The following opinion is presented on-line for informational use only and does not replace the official version. (Mich Dept of Attorney General Web Site - www.ag.state.mi.us) STATE OF MICHIGAN FRANK J. KELLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL Opinion No. 6681 May 17, 1991 FIREMEN & FIRE DEPARTMENTS: Examinations for firemen The provision for fire fighter examinations specified in section 9 of the Fire Fighters Training Council Act of 1966 does not apply to those employed or appointed as fire fighters prior to October 1, 1988, who change their department (not status) after that date. Honorable Douglas Carl State Senator The Capitol Lansing, MI 48913 You have requested my opinion regarding the application of the provision in the Fire Fighters Training Council Act of 1966, 1966 PA 291, MCL 29.361 et seq; MSA 4.560(1) et seq, which exempts certain fire fighters from the requirement of the Act that they pass an examination administered by the Fire Fighters Training Council (the Council). Your question may be phrased as follows: Does the provision for fire fighter examinations specified in section 9 of the Fire Fighters Training Council Act of 1966 apply to those employed or appointed as fire fighters prior to October 1, 1988 who change their department (not status) after that date? Section 9 of the Act was amended by 1987 PA 196, to require those persons hired as fire fighters to pass a test developed and administered by the Council within 12 months after being hired in the case of full-time personnel and within 24 months after being appointed in the case of volunteers or paid on-call personnel: (4) The council shall develop and administer an examination, which shall include a practical demonstration, a written or oral test, or a combination thereof, to determine a person's competency in regard to the knowledge and skill requirements set forth in fire fighter I and II standards of the "fire fighter professional qualifications", national fire protection association pamphlet no. 1001, 1987 edition. ... The examination shall be administered in 2 parts. Part 1 shall test the knowledge and skill requirements set forth in fire fighter I, and part 2 shall test the knowledge and skill requirements set forth in fire fighter II. ... (5) Within 12 months after a person's hiring date as a full-time fire fighter, the person must pass both part 1 and part 2 of the examination to be eligible for continued or permanent full-time employment as a fire fighter. (6) Within 24 months after a person's appointment date as a volunteer or paid on-call fire fighter, a person must pass part 1 of the examination to be eligible for continued volunteer or paid on-call service as a fire fighter. Notwithstanding this requirement for testing of newly-hired fire fighters, section 9 of the Act, as amended by 1987 PA 196, provided an exemption from the testing requirement as follows: (7) The examination described in this section shall not apply to a person who is employed or under appointment as a fire fighter on October 1, 1988, unless a person subsequently changes his or her status from a volunteer or paid on-call fire fighter to a full-time fire fighter. [Emphasis added.] You have indicated, and a staff member of the Council has confirmed, that the Council's understanding of these provisions is that all fire fighters, even those who were fire fighters on October 1, 1988, must take these examinations if they join another fire department, unless they have previously passed the examination for the type of position in which they have been hired, e.g., full-time or volunteer/paid on-call. The primary rule of statutory construction is to give effect to the intention of the Legislature, and when a statute is plain, certain and unambiguous, no further interpretation is necessary. Owendale-Gagetown School Dist v State Bd of Educ, 413 Mich 1, 8; 317 NW2d 529 (1982). The exemption in subsection (7) of section 9 of the Act expressly states that the examination requirement does not apply to a person who is employed or under appointment as a fire fighter on October 1, 1988. Only one exception is given by the statute to this general exemption, i.e., those subsequently changing status from volunteer/paid on-call to full time are required to take the examination. This reading of the statute is consistent with the rule of statutory construction that the express mention of one thing (in this case, changes to full-time status) implies the exclusion of similar things (in this case, joining another fire department). Stowers v Wolodzko, 386 Mich 119, 133; 191 NW2d 355 (1971). Analysis papers regarding legislation may be considered in determining the intent of the Legislature. Tomiak v Hamtramck School Dist, 426 Mich 678, 685; 397 NW2d 770 (1986). In both the House and Senate bill analyses, it was clear that House Bill 4704, which was enacted as 1987 PA 196, was intended to require testing only for new hires as opposed to current fire fighters: ARGUMENTS: Against: The bill only imposes basic training on new hires. Why is there nothing in the bill to assure that existing fire fighters are trained? Also, training should go beyond basic training. It should be continuous throughout a fire fighter's career. Response: Fire fighters in Michigan, are required, under M.I.O.S.H.A. (the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Act), to be trained. The act, however, doesn't specify how much training is required, and it would be difficult and expensive to document this; everyone would have to be tested. What is of greater concern is the fact that 85 percent of fire fighters are volunteers on call in rural areas. These volunteers are not sent to training academies as career fire fighters are, but yet are expected to know everything on their first day, including how to cope with new, hazardous materials. House Legislative Analysis Section, HB 4704, Third Analysis, 1/21/88, p 2. Opposing Argument The bill would impose basic training requirements only on new hires. It should include provisions to ensure that existing fire fighters were trained. Also, training requirements should extend beyond the bill's standards; training should be a continuous effort throughout a fire fighter's career. Response: The Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Act (MIOSHA) requires training. The problem is that it doesn't specify the extent of that training. ... The bill would ensure that new personnel gained the job's necessary skills and knowledge quickly. To require all current fire fighters to comply with the bill's training standards would be a considerably larger undertaking. The greater concern is that new fire fighters, especially volunteers (many of whom are not sent to training programs), are familiarized with the potential hazards of the job and the methods of dealing with those hazards. Senate Fiscal Agency, HB 4704, First Analysis, 10/27/87, p 2. The understanding, expressed in the foregoing bill analyses, that the examination requirements apply to new hires rather than those already serving as fire fighters is reflected in the terms "hiring date" and "appointment date" as used in section 9(5) and (6) of the Act. While those terms are not defined in the Act, it is clear, in this context, that these terms refer to the date of a fire fighter's initial hiring or appointment, rather than to his or her subsequent hiring or appointment by another fire department. It is my opinion, therefore, that the provision for fire fighter examinations specified in section 9 of the Fire Fighters Training Council Act of 1966 does not apply to those employed or appointed as fire fighters prior to October 1, 1988, who change their department (not status) after that date. Frank J. Kelley Attorney General