Washington DC

U.S. Office of Personnel Management
Classification Appeal Decision
Under section 5112 of title 5, United States Code

---

Damon B. Ford
Acting Classification Appeals and FLSA Claims
Program Manager
Agency Compliance and Evaluation
Merit System Accountability and Compliance

09/22/2020

---

Date

As provided in section 511.612 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this decision constitutes a certificate that is mandatory and binding on all administrative, certifying, payroll, disbursing, and accounting officials of the Government.  The agency is responsible for reviewing its classification decisions for identical, similar, or related positions to ensure consistency with this decision.  There is no right of further appeal.  This decision is subject to discretionary review only under conditions and time limits specified in the Introduction to the Position Classification Standards (Introduction), appendix 4, section G (address provided in appendix 4, section H).

Introduction

The appellants’ position is currently classified as Forestry Technician (Prevention), GS-0462-07.  However, as stated by their designated representative, they believe their position should be classified at the GS-08 grade level.  All of the appellants are assigned to various national forests within the Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5), U.S. Forest Service (FS), U.S. Department of Agriculture, in California. 

The thirteen[1] appellants with their duty locations are:  (1)  [name] assigned to Eagle Lake Ranger District, Lassen National Forest; (2) [name] assigned to Big Valley Ranger District, Modoc National Forest; (3) [name] assigned to Santa Lucia Ranger District, Los Padres National Forest; (4) [name], [name], and [name] assigned to LA Gateway Ranger District, Angeles National Forest; (5) [name] assigned to Mono Lake Ranger District, Inyo National Forest; (6) [name] and [name] assigned to Shasta-Lake Ranger District, Shasta-Trinity National Forest; (7) [name] assigned to Hat Creek Ranger District, Lassen National Forest; (8) [name] and [name] assigned to San Gabriel Mountains National Monument, Angeles National Forest; and (9) [name] assigned to Weaverville Ranger District, Shasta-Trinity National Forest.  The appellants perform essentially the same duties, although the volume of their fire suppression work varies, and are assigned to the same position description (PD) number FS 0908.  Therefore, we have processed and adjudicated this case as a group appeal.  We have accepted and decided this appeal under section 5112 of title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.).

General issues

The appellants make various statements about the classification review process conducted by their agency and compare their position to similar but higher graded positions within the FS.  In adjudicating this appeal, our responsibility is to make our own independent decision on the proper classification of the appealed position.  By law, we must make that decision solely by comparing their current duties and responsibilities to OPM position classification standards (PCS) and guidelines (5 U.S.C. 5106, 5107, and 5112).  Since comparison to standard is the exclusive method for classifying positions, we cannot compare the appellants’ position to others, which may or may not be properly classified, as a basis for deciding their appeal.  Because our decision sets aside any previous agency decisions, the appellants’ concerns regarding their agency’s classification review process are not germane to the classification appeal process.

Like OPM, the appellants’ agency must classify positions based on comparison to OPM standards and guidelines.  The agency also has primary responsibility for ensuring that its positions are classified consistently with OOPM appeal decisions.  If the appellants consider their position so similar to higher graded positions at their forest or other forests that they all warrant the same classification, they may pursue the matter by writing to their headquarters agency human resources office.  In doing so, they should specify the precise organizational location, classification, duties, and responsibilities of the positions in question.  If the positions are found to be basically the same as theirs, the agency must correct their classification to be consistent with this appeal decision.  Otherwise, the agency should explain to them the differences between their position and the others. 

In their appeal request to OPM, the appellants cite OPM’s Digest of Significant Classification Decisions and Opinions (“Digest Article”), Number 12-01, which discusses the work performed by Attack Warning Officers, whose primary duty is to disseminate information instantly and decisively on reports of emergencies.  Because the basic reason for the existence of the Attack Warning Officer is to serve in the event of a national emergency, the training and readiness required for dealing with such emergencies was considered a constant and integral feature of the position’s requirements.  Therefore, OPM considered and credited the work performed by the Attack Warning Officers regardless of it being performed on an “irregular, nonrecurring, emergency basis.”

The appellants seek to compare and credit their fire suppression duties as emergency work similarly performed by Attack Warning Officers, as described by Digest Article 12-01.  However, OPM’s Digest Articles contain summaries of appeal decisions and interpretative opinions that provide clarifying guidance to ensure consistency of interpretation of classification standards and guides in force at the time.  They do not supersede or supplement classification standards and do not constitute case law.  Care must be exercised in interpreting and applying Digest Articles.  After careful consideration, we found the situation described by Digest Article 12-01 inapplicable to the appellants’ position.  The appellants do not similarly perform fire suppression work on the “irregular, nonrecurring, emergency basis” described by Digest Article 12-01.  In contrast with firefighter positions whose sole purpose is fighting fires irrespective of the actual time spent on that work, we found the paramount knowledge of the appellants’ position is to perform the primary duties of a Forestry Technician, GS-0462, position.  Similar to GS-0462 positions, the appellants apply a practical knowledge of the methods and techniques of forestry and in the scientific management and protection of the forest, including fire suppression.  We thus compared their duties to grading criteria applicable to GS-0462 positions, as well as to classification principles and policies established in the Introduction, rather than to the concept described by Digest Article 12-01.

Position information

The appellants’ positions are assigned to six different national forests located throughout California.  As stated in their PD, the primary purpose of the position is fire prevention and suppression.  When performing fire suppression, the position serves as the first resource to arrive at a wildfire incident to protect lives and property and stop expansion of the fire, i.e., the initial attack.  The following is a brief overview of the appellants’ duties and responsibilities.

As a result of patrolling the geographic area of their unit by vehicle, or receiving reports from the dispatcher, the appellants arrive at the fire incident to perform fire suppression activities.  When initially arriving at the scene, they assess the size and potential of the fire, take action to suppress the fire, and determine the need for and request appropriate resources.  The appellants may serve as an Incident Commander (IC), patrol, crew boss, or other role depending on the needs of the fire incident and the certifications maintained by the individual.  If assuming the IC role, they assess the fire’s behavior, fire potential, and burning conditions; coordinate suppression activities; and determine the people, equipment, and other firefighting resources that can or potentially could be assigned to the fire incident.  While on patrol they support fire suppression activities related to, or serve in the role as, lookout, perimeter control, delaying the fire, structural defense, etc.  They coordinate closures of public lands during fire dangers and may be involved in the extended firefighting attack when the fire cannot be contained or controlled by the initial attack forces.  As stated by their official PD, their fire suppression work requires passing an annual work capacity test (WCT) at the arduous level, which involves completing a three-mile hike, carrying a 45-pound pack, in 45 minutes.

As fire investigators, the trained appellants locate and protect the origin of fires and investigate the cause and responsibility of fires so that appropriate action can be taken on human-caused fires.  They determine the cause of the fire and compile necessary evidence and subsequent case information to identify the responsible party.  They identify, collect, and preserve evidence, conducting interviews, obtaining witness statements, and taking photographs.  The appellants may begin fire investigations when initially arriving at the incident, e.g., observing the people, vehicles, and activities occurring at the scene.  They prepare reports and other documentation for review by law enforcement officials.  If considered complex (e.g., involving large or multiple fires, power lines, or railways), an investigation may take up to several weeks or longer to complete.

The appellants also perform limited compliance duties as a Forest Protection Officer (FPO).  They conduct inspections of equipment (e.g., spark arrestors) and areas including electrical sites, power lines, campsites and resorts, timber sale sites, gas and oil wells, and construction sites.  To enforce laws, they attempt to gain voluntary compliance by informing and advising parties of any hazards, unsatisfactory conditions, or violations of rules and regulations.  As an FPO, the appellants have authority to issue violation notices, document incident reports, and request assistance when necessary from law enforcement and other personnel in situations concerning criminal acts or crimes with the probability for violence, suspicious individuals exhibiting strange behavior, violations involving large groups, etc.  The appellants issue permits, e.g., campfire, woodcutting, welding, burning, and special use, and explain to public and private entities the conditions and limitations of the permit.  They also participate in the development and implementation of a variety of operational fire protection plans such as pre-fire attack, fire hazard reduction, and sign plans.

In addition, the appellants prepare and present the topic of fire in educational programs with the goal of reducing human-caused wildfires to a variety of client groups.  They tailor activities depending on factors such as audience, venue, and season.  They present fire education programs at local schools, coordinate their Forest’s Smokey Bear activities, and attend special events such as parades, fairs, festivals, rodeos, and other community events.  When necessary, they solicit, train, and schedule volunteers to participate in fire education activities.

The appellants’ official PD (#FS0908) and other material of record furnish more information about their duties and responsibilities and how they are performed.  The appellants and their supervisors certified to the accuracy of the duties described in the official PD.  We find the major duties as described by their official PD are adequate for classification purposes, and we incorporate the PD by reference into this decision.  To help decide this appeal, we conducted telephone audits with the appellants, and telephone interviews with a select number of immediate supervisors and the Deputy Director of Fire and Aviation Management for the Pacific Southwest Region.  In reaching our classification decision, we carefully considered all information gained from these interviews, as well as the written information furnished by the appellants and their agency.

Series, title, and standard determination

The agency classified the appellants’ position in the Forestry Technician Series, GS-0462, titling it Forestry Technician.  The Position Classification Flysheet for the Forestry Technician Series, GS-0462, allows agencies to supplement the basic title by adding a parenthetical title suffix to identify duties and responsibilities which reflect specific knowledge and skills required in the work.  Therefore, the agency added the parenthetical title of “Prevention” to the basic title of the position.  The Position Classification Flysheet for the Forestry Technician Series, GS-0462, does not contain grade level criteria, but refers the user to the Grade Level Guide for Aid and Technical work in the Biological Sciences, GS-0400 (GS-0400 Guide) for determining grade level.  The appellants do not disagree with the agency’s title, series and standard determination and we concur.  Addition of a parenthetical title is at the discretion of the agency.  Our evaluation of the grade of the position by application of the grading criteria in the GS-0400 Guide follows. 

Grade determination

The GS-0400 Guide is written in the Factor Evaluation System (FES) format, under which factor levels and accompanying point values are assigned for each of the nine factors.  The total is converted to a grade level by use of the grade conversion table provided in the Guide.  Under the FES, each factor-level description demonstrates the minimum characteristics needed to receive credit for the described level.  If a position fails to meet the criteria in a factor-level description in any significant aspect, it must be credited at a lower level unless an equally important aspect that meets a higher level balances the deficiency.  Conversely, the position may exceed those criteria in some respects and still not be credited at a higher level.

In their appeal to OPM, the appellants disagree with their agency’s assignment of Factor Level 3-2 for Factor 3 (Guidelines), Level 7-b for Factor 7 (Purpose of Contacts), Level 8-2 for Factor 8 (Physical Demands), and Level 9-2 for Factor 9 (Work Environment).  They concur with their agency’s assignment of Factor Level 1-5 for Factor 1 (Knowledge Required by the Position), Level 2-3 for Factor 2 (Supervisory Controls), Level 4-3 for Factor 4 (Complexity), Level 5-3 for Factor 5 ( Scope and Effect), and Level 6-2 for Factor 6 (Personal Contacts).  We note that initially the appellants disagreed with their agency’s assignment of Level 6-2 believing it warranted Level 6-3.  However, the designated representative subsequently informed OPM that upon further review the appellants agreed that Level 6-2 was appropriate.  After careful review, we concur with their agency’s assignment of the undisputed levels and thus have not addressed them separately in the discussion below.  Our evaluation with respect to Factors 3, 7, 8 and 9 follows. 

Factor 3, Guidelines

This factor covers the nature of guidelines and the judgment needed to apply them.

At Level 3-2, procedures for doing the work have been established and a number of specific guidelines are applicable.  These guides may range from complex, standardized, codified regulations (such as Federal or agency manuals with agency, bureau, regional, and/or other supplements), to maps, blueprints, standing operating procedures, oral instructions, equipment or instrument manuals, or standard scientific or technical texts.  The employee must use judgment in selecting the appropriate guideline because of the number, similarity, linkage, and overlapping nature of the guides, e.g., when State law, Federal law, and agency regulations address the same issue.  Most important, however, is that the guidelines contain criteria to solve the core question or problem contained in the assignments, though the applicability may not be readily apparent, i.e., the guides often require careful study and cross referencing.

At Level 3-3, the technician works with new requirements or applications for which only general guidelines are available or with assignments where the most applicable guides are limited to general functional statements and/or work samples which are not always directly related to the core problems of the assignments, have gaps in specificity, or are otherwise not completely applicable.  The employee exercises judgment independently in applying the guidelines or extending their applicability to situations not specifically covered; uses guidelines as the basis for making procedural deviations from established administrative and/or technical methods; or otherwise adapts guidelines when judgment is exercised based on an understanding of the intent of the guidelines and reacting accordingly.

The appellants’ guidelines meet Level 3-2.  Similar to this level, they have a number of specific guidelines applicable to their work.  They use judgment in selecting from established guidelines and instructions including, but not limited to, the Region’s Law Enforcement Field Guide, Health and Safety Code Handbook, FS handbooks and directives on fire management, fire prevention and land management plans and field guides, and publications such as National Wildfire Coordinating Group’s (NWCG) Guide to Wildland Fire Origin and Cause Determination.  As at Level 3-2, their guidelines range from standardized and complex codified regulations (such as Federal and State enforcement laws) to maps, standard operating procedures, oral instructions, and equipment or instrument manuals.  The appellants’ guidelines are generally adequate to fit the situation, but they exercise seasoned judgment to select the appropriate guidelines and instructions for application to the issue at hand.

The appellants seek to credit their guidelines at Level 3-3, stating in the appeal request to OPM:

I have many guidelines available to use, and while some have clear application, the guidelines that relate to the most dangerous or complex recurring duties are typically general in nature, providing intent, but requiring independent judgment based on that intent and personal experience.  Guidelines covering both the legal aspects and investigative processes related to the work are available but there are gaps in specificity due to variations in fact or circumstances in each assignment.

We found the appellants’ guidelines do not meet Level 3-3.  In addition to the availability of previously described guidelines, their position must also meet NWCG’s requirements for Firefighter Type 1, i.e., by completing and passing classes, task books, simulations, and the arduous WCT to be a red-carded firefighter.  The appellants complete initial, annual, and periodic training to perform FPO, prescribed fire, fire suppression, and other duties.  Such rigorous training and certification requirements are intended to prepare them to perform most aspects of their work.  In contrast to Level 3-3, the appellants’ position does not require working with new requirements for which only general guidelines are available, or with assignments where the most applicable guides are limited to general functional statements and/or work samples which are not always directly related to the problem, have gaps in specificity, or are not completely applicable.

The appellants state in their appeal request to OPM:

One of the greatest areas where deviance from guidelines is allowed is during fire investigations.  Even though standard procedures are emphasized to maintain the integrity and credibility of the investigation in court, I have the authority to change procedures based on my expertise.  The following are examples:  1) When searching the Specific Origin Area, beginning at the heel rather than the advancing fire area may be required if the advancing area is on steep terrain and loose soil above the heel may result in disruption of the fire origin.  2) A slow and methodical search of the origin area is a standard procedure.  However, there are unforeseen situations that arise, such as impending debris flows through the area, or other hazardous situations that require a hastily performed search that would otherwise be considered incompetence.  3) There are several time-sensitive actions that must be performed early in the investigation such as recording weather, identifying witnesses, obtaining their contact information, and locating the origin area and preserving physical evidence.  In situations where these tasks must be performed simultaneously, and help is not available, guidelines are set aside to ensure that the best approach is taken to gather information that would otherwise be lost.

The appellants further describe the gaps in specificity in the Region’s Law Enforcement Field Guide, which requires that they request assistance from law enforcement officials in situations where violations are suspected involving large groups.  Because the guide does not define “large,” it is at their discretion to decide what constitutes a large group when requesting assistance.  We recognize their guidelines require application of seasoned judgment and experience to real-world situations for reasons of employee safety and work integrity.  However, their work does not require extending the applicability of guidelines to situations not specifically covered, using guidelines as the basis for making procedural deviations, or adapting guidelines when judgment is exercised based on understanding of the intent of the guidelines to the extent described at Level 3-3.  That is, the appellants’ work does not require application of such judgment within the context of the type or nature of guidelines expected at Level 3-3, where the availability of guidelines as previously mentioned is limited to general guidelines, functional statements, work samples, or the equivalent.  In contrast, we found the guidelines available to their work are well-established, ample, and specific in describing the work to be performed, who must perform the work, how to perform the work, factors to be considered, etc.

This factor is evaluated at Level 3-2 and 125 points are credited. 

Factor 7, Purpose of Contacts

The purpose of personal contacts ranges from factual exchanges of information to situations involving significant or controversial issues and differing viewpoint, goals, or objectives.  The personal contacts that serve as the basis for the level selected for this factor must be the same as the contacts that are the basis for the level selected for Factor 6, Personal Contacts.  The appropriate level for personal contacts and the corresponding level for purpose of contacts are determined by applying the point assignment chart in the GS-0400 Guide for factors 6 and 7. 

At Level 7-b, the purpose of personal contacts is to:  plan and coordinate work efforts; explain the need to adhere to laws, rules, contract, or lease provisions; discuss inspected work and contract requirements when monitoring activity of contractors; discuss technical requirements of equipment with manufacturers and resolve problems concerning the work or the peculiar needs of the organization; interpret data obtained and explain its purpose and significance; or reach agreement on operating problems such as recurring submission of inaccurate, untimely, incomplete, or irrelevant data.  The persons contacted are usually working toward a common goal and generally are reasonably cooperative.  At this level, some technicians may be required to deliver information, such as how data were obtained and their opinion as to its accuracy, in court.

At Level 7-c, the purpose of personal contacts is to influence, motivate, interrogate, or control persons or groups.  For example, the purpose of the contacts is to:  (1) influence others who are knowledgeable about the work to adopt, within the organization, methods about which there are conflicting opinions among those in the line of work; (2) persuade others, such as suspicious and reluctant landowners, to participate in projects or organizational objectives when there is no requirement for doing so; (3) persuade technical and administrative personnel from outside the government to submit the information desired for a study and to persuade these same representatives of the need for additional information when there is no official or legal basis for requiring submission of the information and there are conflicts with the party(s) involved; and/or (4) gaining compliance with established policies and regulations by persuasion or negotiation.  In any case, the persons contacted are characteristically fearful, skeptical or uncooperative, and skill must be used in the approach made to obtain the desired results.

The appellants’ position meets Level 7-b.  As at this level, the purpose of their contacts is to plan, coordinate, and advise on work efforts of their forest protection, fire education, and fire suppression activities.  Their face-to-face contact with the public, who may be campers at recreation sites, off-highway vehicle users, hunters, hikers, homeowners, permittees, transients traveling through the area, or woodcutters, is regular, required, and vital to their position.  The appellants exchange information about prevention and suppression of fires; provide information about and obtain compliance with laws, regulations, and policies; obtain witness statements when conducting fire investigations; and issue permits and violations.  Their contacts can be informational to advise the public of ways to prevent fires, regulatory to inform them of what must be done to prevent fires, or prohibitive to prevent them from acting in an unacceptable manner.  The purpose of their contacts parallels those described at Level 7-b, where contacts are made to explain, interpret, and gain support of FS objectives and provide information about the prevention and suppression of fires.  The appellants’ contacts are also made to resolve operating problems by influencing or motivating individuals or groups who are working toward mutual goals and who have basically cooperative attitudes.  Like Level 7-b, they may be required to deliver information relating to their investigation findings in court.

The appellants seek to credit the purpose of their personal contacts at Level 7-c, stating in the appeal request to OPM:

Prevention work, by definition, is geared toward influencing and modifying people’s behavior, to do something they would not otherwise do on their own.  Training is provided to me that allows me to perform at the required higher level of 7c.  An emphasis of this training is learning how to identify and deal with potentially dangerous people, because it is recognized that these contacts will involve gaining compliance with people who are uncooperative.  Since Patrols don’t carry firearms or other tools of self-defense, it is required that we are equipped with and use the skills needed to successfully gain compliance.

The appellants’ position does not meet Level 7-c.  The purpose of their contacts is not to influence, motivate, interrogate, or control persons or groups as expected at this level.  The appellants’ contacts with schools and community groups are for the purpose of preparing and presenting fire education programs; with resources and other technical FS personnel for the development and implementation of operational fire plans; and with other Federal, State, county, and local agencies for the coordination of fire suppression activities.  However, there is no evidence of contacts equivalent to Level 7-c, including contacts for the purpose of influencing others who are knowledgeable about the work to adopt methods about which there are conflicting opinions; persuading others such as reluctant landowners to participate in projects or organizational objectives when there is no requirement for doing so; or persuading technical and administrative personnel outside the Government to submit information desired for a study when there is no official or legal basis for requiring submission of the information and there are conflicts with the parties involved.

We recognize the purpose of the appellants’ contacts with the public involves gaining their compliance with established policies and regulations for fire prevention and suppression activities, as stated in their appeal request to OPM.  Unlike Level c, the persons contacted are not characteristically fearful, skeptical, or uncooperative.  The appellants’ FPO authorities and responsibilities are restricted in certain circumstances.  For example, as required by the Region’s Law Enforcement Field Guide, they must take no direct enforcement actions and request immediate assistance from law enforcement officials in situations such as:  crimes involving homicide, rape, robbery, assault, domestic disputes, and other offenses with a high probability for violence; the use or abuse of alcohol or drugs; suspicious individuals or individuals exhibiting strange behavior; or verbally abusive or threatening subjects.  We understand the potential for danger or threat exists when initially approaching unknown situations or people, and they must use tact and sensitivity in dealing with individuals who may have differing concerns and demands.  Regardless, established agency guidelines require that they make no further direct contact in suspicious, potentially violent, or other elevated situations.  We conclude the appellants’ contacts do not require the skill necessary at Level 7-c where, on a regular and recurring basis, the nature of contacts is to influence, interrogate, or control persons or groups who are characteristically (i.e., normally) fearful, skeptical, or uncooperative.  Instead, the purpose of their contacts generally involves dealing with cooperative individuals characteristic of the typical visitor to the Forest.

Factors 6 and 7 are evaluated at Levels 6-2 and 7-b respectively, and a total of 75 points are assigned.

Factor 8, Physical Demands

This factor covers the physical demands placed on the employee by the work assignment.  This includes physical characteristics and abilities, e.g., specific agility and dexterity requirements, and the physical exertion involved in the work, e.g., climbing, lifting, pushing, balancing, stooping, kneeling, crouching, crawling, or reaching.

At Level 8-2, the work requires some physical exertion, such as regular and recurring running, walking, or bending; walking or climbing over rocky areas, through plowed fields or other uneven surfaces, through dense vegetation, and in mountainous terrain; or climbing ladders or scaffolds to observe, collect, or record research data.  In many situations, the duration of the activity (such as most of a workday) contributes to the arduous nature of the job.  In other situations, such as in a laboratory, there may be special requirements for agility or dexterity such as exceptional hand/eye coordination.

At Level 8-3, the work requires regular and protracted periods of considerable and strenuous physical exertion such as carrying or lifting heavy objects (over 50 pounds); hacking passages through dense vegetation; or climbing ladders or scaffolds carrying heavy equipment used to install, maintain, or repair research installations.

When performing the majority of their duties (e.g., patrol, inspection, investigation, safety, and education activities), the physical demands required by the appellants’ work meets Level 8-2.  Such work requires some physical exertion such as regular and recurring walking, bending, or running; and walking or climbing over rocky or steep areas, through uneven surfaces, dense vegetation, and mountainous and other terrain types.  The duration of their activities also contributes to the arduous nature of the job.

In addition, we note that some of the appellants’ fire suppression activities would fully meet but not exceed Level 8-2.  Depending on the incident complexity and type, a wildland fire is designated from Type 5 (the lowest level of complexity recognized in the Incident Command System) to Type 1 (the highest level of complexity).  Type 5 incidents are the most common, require only local resources with typically no more than two to six firefighters to manage, and generally contained within the first burning period, i.e., 24 hours, and often within a few hours after resources arrive on scene.  Type 4 incidents require only local resources varying from a single module to several resources, i.e., approximately 15 to 20 firefighters, and generally resolved within one operational period.  The appellants are equipped with gear and clothing to mitigate the risk of injury from or exposure to hazardous conditions encountered while conducting all fire suppression activities.  Their personal protective equipment (PPE) includes eight-inch high-laced leather boots with lug soles, fire shelter, hard hat with chin strap, goggles, ear plugs, aramid shirts and trousers, leather gloves, and individual first aid kits.  Their fire suppression work sometimes requires strenuous physical exertion for more complex fires, while in PPE, including handling hose lines and carrying a moderately heavy fire pack, weighing approximately 15 to 45 pounds.  Depending on the task at hand, the fire pack may contain items such as the five-pound fire shelter, blanket, water, batteries, radio, sweatshirt, food, and/or other tools and equipment; operating equipment such as a chainsaw, shovel, or Pulaski chopping and trenching tool to grub or trench duff and matted roots, chop, or clear debris  The appellants may have to navigate their  aforementioned activities on slippery, steep, rocky, and/or uneven terrain.  As firefighters in Type 5 and 4 incidents, the appellants’ work requires physical exertion such as laying hose, containing fires, and using hand tools to cut, scape, or dig firelines.  However, because Type 5 and 4 incidents are generally less complex, small and contained, and resolved within a relatively short period of time, we found the physical demands required by the appellants’ associated work fully meets Level 8-2, in contrast to the regular and protracted periods of considerable and strenuous physical exertion described at Level 8-3.

The appellants seek to credit their position at Level 8-3, stating in the appeal request to OPM:

Extended attack firefighting typically involves scraping line/cutting fuel breaks or laying out sections of hose, usually upslope, at a rapid pace, for hours on end.  The physical activity involved is grueling, which is based less on carrying or lifting weight, and more on the actual work being performed.  Carrying a pack of 35-50 pounds (as we do) is the easier part of the job, although it does make an already arduous job, more so.  Breaks are frequently limited to the amount of time it takes to pull out a canteen of water and drink.  Discomfort does not give me an excuse to rest, because everyone is in some type of distress – it’s the nature of the job, and the reason the arduous pack test rating is required.  The only thing more physically demanding than extended attack firefighting, is initial-attack firefighting.

Initial-attack firefighting involves the same duties as above, but with a greater sense of urgency.  The pace of work is so rapid that the employee risks experiencing medical emergencies (in addition to heat stroke) even when staying properly hydrated, such as the well-known cases of rhabdomyolysis, or, “rhabdo”…A “good” initial attack, even with as little as one hour of firefighting, can physically wipe you out for the remainder of the day.  It is not uncommon to experience the early signs and symptoms of heat related illnesses that requires rest and recuperation.

The record indicates the appellants sometimes perform work requiring protracted periods of considerable and strenuous physical exertion when fighting Types 3, 2, and 1 wildfires typical of positions at Level 8-3.  The FS, as a result, takes this into consideration in the hiring and retention of patrol personnel.  In addition to requiring applicants to have prior firefighter experience to be considered qualified, the agency also requires the appellants to pass a WCT at the arduous level, which is the highest physical fitness level.  The NWCG Standards for Wildland Fire Position Qualification describes the arduous physical fitness level as follows:

Duties involve fieldwork requiring physical performance calling for above-average endurance and superior conditioning.  These duties include an occasional demand for extraordinarily strenuous activities in emergencies under adverse environmental conditions and over extended periods of time.  Requirements include running, walking, climbing, jumping, twisting, bending, and lifting more than 50 pounds; the pace of work typically is set by the emergency situation.

In general, Types 3, 2, and 1 wildfire incidents are larger, more complex, and require an extended attack as the fire cannot be contained or controlled by the initial attack.  Similar to Level 8-3, when engaged in the initial and extended attack firefighting of Types 3, 2, and 1 wildfire incidents, the appellants’ work requires regular and protracted periods of considerable and strenuous physical exertion, while in PPE, equivalent to carrying or lifting heavy objects and hacking passages through dense vegetation.  Such fire suppression activities require more than bursts of strength to lift heavy objects or maneuver on uneven, rocky, or steep terrain, but instead require sustaining the strenuous physical exertion for a protracted period of time as expected at Level 8-3. 

Nonetheless, after careful review, we found none of the appellants perform work involving initial and extended attack firefighting of Types 3, 2, and 1 wildfire incidents with sufficient frequency to control the evaluation of Factor 8.  This conclusion is based on our review of copies of the Incident Qualification and Certification System (IQCS) records furnished by the agency for each appellant covering their firefighting involvement in Types 3, 2, and 1 wildfire incidents during 2017, 2018, and 2019.  The IQCS is a tool used to track and report on an employee’s fire qualifications and a record of their history and participation or assistance on wildfires for the FS and various agency partners.  To avoid the vagaries of unpredictable fire seasons, we calculated the volume of time based on an average of the work time each appellant spent on firefighting of Types 3, 2, and 1 wildfire incidents during 2017, 2018, and 2019.  We found that the average volume of time spent on initial and extended attack firefighting for eight of the appellants during the three year period ranged from 2.4 percent to 13.7 percent.  In addition, although five appellants performed no complex type firefighting in 2019, their firefighting for Types 3, 2, and 1 fire incidents during 2017 and 2018 only averaged from 2.9 to 16.2 percent of their work time.  Therefore, while the appellants were challenged by higher level physical demands when involved with fighting more complex types of fires, none of them performed that work with sufficient frequency to control the final evaluation of Factor 8 and, as discussed below, Factor 9, Work Environment. This is because duties occupying less than 25 percent of an employee’s time are considered minor and thus have no grade impact on a position (Introduction, Section III.J.).  

This factor is evaluated at Level 8-2 and 20 points are credited. 

Factor 9, Work Environment

This factor considers the risks and discomforts in the employee’s physical surroundings or the nature of the work assigned and safety regulations required.

At Level 9-2, the work involves regular and recurring moderate risks or discomforts which require special safety precautions, e.g., working around moving parts, carts, or machines; with contagious diseases or irritant chemicals; in a logging or construction site; or performing routine patrol work.  Work at Level 9-2 may on a regular and recurring basis require working outdoors, in meat lockers or other such environments with extreme temperatures, and/or exposure to adverse weather conditions.  At this level, employees are required to use protective clothing or gear such as hard hats, masks, gowns, ear plugs, coats, boots, goggles, gloves, or shields to moderate risks, or to follow procedures for minimizing risk.

At Level 9-3, the work environment involves high risks with regular and recurring exposure to potentially dangerous situations or unusual environmental stress where high risk factors exist which cannot be reasonably controlled.  For example, working at great heights under extreme weather conditions, or working closely with toxins or dangerous pests or animals such as poisonous snakes, where safety precautions cannot completely eliminate the danger.

The appellants’ work environment meets Level 9-2 when performing the majority of their patrol, inspection, investigation, safety, and education duties.  As at this level, they work primarily in a Forest environment on various terrains that may be steep, uneven, or rocky, and are exposed to weather climates characterized as hot, cold, windy, and other extremes.  Like Level 9-2, they wear protective clothing and gear to minimize risks.  We also note that some of the appellants’ fire suppression activities would fully meet but not exceed Level 9-2.  Specifically, because Type 5 and 4 incidents are generally small and contained, the appellants’ work environment when suppressing such fires does not involve the regular and recurring exposure to potentially dangerous situations or unusual environmental stress where high risk factors cannot be reasonably controlled as described at Level 9-3.

The appellants seek to credit their position at Level 9-3, stating in the appeal request to OPM:

In firefighting and fire investigation, you are frequently combining smoke as an irritant, weather extremes, uncontrolled fire, and other hazards such as rocky and steep terrain, where danger elimination is impossible, meeting the intent of level 9-3…Contrastingly, in the fire environment, fire weakened trees can jump out and kill you without warning, rocks dislodged by heavy equipment can crush you unexpectedly, and the fire can trap you.  Hardhats are of little value in those situations.  Fire shelters have been issued to help mitigate the danger, but many firefighters have been burned to death in their fire shelters.

We considered Factor 9 in relation to specific requirements unique to the appellants’ fire suppression work, e.g., must employees exercise control to eliminate the hazards, what knowledge must employees have to exercise this control, what are the hazards or physical discomforts involved, and is the exposure to danger or discomfort on a regular and recurring basis.  The appellants’ position requires exercising significant control to mitigate the hazards and discomforts associated with their fire suppression work.  They apply knowledge to specifically mitigate the dangers and discomforts, as evidenced by their PD which describes applying the following:  (1)  knowledge of fire behavior including causes of fire, influence of temperature, humidity, wind, topography, slope and fuel moisture conditions in order to know where to attack the fire, build fire lines and where to properly position a fire crew to suppress a wildfire, (2) detailed knowledge of fire suppression methods and procedures to suppress and control wildland fires in various types of fuels and under a variety of conditions of weather or terrain, (3) skill in the use of firefighting hand tools such as Pulaski, shovel, crosscut saw, and power tools including chainsaw and portable pumps to build fire lines and control wildfires, and (4) thorough knowledge of accepted and established safety practices and procedures involved in wildland fire prevention and suppression to prevent injury or loss of life while performing on a small or large fire.

In addition to Level 9-2, the appellants sometimes perform duties where the work environment involves exposure to dangerous situations where high risk factors are uncontrollable as described at Level 9-3.  In considering the hazards or physical discomforts involved when they are engaged in the initial and extended attack firefighting of Type 3, 2, and 1 incidents, the hazardous nature of the appellants’ work requires them to wear or use boots, gloves, goggles, hard hat, fire shelter, and other PPE, but such equipment is not able to completely mitigate or eliminate the risks inherent with such work.  They are exposed to risks and potentially dangerous situations involving, either separately or in combination, fire and smoke inhalation; adverse and extreme weather conditions; heat-related illnesses and injuries; irritant fuels and chemicals; vehicle-related injuries; downed power lines and other electrical hazards; drought-weakened and falling trees; venomous snakes, ticks, and other wildlife common to the forest environment; and slips, trips, and falls when on surfaces and terrain that may be rough, uneven, steep, or covered with thick and tangled vegetation.  There are added discomforts and risks when required to carry their fire pack under such conditions, and when exposed to prolonged smoke exposure particularly during extended attack firefighting.

When engaged in the initial and extended attack firefighting of Types 3, 2, and 1 incidents, the appellants’ work environment is consistent with the Level 9-3 description of high-risk exposure to dangerous situations.  However, for the same reason as previously discussed under Factor 8,  we found none of the appellants perform work involving initial and extended attack firefighting of Types 3, 2, and 1 wildfire incidents with sufficient frequency (i.e., 25 percent or more of the appellants’ time) to control the evaluation of both Factor 9 (Work Environment) and Factor 8 (Physical Demands). 

Level 9-2 is credited for 20 points.

Summary
Factors	Level	Points
1. Knowledge required by the position	1-5	750
2. Supervisory controls	2-3	275
3. Guidelines	3-2	125
4. Complexity	4-3	150
5. Scope and effect	5-3	150
6. & 7. Personal contacts/Purpose of contacts	6-2/ 7-b	75
8. Physical demands	8-2	20
9. Work environment	9-2	20
Total		1565

A total of 1565 points falls within the GS-7 range (1,355-1,600) on the Grade Conversion Table provided in the GS-0400 Guide.

Decision

The appellants’ position is properly classified as Forestry Technician, GS-0462-07.  Parenthetical title is at the agency’s discretion. 

[1] The appellants’ representative originally filed this group appeal on behalf of the thirteen appellants listed above plus [name], assigned to the Los Padres National Forest.  However, effective February 2, 2020, [name] was promoted to the position of Supervisory Forestry Technician, GS-0462-08, thus no longer assigned to the appealed position.  Therefore, we cancelled his appeal. 

Back to Top