt at a specific temperature, releasing cables that run from the fusible link to a control head attached to the dry chemical cylinder; this is the means by which the system is actuated. The fusible link of the Kidde HDR 25DC system at Banner Beef was located in the duct venting the oil-heating unit to the roof. The invoice for the September 27, 1999, semi-annual inspection at Banner Beef reflects that Mr. Cabrera replaced the 500-degree fusible link in the Kidde HDR 25DC system. He used the 500-degree link because the oil-heating unit heated the oil to 460 degrees Fahrenheit. The manufacturer's specifications provide that "[t]he fusible link assembly . . . is used to detect excessive temperatures in the area above cooking appliances and in the duct. The actuation temperature is 360ºF (182ºC). For higher temperatures use a 500ºF quartzoid bulb, or fusible link." The manufacturer's specifications also provide: The exposure temperature is the maximum temperature to which a fusible link may be exposed for any period of time, no matter how short. After reaching the exposure temperature, the link will eventually release even though it may never reach the rating temperature. WARNING: To avoid accidental system discharge, a temperature survey must be made of all locations where the fusible link will be installed. Links must have an exposure temperature rating above the maximum peak survey temperature. The maximum exposure temperature for any fusible link is 300ºF. If the peak survey temperature is above 300º F, use a quartzoid bulb link. (Emphasis in original.) Only two fusible links were available for the Kidde HDR 25DC system, a fusible link with a rating temperature of 350 degrees Fahrenheit and a maximum exposure temperature of 300 degrees Fahrenheit and a quartzoid bulb, also referred to as a fusible link, with a rating temperature of 500 degrees Fahrenheit and a maximum exposure temperature of 475 degrees Fahrenheit. The exposure temperature at the location of the fusible link is not known, but the convected heat in the duct over the oil-heating unit, where the fusible link was installed, would not have reached the 460-degree temperature of the oil. However, the fusible link was installed only six inches above the maximum level of the oil in the oil-heating unit, and, had the 350-degree fusible link been used, it would have continually actuated the system. Pursuant to the manufacturer's specifications, the fusible link on the system should have been mounted using Kidde fusible-link brackets. The fusible link installed on the Banner Beef system was housed in a welded metal bracket fabricated by whoever installed the system. The fusible link is connected to the system's control head by a system of cables. The manufacturer's specifications require that the fusible link be attached to the cables using Kidde cable crimps crimped with a Kidde crimping tool. Mr. Cabrera did not use either a Kidde cable crimp or a Kidde crimping tool when he installed the new fusible link on the Banner Beef system during the September 27, 1999, inspection. The manufacturer's specifications require that the cables connecting the control head to the fusible link be "housed and protected by 1/2-inch electrical metal tubing." The portion of the cable running on the outside of the oil-heating unit, from the control head mounted near the cylinder into the exterior wall of the oil-heating unit was housed in electrical metal tubing; that portion of the cable running inside the oil- heating unit, from the fusible link to the exterior wall of the oil-heating unit, was not housed in electrical metal tubing but was left bare. According to the manufacturer's specification, all cable in the Kidde HDR 25DC system must run either horizontally or vertically. Consequently, corner pulleys are used to make 90-degree changes in direction. Three corner pulleys were used in the Banner Beef system; one was manufactured by Kidde, but two were manufactured by Pyro-Chem. In addition, the first corner pulley was clogged with grease, indicating that the system was not properly maintained. The cables leading from the fusible link are attached to a control head, and the system actuates when the fusible link melts and the cables are released. A cover plate protects the control head, and is attached to the control head with five screws. Kidde Field Memo #84-8, provides as follows: When installing the cover plate on any preengineered system control head, remember to install all five cover screws. The fifth screw that attaches to the hex post just above the local manual release handle is important for the stability of the cover plate when operating the handle. Leaving out the fifth screw could cause movement of the cover plate and render the local manual release handle inoperative. . . . Three of the five screw holes on the control head cover plate recovered from Banner Beef were covered with grease; only two of the five screw holes were clean. This indicates that the cover plate was attached to the control head by only two screws at the time of the fire. Mr. Cabrera did not note any discrepancies or deficiencies in the Kidde HDR 25DC system installed at Banner Beef in the inspection reports that he completed after his April 12, 1999, and September 27, 1999, inspections, which were the only reports provided to the State Fire Marshall and introduced into evidence at the final hearing. In these two reports, Mr. Cabrera checked the "Yes" boxes for the following items, among others: All appliances properly covered w/ correct nozzles System installed in accordance w/ MFG UL listing Inspect cylinder and mount Clean nozzles Check fuse links and clean Piping and conduit securely bracketed System operational & seals in place Clean cylinder and mount Mr. Cabrera signed the two reports, thereby certifying that "[o]n this date, the above system was tested and inspected in accordance with procedures of the presently adopted editions of NFPA Standard 17, 17A, 96 and the manufacturer's manual and was operated according to these procedures with results indicated above." The licensure files maintained by the State Fire Marshall for A Fire Prevention Company indicated that the company's insurance policy with Frontier Insurance Company expired on March 25, 2000. Mr. Cabrera testified, however, that the company did have insurance at the time of the fire, and this testimony is unrefuted. Summary The State Fire Marshall's expert witnesses disagreed as to whether the system could have controlled the fire had it functioned properly. They each conceded, however, that all components of the system functioned perfectly and actuated the system. They attributed the sole cause of the system's failure to the blockage in the valve outlet and elbow mounting bracket that prevented the dry chemical fire suppressant from discharging out of the cylinder. The State Fire Marshall's experts and Mr. Cabrera agreed that the cause of the blockage was dry chemical in the cylinder valve assembly and elbow mounting bracket that had hardened into a rock-hard substance. All of the State Fire Marshall's experts and Mr. Cabrera agreed that the chemical hardened as a result of its coming into contact with a significant amount of moisture and/or grease. No one, however, provided a satisfactory explanation of the time within which the chemical would have hardened after it came into contact with the moisture and/or grease. In Mr. Cabrera's opinion, the blockage was caused when grease and/or moisture entered the system at the time of the fire and caused the dry chemical to immediately harden. On the other hand, the State Fire Marshall's expert witnesses opined that the moisture and/or grease causing the blockage of the cylinder valve outlet and elbow mounting bracket did not necessarily accumulate in the system over an extended period of time but, rather, could have been introduced into the system all at once. They also agreed that the dry chemical would harden gradually over time and that the blockage was probably present at the time Mr. Cabrera performed the March 2000 inspection. However, none of the State Fire Marshall's experts provided a persuasive basis to support a finding that the blockage had been present in the system at the time Mr. Cabrera inspected the system in March 2000, and the evidence is, therefore, insufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Mr. Cabrera should have discovered the blockage when he performed the inspection and maintenance in March 2000. The evidence presented by the State Fire Marshall is likewise not sufficient to establish that Mr. Cabrera deviated from the requirements of the manufacturer's specifications by installing a 500-degree fusible link in the system in September 1999. The evidence presented by the State Fire Marshall is, however, sufficient to establish clearly and convincingly that the Kidde HDR 25DC preengineered fire protection system installed at Banner Beef was not designed to protect an industrial oil-heating unit containing approximately 200 gallons of hot oil, that the system was not installed in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications, that the system contained parts that were not manufactured by Kidde, that the system was not properly maintained with respect to the build-up of grease in and around the discharge nozzle and in the corner pulleys, and that Mr. Cabrera did not use the appropriate crimp and crimping tool when he replaced the fusible link in September 1997. The evidence presented by the State Fire Marshall is also sufficient to establish clearly and convincingly that Mr. Cabrera did not provide the State Fire Marshall with proof of insurance subsequent to March 25, 2000, although the evidence is insufficient to establish that he did not, in fact, have insurance coverage subsequent to that time. Finally, the evidence presented by the State Fire Marshall is sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that the reports Mr. Cabrera prepared following his semi-annual inspections in April and September 1999 did not accurately reflect the condition of the system and did not include a statement of the system's deficiencies. In addition, Mr. Cabrera's failure to provide the State Fire Marshall with copies of the inspection reports for the semi-annual inspections he performed on the Kidde HDR 25DC system at Banner Beef for the three years prior to the fire supports the inference that he failed to retain copies of the inspection reports in his records. However, Mr. Cabrera's testimony that he always prepared the necessary reports is uncontroverted.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the State Fire Marshall enter a final order: Finding Hector Cabrera and A Fire Prevention Company guilty of having violated Sections 633.061(9), 633.065(1)(c), 633.065(2), 633.071(1), and 633.162(4)(c) and (e), Florida Statutes (2000), as well as Rules 4A-21.302 and 4A-21.304(1) and (2), Florida Administrative Code; and Suspending the licenses and permits of Hector Cabrera and A Fire Prevention Company for a period of two years, pursuant to Section 633.162(1) and (4), Florida Statutes (2000). DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of June, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 25th day of June, 2002.
The Issue Whether Petitioner achieved a passing score on the Practical Examination for Retention of Firefighter Retest.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for the certification of firefighters in the State of Florida, pursuant to chapter 633, Florida Statutes. In or around 2008, Petitioner achieved his Firefighter Minimum Standards Training Certification, which was valid for three years. To maintain his certification, it was necessary for Petitioner to either: maintain employment as a firefighter (or serve as a volunteer firefighter) for at least six consecutive months during the three-year period subsequent to his certification; or successfully complete the retention examination, which is identical to the practical examination given to new applicants.1/ Petitioner could not satisfy the first option, and was therefore required to take the retention examination. Petitioner's first attempt to successfully complete the retention examination occurred on September 26, 2011, and included four practical components: self-contained breathing apparatus ("SCBA"), hose operation, ladder operation, and fireground skills.2/ To pass the retention examination, an examinee must earn a score of at least 70 on all sections. Each portion of the retention examination has certain evaluative components that are graded. For instance, the ladder operation consists of 15 skills——e.g., maintaining contact with the ladder, lifting and securing the ladder properly, using proper hand position——that the examinee must complete within the maximum time of four minutes and 30 seconds. The ladder operation also requires the examinee to fulfill ten mandatory components, which include, among other things, maintaining control of the ladder at all times and securing the "dogs"3/ properly. Pertinent to the instant case, noncompliance with respect to any of the mandatory elements results in automatic failure, irrespective of the examinee's performance in connection with the 15 evaluative components. It is undisputed that Petitioner achieved passing scores on the fireground skills, SCBA, and hose components of the retention examination; Petitioner was unable, however, to complete the ladder evaluation within the prescribed time limit, which resulted in an automatic failure. Petitioner, like all candidates who fail the retention examination on the first attempt, was offered one retest opportunity.4/ Petitioner's retest was administered on November 15, 2011, at the Ocala Fire College, during which he passed the SCBA and hose portions of the examination. (For reasons not explained during the final hearing, Petitioner was not required to re-take the fireground skills component.) Once again, however, Petitioner failed the ladder evaluation, as established by the final hearing testimony of Tuffy Dixon, the field examiner on that occasion.5/ Mr. Dixon explained, credibly, that Petitioner scored an automatic failure because he neglected to lock one of the ladder's "dogs"——one of the ladder evaluation's ten mandatory components.6/ Accordingly, the evidence demonstrates that Petitioner failed the November 15, 2011, retention examination retest.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter an order denying Petitioner's application to retain his certification as a firefighter in the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of July, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S Edward T. Bauer 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 25th day of July, 2012.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should deny an application for certification as a Firefighter II on the alleged grounds that Petitioner failed the Firefighter Minimum Standards Equivalency Examination.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency responsible for the certification of firefighters in the State of Florida, pursuant to Chapter 633, Florida Statutes (2009).1 At a date not disclosed in the record, Petitioner applied for a certification as a Firefighter II. On September 21, 2009, Petitioner took the Firefighter Minimum Standards Equivalency Examination (“initial examination”). Petitioner failed to pass the Ladder, Hose, and Self Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) components of the practical portion of the initial examination. On November 17, 2009, Petitioner took the Firefighter Minimum Standards Equivalency Examination Re-test (“examination re-test”) for the Ladder, Hose, and SCBA components. Petitioner failed to pass the Ladder component of the examination re-test. By Notice of Denial dated November 20, 2009, Respondent notified Petitioner that Petitioner had failed the Firefighter Minimum Standards Equivalency Examination. Petitioner requested an administrative hearing. Petitioner alleges that, during her initial examination on September 21, 2009, there was an equipment malfunction during the Ladder component of the practical portion of the examination. Petitioner bases her allegations on the Ladder component score sheet for the initial examination (“score sheet”) that was received by Petitioner after she completed the initial examination and examination re-test. The score sheet for the initial examination states that Petitioner failed the Ladder component of the initial examination because Petitioner exceeded the time period to complete the ladder evolution and failed to fully extend the ladder with the dogs locked. In the “Comments Required for Failure” section, the score sheet listed, “Safety latch on dawgs [sic] stuck in top of rung. Unsafe act. Over time.” Petitioner alleges that the statement that a piece of equipment was "stuck" is proof of an equipment malfunction. Two experts testified during the hearing that the "stuck" equipment was caused by operator error rather than an equipment malfunction. The testimony of the two experts was credible and persuasive. Petitioner, as the examinee, could have remedied the "stuck" equipment by raising the ladder to release the finger and then lowering the ladder to allow the dogs to lock onto the rung. The failure to do so was an "unsafe act” that created a safety hazard in which the fly section of the ladder could have fallen down to the ground. A preponderance of the evidence does not show that Petitioner failed the Ladder component of the initial examination because of an equipment malfunction. Rather, the preponderance of evidence shows that Petitioner failed to have the dogs locked, which is required by the examination. A preponderance of the evidence also shows that Petitioner did not complete the ladder evolution within the required time during the re-take examination. The excessive time resulted in an automatic failure of the re-take examination.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order denying Kim Lashawn Edmonds’ application for certification as a Firefighter II. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of April, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 16th day of April, 2010.
