The 2-in/2-out rule mandates a "buddy system" whenever fire fighters enter a burning structure. They must do so in teams of at least two, operating in direct voice or visual contact. In addition, at least two other fully-equipped and trained fire fighters must remain outside the structure, monitoring those inside and prepared to rescue them. The new rule, issued by OSHA as part of a comprehensive change in respiratory standards, also requires all personnel engaged in interior structural fire fighting to use self-contained breathing apparatus.

Because the federal Occupational Health and Safety Act of 1970 does not apply to publicly employed fire fighters, the new regulations will be enforced for federal fire fighters, members of industrial fire brigades, and private incorporated fire companies. However, public sector fire fighters in 25 states and territories that operate their own OSHA-approved safety programs are required to extend the provisions of the regulations to these workers or adopt equivalent standards. Consequently, the regulations, which have a start-up date of October 5, 1998, will apply to publicly employed fire fighters in Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada,

OSHA adopted the regulations after taking comments from fire service professionals, the IAFF, and other interested parties. OSHA also noted that various standards developed by the National Fire Protection Administration (NFPA) were consistent with the new 2-in/2-out requirement.

In announcing the rule, OSHA emphasized that the requirement for standby personnel does not preclude the incident commander from relying on his/her professional judgment to make assignments during a fire emergency. Although the standards require at least two standby persons during the attack on an interior fire, there are situations where more than two persons will be required both inside and outside the interior structure, a decision ultimately to be made by the incident commander. However, the assignment of standby personnel to other roles, such as incident commander or operator of fire apparatus, will not be permitted if abandoning their critical tasks clearly jeopardizes the safety and health of any fire fighter working at the incident. OSHA noted that the regulations do not specify the exact number of fire fighters that should staff apparatus.

Secretary of Labor Alexis Herman announced the new safety regulations at a press conference January 8. In attendance were IAFF President Whitehead and two Phoenix fire fighters who were burned in a fire last year. The Phoenix Fire Department has long practiced the 2-in/2-out procedure. Also attending was the widow of a Chesapeake, Virginia, fire fighter who died in a 1996

At the press conference, Whitehead praised President Clinton for following through on a 1996

The new regulations may be found in the January 8, 1998, edition of the Federal Register.

As to the role of emergency medical service personnel (EMS), the publication notes, "EMS

The newly issued pamphlet is entitled, Hospital and Community Emergency Response - What You Need To Know and is available through OSHA or at www.osha.gov.

The dispute originated last May when Chief Navarro recommended closing Fire Station No. 3, which serves one of the city's oldest neighborhoods. A citizens' group was formed to assess the impact of the closing and several fire fighters sought to provide input on the matter. Last June 6, Navarro issued a memo that reportedly read in part, "Once a decision is made, I expect all of you to support the decision, whether you agree with it or not. Publicly criticizing or supporting public criticism of a policy

According to the suit, a battalion chief was given a "final warning" after speaking out against the closure to a member of the chief's staff and a fire fighter was issued a letter of reprimand for sending an E-mail survey on the issue to other fire fighters.

The ACLU attorney claims the station closing would increase response time to fire alarms and emergency medical calls. According to the suit, the station closing touches upon a matter of public concern and fire fighters "have a valuable perspective to contribute" on the issue.

Attorneys for the city dispute whether the station closing is a matter of public concern and that fire department employees possess a constitutional

Case law interpreting the First Amendment permits public employees to comment upon matters of public concern providing the comments do not unreasonably disrupt the operation of the employing agency. Litigation on this issue is fairly frequent because no bright line rule has been established clearly delineating when comments are disruptive to a government organization.

The City of Hallandale has sued the Hallandale Professional Fire Fighters Union, IAFF Local No. 2238, requesting an injunction to prevent the union from seeking arbitration on the city's reduction from 16 to 15 the minimum number of fire fighters who will be on duty each shift. Reduction in staffing was an effort to save money but the fire fighters' union charges that the decrease occasionally leaves fire fighters without the use of the best equipped vehicle for fighting fires, an engine with a 75 foot ladder that cost the city $500,000. This, according to the union, creates safety problems for the fire fighters and the community.

Union president Barry McConaghey stated, "What good is having the [arbitration] clause in the contract if we can't use it?"

At the core of the dispute appears to be the amount of overtime money available. The city has reportedly budgeted 50 percent more overtime than last year. Union officials charged, however, that overtime is being given to superior officers such as battalion chiefs at the expense of line fire fighters.

Normal staffing level for the 70 member department is 22 fire fighters per shift.

"It's a goodwill gesture, that's all," said Jackson.

A fire fighter spokesman stated, "It couldn't have made them any happier, and with all the accolades and congratulations we got from everyone, that was one of the best."

Cases of interest

HELD: The deceased fire fighter's widow seeks to have the Rhode Island Injured On Duty statute struck down as an unconstitutional violation of due process rights. Specifically, she contends the statute violates her right of equal protection under the laws as well as her right to a trial by jury. Under the common law doctrine of sovereign immunity, police officers and fire fighters were essentially left without a source of recovery for injuries sustained in the course of performing their

HELD: Under Louisiana law, the burden of proof is on the employer to demonstrate by the

HELD: Under Texas civil service law, decisions of civil service commissions are subject to the substantial evidence standard of review. Under this standard, the party disputing the result has the burden to show that the agency's decision was not based on substantial evidence. The reviewing court may not set aside such a decision because it would reach a different conclusion; it may only do so if that decision was made without regard to the facts or the law and was unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. Rough argues that the indefinite suspension is void because it was imposed outside the jurisdictional time frames of state civil service law. State statute provides that if the disciplinary action related to a criminal complaint occurred or was discovered within 180 days before the complaint, the department must bring administrative charges within 30 days of the final disposition of the complaint. Rough contends the 30 day period began running the date he received deferred adjudication. In other words, Rough asserts that the granting of the deferred adjudication probation constitutes the final disposition of the complaint. Thus, he contends the notification of indefinite suspension on February 21 was 33 days from the order of deferred adjudication and outside the time