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).

As indicated in this decision, our findings show the appellants’ official position description (PD) does not meet the standard of adequacy described in section III.E. of the Introduction.  Since PDs must meet the standard of adequacy, the agency must revise the appellants’ PD to reflect our findings.  The servicing human resources office must submit a compliance report containing the corrected PD and Standard Form (SF) 50s showing the personnel action taken.  The report must be submitted within 30 days from the effective date of the personnel action to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), Agency Compliance and Evaluation, Washington, DC, office.

Introduction

The appellants’ position is currently classified as Forestry Technician (Prevention), GS-0462-07, but they believe their position should be classified at the GS-08 grade level.  The three appellants with their duty locations are:  (1) [Name], Los Angeles Gateway Ranger District, Angeles National Forest; (2) [Name], Shasta McCloud Management Unit, McCloud Ranger District, Shasta-Trinity National Forest; and (3) [Name], Salmon/Scott River Ranger District, Klamath National Forest.  All of the appellants’ duty locations are within the Pacific Southwest Region (R5), U.S. Forest Service (FS), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), in California.  The appellants perform essentially identical duties and are currently assigned to the same official PD number FS1795.  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 their agency’s evaluation of their position 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 their position.  By law, we must make our decision solely by comparing the appellants’ current duties and responsibilities to OPM position classification standards (PCS) and guidelines (5 U.S.C. 5106, 5107, and 5112).  Since comparison to standards is the exclusive method for classifying positions, we cannot compare the appellants’ position to others, which may or may not be classified properly, 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 OPM 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, including time spent in training and readiness activities, as emergency work similarly performed by Attack Warning Officers as described in 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 find the situation described in Digest Article 12-01 inapplicable to the appellants’ position.  As discussed later in this appeal decision, our fact-finding disclosed the appellants spend only 10 to 20 percent of their overall work time performing fire suppression and not within the operational context described for Attack Warning Officers in Digest Article 12-01.  Consequently, that work does not constitute a “major duty” as defined in the Introduction and does not impact the classification of the position.  However, fire prevention work (e.g., fire education, fire investigation, forest protection) comprises the majority of the appellants’ overall work and is considered the major duty of the position.  This contrasts with firefighter positions whose sole purpose is fighting fires irrespective of the actual time spent on that work.  We found the paramount knowledge of their 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 prevention.  We thus compared the fire prevention work performed on a regular and recurring basis to grading criteria applicable to GS-0462 positions rather than to the concept described in Digest Article 12-01.

The appellants’ supervisors certified to the accuracy of PD number FS1795 and initially so did the appellants.  However, during our group interview one appellant disagreed with the percentages of time assigned to the duties in the PD (i.e., 70 percent to fire prevention work including fire suppression work and 30 percent fuels management work).  The appellant stated that fire prevention and fire suppression work should make up 100 percent of the work as stated in a previously assigned PD, which is currently assigned to other prevention technicians within his organization.  A second appellant stated that the time spent on fire suppression varies seasonally, and a third appellant stated that fire suppression falls under fire prevention work, and thus is difficult to assign a percentage to fire suppression duties alone.  However, all management officials interviewed having first-hand knowledge of the work assigned and performed, explained that the primary focus of the appellants’ position is to perform fire prevention activities directed at reducing the incidence of fires, including public education (i.e., presentations and fire prevention events) public contact within their FPO roles (i.e., to inform people of the need to be fire safe while using the wildlands), fire investigations (i.e., fire origin and cause determinations) and support of prescribed fires.  However, they stated the appellants perform initial attacks on small fires if encountered during their patrols or as assigned but which are limited to Type 5 and Type 4 wildland fires (i.e., low level complexity fires that are contained within a 24-hour period using minimal resources).  Moreover, management officials having knowledge of the work assigned and performed stated that for the past two years fire suppression work (i.e., involving putting fires out or preventing fires from spreading) accounted for only 10 to 20 percent of each of their employees’ time.  A PD is the official record of the major duties and responsibilities assigned to a position by an official with the authority to assign work.  A position is the duties and responsibilities that make up the work performed by the employee.  Classification appeal regulations permit OPM to investigate or audit a position and decide an appeal based on the actual duties and responsibilities currently assigned by management and performed by the employee.  An OPM appeal decision classifies a real operating position, and not simply a PD.  Therefore, this decision is based on the work currently assigned by management and performed by the appellants. 

Our review disclosed the appellants’ PD of record is not completely accurate because it describes duties from a program management standpoint and duties the appellants do not perform.  It also does not clearly reflect the appellants’ fire investigations responsibilities.  Specifically, while the appellants support fire prevention program goals and objectives by gathering, coordinating and providing input for the development or update of their unit’s fire prevention plans, they are not responsible for the “development, implementation and administration of the unit’s Fire Prevention Program,” or the development of “comprehensive Wildfire Prevention Analysis Plans” or “hazardous fuel treatment plans.”  These responsibilities are vested in supervisory or other district fire prevention positions.  The appellants do not “Prepare annual financial budgetary plans for the prevention program using the appropriate data to prepare the workload cost analysis.”  Rather, they conduct fire prevention program events or presentations within an allotted budget.  Furthermore, while they provide basic fire prevention direction to apprentices or seasonal employees riding along with them, coordinate with Lookouts, and serve as Incident Commanders (ICs), their position does not require them to provide “technical and administrative supervision to other fire personnel.”  The appellants also do not serve as “Unit coordinators for Smoke Management, which involves using the Smoke Management System…” as stated in the PD.  This responsibility is assigned to fuel management officers.  The appellants do not “Manage the unit’s fire detection program” to include aerial recon, lookout and repositioning during high levels of suspected arson activity.  This responsibility is assigned to duty officers in charge of the resources assigned for the unit.  The appellants are not responsible for “updating fire occurrence map and large fire history annually.”  Additionally, although we do not disagree with the assignment level for Factor 1, Knowledge Required by the Position, our fact-finding does not support that the appellants’ position requires “Knowledge of budget processes and procedures to help draft portions of the Project Work Planning System” or “Working Knowledge of state Smoke Management program…”  Therefore, the appellants’ PD of record does not meet the standard of adequacy addressed on pages 11-12 of the Introduction, and the agency must revise the PD to reflect our findings.

Position information

The mission of the USDA FS is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations.  Pacific Southwest Region (R5) of the FS manages 20 million acres of National Forest land in California and assists the State and private forest landowners in California, Hawaii and the U.S. Affiliated Pacific Islands.  Eighteen national forests are in this region, in the North Coast, Cascade, and Sierra Nevada ranges and from Big Sur to the Mexican border in the south coast range. 

The Angeles National Forest is an urban National Forest.  The Los Angeles Gateway District is in the central section of Angeles National Forest.  Comprising 147,871 acres, the district is bound by the Los Angeles Basin on the south, the San Gabriel Wilderness Area on the east, the San Gabriel Mountains Crest on the north, and the junction of the Interstate 5 and Highway 14 on the west.  The district offers a host of recreational opportunities such as hiking, camping, picnicking and mountain biking.  Besides recreation, the district is used for movie filming, 50-K and 100-mile bicycle events, forest-product sales, TV and radio broadcasting and astronomy studies. 

The Shasta-Trinity National Forest is the largest National Forest in California, encompassing 2.2 million acres with over 6, 278 miles of streams and rivers.  The forest offers a wide range of recreational activities including hiking, backpacking, mountain climbing, horseback riding, camping, boating, fishing, cross-county skiing, and snowmobiling.  The Shasta McCloud Management Unit encompasses 390, 840 acres and the Mount Shasta and McCloud Ranger Districts.  Recreation activities center on two designated wilderness areas of Mount Shasta and Castle Crags.  No trails lead up Mount Shasta, but trails provide access to the Wilderness and the foot of the mountain. 

The Klamath National Forest covers an area of 1.7 million acres including fire wilderness areas. It lies along the border of California and Oregon with most of the forest in California and a small portion in Oregon.  The Salmon/Scott River Ranger District is bisected by the Salmon River on the south and the Scott River on the north, covering approximately 585,000 acres.  It is the home of mountain lakes and wild and scenic rivers and has three wilderness areas within its boundaries, the Trinity-Alps, Russian Wilderness Area and Marble Mountain. 

The Pacific Southwest Region (R5) Fire Prevention Program is directed at reducing the incidence of human caused fires, through personal contact, reduction of fuel hazards, and law enforcement.  The appellants serve as Fire Prevention Patrols.  They drive a utility truck (engine type 7) used for patrol, mop-up, or initial attack of fires.  The vehicle has a slip-on water tank that can hold from 50-150 US gallons of water mounted to a utility, platform or pickup bed.  The vehicle is designed to hold a minimum of two people, carry approximately 200 feet in hose with diameters ranging from ¾ inch to 1½ inches.  Within their respective forests and districts, the appellants perform fire education, fire suppression, fire investigation and forest protection duties. 

The appellants are responsible for planning and conducting fire prevention program events and/or presentations to provide fire prevention education to internal and external customers and partners (e.g., campers and forest visitors, private homeowners, school children, fire safe councils).  Program activities include conducting wildfire prevention events at the forest and/or at local schools, county fairs, parades and other special events to promote fire safety and fire prevention measures through talks or presentations.  The appellants provide support of prescribed fires (i.e., controlled burns), conducted to reduce hazardous fuels in order to benefit natural resources and reduce the risk of unwanted wildfires in the future.  As assigned, the appellants also participate in fuel management activities involving fire effects monitoring and fuels sampling.  The appellants are responsible for gathering fire prevention data, providing input and assisting in the preparation of fire prevention plans for their units.  When working with fuels officers they look at risks, hazards and values and provide data and give input for hazardous fuels treatment plans.  If applicable to their forest, the appellants conduct inspections of cabins, power lines and spark arresters on mechanical equipment.  The appellants also perform signage activities such as replacing posters/signs to maintain correct messages, compile data for sign plan updates, or prepare local sign plans.

The appellants fire suppression work includes putting out small fires that may turn into wildland fires (e.g., smoldering campfires, lighting fires) if detected during patrols.  They may also be dispatched to wildland fires (within their complexity authority), where they lay hose and pump water, and/or build a fire line using hand tools to remove fuels from the fire’s path and prevent the fire from spreading.  Other fire suppression work includes participating in burnout operations on light fires, cutting logs or brush using a chainsaw, and mopping up hotspots to keep fire from breaking.  The appellants are qualified Incident Commanders Type 4 (ICT4), and as such they are certified to perform fire suppression activities including serving as ICs in fire incidents with Type 5 or Type 4 complexity indicators.  A Type 5 incident is considered a very small wildland fire that is usually terminated or contained within a few hours after the resources arrive on the scene and one to five single resources may be needed.  A Type 4 incident is also considered a small fire and incident objectives are usually met within one operational period (no more than 24-hours) and over 6 resources may be needed.  When in this role of IC, the appellants are responsible for the overall management of the incident including setting priorities, coordinating activity with the local dispatcher, and ensuring safety.  The appellants are responsible for the protection of the General Origin Area and any associated evidence of a fire, and as qualified Wildland Fire Investigators they conduct investigations to determine the origin and cause of fires.  They look at factors such as fire behavior, weather conditions, items of potential physical evidence, and if applicable, document witness statements and draw sketches or diagrams.  They document facts in Wildland Fire Origin and Cause Supplemental Incident Reports and other forms and provide their report to a Patrol Captain, law enforcement officer or special agent.  Information collected may be used for possible use in apprehension and conviction of arsonists, or other violators and the appellants can be required to participate and testify in court concerning their findings.  

The appellants serve as Forest Protection Officers (FPOs) and have the authority to issue violation notices for certain violations under Title 36, CFR, Parts 242 and 261, subject to the requirements and limitations of FS policies.  They attempt to gain voluntary compliance by informing and educating persons who appear to be in violation of rules and regulations and prepare incident reports to report violations of Federal laws and regulations to special agents or law enforcement officers.  As FPOs they may not take direct enforcement action, but attempt to record vehicle license numbers, vehicle descriptions, and physical descriptions of individuals involved if they are able to do so safely, and request immediate assistance from law enforcement personnel in situations outside their scope of authority, e.g., where there is a probability for violence such as those incidents involving the use or abuse of alcohol and/or drugs.

In reaching our classification decision, we carefully reviewed and considered all the information provided by the appellants and their agency, including their official PD which, although not completely accurate, we have incorporated by reference into this decision.  In addition, to help decide the appeal we conducted telephone interviews with the appellants.  We also conducted separate telephone interviews with the appellants’ current and/or former supervisors (two Supervisory Forestry Technicians, GS-0462-09, one Supervisory Forestry Technician (Fire), GS-0462-09, and two District Fire Management Officers, GS-0301-11).

Series, title, and standard determination

The agency classified the appellants’ position in the Forestry Technician Series, GS-0462, using the basic title of 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 uses the Factor Evaluation System (FES) format, which employs nine factors.  Under the FES, each factor-level in a standard describes the minimum criteria needed to receive credit for the described level.  Therefore, 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 aspects and still not be credited at a higher level.  Each factor level has a corresponding point value.  The total points assigned are converted to a grade by use of the grade conversion table in the GS-0400 Guide. 

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 the 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 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, 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.  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.  Further, technicians may also need to be especially resourceful in searching assigned guides; locating the controlling criteria, and applying it as specified, although the process of locating and selecting the applicable rule may be taxing and time consuming. 

At Level 3-3, technicians work 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 problem 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’ position meets Level 3-2.  Like this level, established procedures and specific guidelines are readily available and are applicable for the work performed by the appellants.  Similar to Level 3-2, guidelines range from standardized and codified regulations such as the Interagency Prescribed Fire Planning and Implementation Procedures Guide, Title 36 of CFR Parts 242 and 261; technical operating procedures including, but not limited to Forest Service Manuals (FSM), the Incident Report Pocket Guide (IRPG), the Law Enforcement Field Guide and the Guide to Wildland Fire Origin and Cause Determinations; to maps for identifying area of patrol responsibility and location of fires, and oral instructions such as those given to them by Lookouts and ICs (i.e., forest directions and safety instructions).  Comparable to Level 3-2, the guidelines contain criteria to solve core questions though their applicability may not be readily apparent.  Like Level 3-2, the appellants are resourceful and use judgment in identifying and selecting the most appropriate guidelines, references, and procedures to apply controlling criteria to specific problems or situations, or to answer questions with minor interpretation.

The appellants’ position does not meet Level 3-3.  Unlike this level, the appellants do not work with general guidelines or those with only limited functional statements which are not directly related to the work performed and core situations encountered.  We find the examples provided by the appellants in support of crediting Level 3-3 are based on guidelines described in Level 3-2, which are readily available, specific, and well established.  The examples described support Level 3-2 in that the appellants use seasoned judgement to make minor interpretations or deviations within the parameters of existing guidelines for specific situations.  If the guidance does not cover a situation, the appellants must consult with the appropriate contact (e.g., supervisor or law enforcement officer).  Unlike Level 3-3, guidelines are available for nearly all areas of the appellants’ work and do not require them to make procedural deviations from established methods or deviate from guidelines typical of Level 3-3.

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

Factor 7, Purpose of Contacts

Factors 6, Personal Contacts and Factor 7, Purpose of Contacts, are interdependent.  The same contacts selected for crediting Factor 6 must be used to evaluate Factor 7.  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 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 Level 7-c, the purpose of 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 to do 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.  Like this level, the purpose of the appellants’ contacts made is to plan and coordinate events to educate the general public and other partners on fire prevention and safety; to explain and promote adherence to laws and regulations and gain voluntary compliance to reduce the risk of forest fires and damage to natural resources; to conduct fire investigations and gather all information and evidence possible for explaining the origin and cause of fires to law enforcement officers (LEOs) or special agents; and to perform initial attack of fires or serve as ICs in wildland fire incidents in coordination with other employees from inside and outside their organization (e.g., county firefighting resources).  Like Level b, the appellants’ contacts persons contacted by the appellants are usually working towards the common goals of fire prevention and fire suppression and are generally cooperative. 

The appellants’ position does not meet Level 7-c.  In support of crediting Level c, the appellants state that as FPOs, they have to deal with people who are uncooperative and potentially dangerous, such as those who are intentionally breaking the law, e.g., timber thieves, underage drinkers, people on drugs, mentally ill or transient people living in the forest.  However, our fact-finding, including interviews with District level managers, confirmed that while the appellants are trained to recognize potentially dangerous situations or violators, by design FS policy imposes limitations on FPOs by granting them only limited regulatory compliance authority.  For example, the appellants cannot take direct enforcement action as can LEOs and must contact law enforcement personnel in situations involving suspicious individuals or individuals exhibiting strange behavior; violations involving verbally abusive or threatening subject(s); and other crimes, e.g., drug related offenses, robbery (FMS 5304.61).  Thus, unlike this level, the purpose of the appellants’ contacts is not to influence, interrogate, or control the persons or groups contacted.  This responsibility and authority is delegated to LEOs.  As opposed to Level c, their contacts do not require that they persuade or negotiate with others who may be suspicious or uncooperative in following established regulations.  Moreover, persons contacted are not typically fearful or skeptical requiring skill in approach to obtain the desired results as intended at Level 7-c. 

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 requirements and physical demands placed on the employee by the work assignment. 

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.

The appellants’ position meets Level 8-2.  The type of patrol primarily used by the appellants is Ground Patrol (motorized).  This is the most common patrol and highly effective in wildland urban interface areas and areas of concentrated public use, such as those patrolled by the appellants.  Comparable to this level, the appellants’ work requires some physical exertion such as regular and recurring driving on mountainous roads and walking on uneven or rugged terrain to conduct fire prevention work.  Also, like Level 8-2, when making one-on-one contact in high-use recreation areas, areas inaccessible to vehicles, or when assisting in prescribed burns or other similar projects, the appellants’ physical demands regularly include recurring periods of walking or climbing over rocky areas, through dense vegetation, and in mountainous terrain.  Like Level 8-2, additional physical exertion is required when standing or bending to perform initial fire attack actions which may include size-up, patrolling, monitoring, holding action, or suppression of small fires needing very few firefighting resources and which are terminated or contained quickly.  While the appellants perform some administrative duties in an office setting, most of their workday is spent outdoors in a national forest environment exposed to physical demands typical of Level 8-2. 

The appellants’ position does not meet Level 8-3.  With the exception of the appellants’ fire shelter which they must take with them to every fire incident site, equipment, tools and supplies used by them to perform their work are maintained and transported in their assigned trucks and retrieved as needed.  The appellants keep a personal gear backpack (also referred to as fire or soft pack) with a maximum weight capacity of 45 pounds.  They have the discretion to store a variety of items in their personal gear backpacks such as, but not limited to water, rations, binoculars, first aid kit, mobile and handheld radios, extra batteries, GPS, glow sticks, headlamp, flairs, extra clothes, gloves, blankets, guides and forms.  Tools used and transported by the appellants in their trucks include hand tools such as Pulaski, felling axes, shovels, and chainsaws (if qualified to operate), and at times equipment for prescribed burning and signage supplies.  The appellants also keep other items in their truck, such as investigation kits, educational materials, handouts, firewood cutting information and maps, Smokey the Bear memorabilia and other event supplies, as well as inspection and blank permit forms.  All personal protective equipment or clothing which they do not wear during their daily patrols but is needed when heading to a fire incident site is also stored in their trucks (i.e., fire-resistant shirt, gloves, and eye protection).  Thus, unlike Level 8-3 the appellants’ work does not require regular and protracted periods of considerable and strenuous physical exertion such as carrying or lifting heavy objects (over 50 pounds).  Further, the appellants do not exercise regular and protracted periods of considerable strenuous physical exertion such as hacking passages through dense vegetation.

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

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 the 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. For other positions the work 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 appellant’s position meets Level 9-2.  Like this level, the appellants work in a forest environment which involves regular and recurring moderate risks or discomforts which require special safety precautions.  For instance, they patrol and perform duties in an environment with exposure to adverse weather conditions (e.g., hot and dry, very wet, high winds, snow).  They also patrol around fallen limbs or trees, rock debris, rolling logs and poisonous insects and plants.  Like Level 9-2, the appellants are equipped with proper equipment and clothing in order to mitigate the risk of injury from, or exposure to, hazardous conditions encountered while working.  Specifically, they wear protective clothing or gear including a hard hat with chin straps, leather boots and gloves, fire resistant shirts and pants and eye protection as needed.  In addition, they follow procedures to minimize risks (e.g., patrol safety, thunderstorm safety, hazard trees safety) and take an annual course in Fire Safety focused on all hazard incident safety in order to recognize and mitigate risk, maintain safe and effective practices, and reduce accidents.

The appellants’ position does not meet Level 9-3.  Unlike this level, the appellants’ work environment does not involve high risks and exposure to potentially dangerous situations or unusual environmental stress where high risk factors exist which cannot be reasonably controlled or where safety precautions cannot eliminate danger as described at Level 9-3.  The safety equipment described in Level 9-2 is sufficient to ensure the safety of the appellants.  While they may be in engaged in fire suppression and/or IC duties for Types 5 or 4 fires which we have previously found not grade controlling, that work would still not support the level of risk or exposure to potentially dangerous situations or environmental stressors indicative of Level 9-3. 

This factor is evaluated at Level 9-2 and 20 points are assigned. 

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	6-2/7b	75
8. Physical demands	8-2	20
9. Work environment	9-2	20
Total		1,565

A total of 1565 points falls within the GS-7 range (1355-1600) on the Grade Conversion Table in the GS-0400 Guide. 

Decision

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

Back to Top