## FY 2005 Integrated Budget

**Table of Contents**

**Fiscal Year 2005 Performance Budget**

I.   Summary and Highlights

II.    Introduction -- Mission, Vision, and Strategic Goal

III.   Budget Request and Annual Performance Plan by Organizational Function

IV.   Budget by Object Classification Category 

V.   Other Tables

**I. Summary and HighlightsSummary and Highlights**

The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission requests an OMB appropriation of $10,516,000 to fund it in FY 2005. This amount is 6.6 percent above the FY 2004 appropriation of $9,863,000 and 4.0 percent above the amount requested in FY 2004 ($10,115,000). The request would continue to support 69 FTEs. The increase in the budget request reflects the 1.5 percent pay raise proposed for January 2005, rent estimates provided by the General Services Administration, and a 1.07 percent increase in other object classes. The request includes an increase of $145,000 in the costs of financial and administrative services provided by the Bureau of Public Debt.

The amount requested would allow the Review Commission to fulfill its legislative mandate to serve as an administrative court providing just and prompt resolution of disputes involving the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), employers charged with violations of Federal safety and health standards, and employees and/or their representatives. The request supports the goal in the strategic plan to improve service to the public. The Review Commission updated its strategic plan for the period FY 2003 through FY 2008. The annual performance plan for FY 2005 reflects the new goals and objectives.

OSHRC’s FY 2005 budget appropriation includes:

· $8,133,000 to support 69 FTE. These costs represent 77 percent of the Review Commission’s appropriation.

· $1,265,000 for office space rent.

· Funds for services provided by other Federal agencies such as support for financial and administrative services and for personnel and payroll services. The costs of financial and administrative services have more than doubled from the $105,000 included in the FY 2004 request to $250,000 in the agreement submitted by the Bureau of Public Debt for FY 2004. The additional costs result from increased reporting requirements under very narrow time frames as a result of the Taxpayer Accountability Act of 2002 and an increase in the number of transactions.

· Funds to enable the Agency to complete the annual performance plan goals and targets, and implement the President’s Management Agenda, including the implementation of the plan under the Government Paperwork Elimination Act.

· Funds to allow the Review Commission to comply with IT security requirements. Funding will support independent evaluations of the security of the information system and corrections or improvements in any weaknesses found as a result of the evaluation. With base resources, the Agency will also continue to support automation and technology efforts initiated earlier, including hardware, software and contractual support.

**II. Introduction -- Mission, Vision, and Strategic Goal**

**Introduction -- Mission, Vision and Strategic Goal**

The Review Commission is an independent, adjudicatory agency created by the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. Its sole statutory mandate is to serve as an administrative court providing just and expeditious resolution of disputes involving OSHA, employers charged with violations of Federal safety and health standards, and employees and/or their representatives. The Review Commission was created by Congress as an agency completely independent of the Department of Labor to ensure that OSHA’s enforcement actions are carried out in accordance with the law and that all parties are treated consistent with due process when disputes arise with OSHA.

The Occupational Safety and Health Act and the Review Commission’s Rules of Procedure (which by law mirror the federal rules) provide two levels of adjudication when an employer timely contests an OSHA citation for alleged violations of the Act or failure to abate such alleged violations. The first is a trial level, which affords an opportunity for a hearing before a Review Commission Administrative Law Judge. The judge’s decision becomes final unless the decision is directed for review to the Commission. The second level is a discretionary appellate review of the judge’s decision by the Commission members. Both before its judges and the Commissioners, the Review Commission provides fair and impartial adjudication of cases concerning the safety and health of employees’ working conditions in the United States.

The principal (national) office of the Review Commission is located in Washington, D.C. There are also regional offices in Atlanta and Denver.

Mission Statement

The mission of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission is to provide an impartial forum for the just and prompt adjudication of workplace safety and health disputes involving the Department of Labor, employers and employees, and/or their representatives under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.

Vision Statement

The Review Commission continues to strive to be:

· a quasi-judicial body that is -- and is recognized for being -- objective, fair, prompt, and professional;

· an Agency that creates a body of law through its decisions that defines and explains the rights and responsibilities of employers and employees under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970;

· a model Federal agency with highly effective processes, a highly motivated, qualified and diverse workforce, and modern information management, communications, and administrative systems; and

· an agency that values team work, develops its employees, and strives to improve its performance, service, and value to the American people.

Strategic Goal

The Review Commission has as its strategic goal a public service goal that is to assure fair, just, and expeditious adjudication of disputes brought before the Commission and its judges. The Review Commission updated its strategic plan for the period FY 2003 through FY 2008.

**III. Performance Budget Request by Organizational Function**

**FY 2005 Performance Budget Request**

This section describes the three functions of the Review Commission:

·        Administrative Law Judge function

·        Commission function

·        Management and Administration function

Each function has a staff assigned exclusively to it, and there is virtually no sharing of staff resources between the functions. This circumstance principally stems from the nature of the Administrative Law Judge and Commission functions, which must be separate so that each of these review levels is, both in fact and appearance, independent of the other. The Management and Administration function supports both the Administrative Law Judge and Commission functions and the Agency’s strategic planning efforts.

Funding and staffing by function is as follows:

**Funding and FTE by Function**

 

**Administrative Law Judge Function**

**Function**

The function of the Review Commission’s Administrative Law Judge Division is to conduct formal hearings and related proceedings in a fair, just, and expeditious manner. The function is directly related to the public service goal.

The Administrative Law Judges report organizationally, through the Chief Judge, to the Chairman. However, they act independently in arriving at case decisions. The Commission’s rules are based upon the Federal rules, but in the absence of specific provisions in the Commission’s rules, the procedures are in accordance with the Federal Rules of Procedure. The Rules are constructed and administered to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action.

Proceedings Before the Review Commission’s Administrative Law Judges

The events leading to the presentation of an OSHA case before a Review Commission Administrative Law Judge follow an established procedure. To contest all or part of a citation, penalty, or abatement period, an employer must file a notice of contest within 15 working days from the receipt of the citation proposed by OSHA. The Secretary of Labor transmits the notice of contest and all relevant documents to the Review Commission’s Executive Secretary for filing. After the case is docketed, it is forwarded to the Office of the Chief Judge who monitors the process and assigns the case to an Administrative Law Judge. The case is generally assigned to an Administrative Law Judge in the Review Commission office closest to where the alleged violation occurred. Thereafter, the Administrative Law Judge has full responsibility for all pre-hearing and pre-trial procedures, including settlement, and is charged with providing a fair and impartial hearing in an expeditious manner, and rendering a decision promptly.

Administrative Law Judge Operations

The Review Commission strives to expedite the judicial process in a fair and impartial manner, strengthen its settlement procedures and case management responsibilities, and maintain the success of its E-Z Trial for cases that are not complex and Settlement Part processes for complex cases. The Administrative Law Judge function addresses a caseload that is becoming increasingly more complex. Achieving these ends is the primary responsibility of the Chief Administrative Law Judge.

OSHA’s emphasis during recent years on more serious workplace hazards, and the consequent increase in proposed penalties, has translated into more complicated cases and more costly trials (cases involving lock-out/tag-out, confined spaces, health care hazards, including asbestos, lead poisoning, construction industry hazards, etc.). These cases command a greater portion of the judges’ time. The Review Commission anticipates that this trend will continue.

The complexity of these cases is the result of the existence of any one or a combination of the following:

· Intricacies of the law (complex questions of law)

· Volume of documents, including transcripts

· Large number of witnesses (including expert witnesses in such fields as engineering, architecture, construction, soil, physics, epidemiology, pathology, neurology and infectious diseases)

· Number of alleged violations, items, and affirmative defenses (including distinct and separate items)

· Technical, novel, difficult or new standards raised

· Types of cases, such as those involving asbestos, lead poisoning, or ergonomics, process safety management and/or confined spaces

The Review Commission intends to expedite case processing by easing entry requirements to its E-Z Trial and Settlement Part Programs. These programs grant full due process rights to all parties in adjudicating these cases without bogging them down in legal formalities.

The Settlement Part requires formal settlement efforts in cases where the proposed aggregate penalty is $200,000 or more, or the Chief Judge finds that the case is appropriate for this part because of its complexity. The Review Commission hopes to expand this program by rule changes allowing more cases to be assigned to mandatory settlement procedures.

The E-Z Trial process allows parties with relatively simple cases to have their “day in court” unencumbered by the formal rules of procedure and evidence, while assuring that due process requirements will be maintained. Under this process, a business, with or without counsel, can present its case before a Review Commission judge and receive a prompt decision. Most paperwork, including legal filings, has been eliminated so that justice can be rendered swiftly and inexpensively. The process is intended to reduce the time and legal expenses to employers contesting relatively small penalty cases. The process also allows more time for Administrative Law Judges to address the more complex cases. The Review Commission arranged for an outside evaluation of the program performed in FY 2001. The evaluation showed that program implementation was effective and that the program is generally being implemented in accordance with the goals. The Review Commission hopes to expand this program by altering the criteria permitted by its rules for the selection of non-complex cases assigned to the E-Z Trial process.

**E-Z Trial Case Activity**

**FY 2000 through FY 2005**

 

The proportion of new cases assigned to the E-Z Trial process has averaged 35.5% over the last four years. However, based on case assignment for fiscal year 2003, the Review Commission projects 43% of the new cases will be assigned to the E-Z Trial process. The budget assumes the proportion of cases assigned to the program in FY 2004 will be relatively stable at 43% and will increase to 45% in FY 2005.

Anticipated Administrative Law Judge Workload for FY 2005

Three major factors impact on this function’s workload: (1) the quantity, magnitude, and nature of the cases; (2) the success of the E-Z Trial and Settlement Part processes; and (3) the number of trials held, and their length and complexity.

OSHA projects that it will conduct 37,700 inspections in FY 2005, the same number as included in the FY 2004 budget. The Review Commission’s caseload is affected not only by the number of inspections but also by OSHA’s focus on the highest hazard workplaces and most serious workplace hazards. These inspections tend to result in more complex cases. These complex cases consume extensive judicial time. Their discovery process is lengthy and time consuming, motion practice is expanded, legal research and decision-writing time is protracted and, of necessity, the trial process is elongated and complicated. For example, in FY 2000 the longest hearing was roughly 12 days, as compared to about 30.4 days in FY 2001.

**Administrative Law Judge Case Activity**

**FY 2000 through FY 2005**

 

The table above shows projected, as well as recent, case activity. Data for FY 2002 indicate a decrease in the case inventory at the end of the year. The Review Commission also projects a decrease in the inventory at the end of FY 2003 because a higher proportion of cases are being assigned to the E-Z Trial process and thus are resolved more expeditiously.

Factors contributing to the decrease of end-of-year inventory also include improved case management through technological improvements, assignment of cases to E-Z Trial, and improved settlement efforts. Data for FY 2002 shows a decrease in the number of cases appealed to the Review Commission from the FY 2000 level. The Review Commission’s performance goals include several goals aimed at increasing the percent of cases issued within a specific time. However, the complexity of cases continues to increase, as stated above.

Over the last four years, 6.5% of the inspections performed by OSHA resulted in contested citations. In FY 2002, 5.7% of the inspections resulted in citations. The Review Commission projects that the proportion of contested citations will be level from FY 2003 through FY 2005 at 6.5% of the OSHA inspections.

The decrease in the number and proportion of contested citations resulted in a decrease in the inventory at the end of FY 2002 compared to FY 2001’s level. Based on the assumption that the proportion of contested citations will remain level at 6.5% and on the projected number of OSHA inspections in FY 2003, the Agency expects case inventory at the end of FYs 2004 and 2005 to be relatively stable.

**Staffing**

Of the total 69 FTEs requested, 26 are required for the Administrative Law Judge function. This staff level includes the employment of 13 Administrative Law Judges, of staff attorneys, and other support staff. Given the number of inspections occurring in FY 2003, those projected by OSHA for future years, and the complexity of the cases received, the Review Commission believes this is the minimum number of FTEs in that office needed to address the expected workload and meet its performance targets.

The Chief Judge manages the effort to meet the Agency’s GPRA goals at the Administrative Law Judge Level. The Chief Judge:

Conducts early review and screening of the potentially difficult cases before assignment,Exercises strong management and monitoring of progress of cases to meet performance goals,Ensures training of judicial and administrative staff, andExamines judicial case management practices of other entities.

**Funding and FTE**

 

**Strategic Plan Goal and Objectives and Performance Goals and Measures**

The Review Commission’s Strategic Plan for 2003-2005 includes the following goals and objectives related to this function:

 

The Review Commission intends to advance this strategic goal at the ALJ level through the following strategies:

· Expedite the assignment of cases to judges

· Use objective criteria to determine complex cases, and track the processing of these cases· Monitor closely case performance, and improve case management information systems and reports

· Conduct early review and screening of the potentially difficult cases

· Provide training to all judges on a variety of subjects, including technical and legal issues, legal writing, case management and alternative of dispute resolution (ADR), to help them develop services and processes equal to the very best in judicial arenas

· Improve and expand existing ADR processes (i.e., Settlement Part and the E-Z Trial) and seek new ADR methods

· Continue to use a team of judges to handle, on a rotational basis, extremely complex cases and assign appropriate staff to timely process and monitor such cases, including settlement discussions

· Develop procedures for case processing and decision quality

· Make changes to the Agency’s Rules of Procedures to improve case processing

The Review Commission revised its strategic plan in FY 2000 for the FY 2000 - FY 2005 period and updated the plan once again for the period FY 2003 through FY 2008. The following goals are included in its performance plans for fiscal years 2001 through 2005:

 

**Commission Function**

Function

The function of the Commissioners is to review and decide cases contested under the Act, following an initial decision by an Administrative Law Judge. This higher level of review must be prompt, fair, and protective of the parties’ rights. Overall, this is our public service goal.

Proceedings Before the Commission

The Review Commission adjudicates contested cases independent from the enforcement and rule-making functions vested in OSHA. Disputed enforcement proceedings are tried initially before the Review Commission’s Administrative Law Judges. The Commission members may then review decisions by the Review Commission’s Administrative Law Judges.

The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 provides for Presidential appointment and Senate confirmation of three Commissioners, each with a six-year term. The Commissioners sit as an appellate review body to review any case decided by the Review Commission’s Administrative Law Judges. Each Commission member has the authority to direct for review by the full Commission any case decided by any judge. Absent such a direction for review, the decisions of the Administrative Law Judges become final by operation of law. Once a case is directed for review, the Commission members have authority to review all aspects of a case, including judges’ findings of fact, conclusions of law, penalty assessments and abatement orders.

A counsel, who is responsible for providing assistance and advice on all pending matters, including the proper disposition of cases and motions and whether cases are appropriate for Commission review, aids each Commissioner. Each counsel also aids the Commissioner in researching and editing draft opinions submitted by the General Counsel after the Commission decides a case.

The General Counsel has primary responsibility for preparing and presenting factual and legal analyses to assist Commission members in adjudicating appeals. Office of General Counsel staff has primary responsibility for presenting cases to the Commission for disposition and for preparing drafts of the Commission’s opinions.

**Commission Operations**

The Commission strives to minimize the time for deciding cases and thus, the number of pending cases. Aided by improved case management technology, the Commission seeks to strengthen the internal processes by which a case is prepared for decision. Three external factors have a major impact on the operations of the Commission: the presence of a quorum, the size and complexity of cases, and the novelty of the issues presented for review.As mentioned previously, the Commission consists of three members. The Occupational Safety and Health Act require a quorum of two Commissioners. By statute cases can only be decided on the affirmative vote of two Commissioners. During periods when the Commission lacks a quorum, no cases can be decided. In addition, with only two Commissioners, it may be more difficult to reach agreement sufficient to dispose of some cases. In cases where such agreement cannot be reached, deadlocks result. As a result, action on important issues may be postponed and issuance of some pending cases will be delayed. Most recently, the Commission was without a quorum during almost nine months in FY 2002, from December 20, 2001 until late August 2002. From late April 2003 until early September 2003, the Commission operated with only two members. The Commission now has three members that were confirmed by the Senate.

The number of safety and health inspections carried out by OSHA each year, the nature of those inspections, and the rate at which employers choose to contest the citations issued and penalties proposed by OSHA all impact on the number of cases contested before the Review Commission. In addition, OSHA’s emphasis during recent years on more serious workplace hazards, and the consequent increase in proposed penalties, has translated into more complicated cases, and more costly trials. Consequently, the complexity and size of the cases both at the Administrative Law Judge level and at the Commission level has increased steadily in recent years.

The Commission’s inventory of cases includes a number of extremely large and difficult cases. Preparation of each of these cases consumes a huge amount of attorney and Commissioner time. This, in turn, slows work on all other cases. The size and complexity of these cases have impacted the ability of the Office of the General Counsel to prepare and present a steady flow of cases to the Commission for disposition and to prepare the initial drafts of the Commission’s opinions. To address this problem, two team leader positions were established in the Office of the General Counsel to speed preparation, facilitate coordination of issues, and to help assure consistency among cases. Team case preparation has helped to shorten the time to analyze, present, and draft a number of these cases.

Anticipated Commission Workload for FY 2005

In FY 2002, the Commission maintained a quorum with two members for most of the first quarter. The term of one recess appointee expired upon the adjournment of Congress in late December 2001. As a result, the Commission had only one Member and no quorum from December 2001until August 2002. These vacancies stopped the decision-making process at the Commission level for eight months of FY 2002. Nevertheless, the Commission decided and issued 21 cases in the four months during which a quorum was maintained. On the other hand, the Commission received only 28 new cases in FY 2002. As a result, the number of cases pending at the end of the year increased from 67 at the beginning of FY 2002 to only 74 despite the absence of a quorum for two thirds of the fiscal year. Most of the pending cases, however, became a year older without decision contrary to Agency goals. A new member took office in late August 2002, and a third member took office in November 2002.

From late August 2002 until the present, the Commission has maintained a quorum. All three Members were on board until April 27, 2003, when the term of a Commissioner expired. That vacancy existed until early September 2003, when the Commission once again regained a full membership. Although the assumption is that the Commission will maintain a full membership into FY 2005, an unexpected vacancy could again impact the Agency’s ability to decide cases.

In FY 2003, the Commission issued decisions in 31 cases. Most of these cases are two years or more old. At the same time, the number of new cases in FY 2003 was only 17, substantially fewer than in previous years. Thus, the Commission began FY 2004 with 60 cases pending on review.

Because the Commission expects stability in membership until seven months into FY 2005, case production should be consistent throughout FY 2004. A slight rise in the number of incoming cases is projected, as FY 2003 seems unusually low. Solid case production focused on deciding and issuing decisions in older cases is projected to reduce further the Commission’s case inventory. Absent a substantial increase in the number of new cases, the Commission anticipates ending FY 2004 with about 48 cases pending on review.

A similar pattern is anticipated for FY 2005. The term of one Commission Member will expire seven months into FY 2005; however, a quorum will not be lost unless another unexpected vacancy were to occur. Cases will continue to be decided. Again, absent greater than anticipated increases in the number of incoming cases, the Commission expects to end FY 2005 with only about 32 cases pending.

**Office of General Counsel and Commissioners’ Case Activity**

**FY 2000 - FY 2005**

 

**Staffing**

The FY 2005 budget requests funding for 9 FTEs to include the three Commissioners and their immediate staff (each Commissioner has a counsel and a confidential assistant) and 17 FTEs in the General Counsel’s office, for a total of 26 FTEs. The budget request assumes that the Commission will have a full complement of Commissioners in place throughout FY 2005.

**Funding and FTE**

 

**Strategic Plan Goal and Objectives and Performance Goals and Measures**

The Review Commission’s Strategic Plan (Updated) includes the following goals and objectives related to this function:

 

The Review Commission intends to advance this strategic goal at the Commission level through the following strategies:

· Focus on the disposition of older cases, with the immediate aim of reducing the existing backlog and the eventual goal that no case will sit for more than nine months on review

· Expedite the disposition of priority cases that require immediate action (e.g., cases that are to be remanded back to the ALJ level, court remands, interlocutory reviews, and 60(b) cases)

· Implement internal markers to assist in the preparation of cases and issuance of Commission decisions· Accelerate processing of cases through a variety of efforts, including early intervention of the Commissioners’counsels, computerization of changes to draft decisions and development of strategies to resolve cases when there are only two Commission members

· Expand the use of teams and staff meetings in the Office of the General Counsel to reduce the time needed to write decisional memoranda and draft decisions

· Develop new methods to shorten case preparation time

· Develop procedures for case processing and decision quality

· Make changes to the Agency’s Rules of Procedures to improve case processing

The Review Commission revised its strategic plan in FY 2000 for the FY 2000 - FY 2005 period and updated the plan once again for the period FY 2003 through FY 2008. The following performance goals have been developed for fiscal year 2005.

 

**Management and Administration Function  **

**Function**

The function of Management and Administration is to provide executive management andadministrative support services for the Review Commission, to assure its success in fulfilling itsmission.

Management and Administration Operations

The Management and Administration function provides strategic planning and operational management of the organization. Management and Administration also includes the office ofpublic information, case docketing, technology management, computer and information security, and financial and administrative services. The day-to-day tasks performed under the direction of the Executive Director and Chief Operating Officer, include:

· Supporting the development and implementation of the Agency’s strategic goal· Docketing incoming cases resulting from OSHA appeals and communicating with the public in general and case parties in particular· Maintaining a public information office, including providing case decisions to the public· Responding to Congressional and Freedom of Information Act inquiries· Maintaining and enhancing a website to provide the public with greater access to Review Commission information· Providing support agency-wide in the areas of finance, budget, procurement, personnel, equal opportunity and administration· Providing personnel, payroll, benefits, reproduction, and mail services, and travel assistance to agency employees· Procuring goods and services, maintenance and needed repairs of equipment, training, reference materials, supplies and office· Maintaining a library in the national office and in each regional office for legal and technical research· Implementing improved computerized case management and administrative systemsthrough hardware and software· Developing computer systems and information security enhancements enhancing telecommunications and improving technology efficiency and effectiveness

**Anticipated Management and Administration Workload for FY 2005**

During FY 2005, the Office of the Executive Director will pursue various activities in support of the Agency’s mission, with the following results expected:

· Improved financial and administrative services and enhanced integrity and efficiency of the Agency’s financial management and human resources programs

· Greater online access with citizens and government and non-government systems under Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA)

· Improved computer information security program based on an evaluation of the Review Commission’s computer security, compliance with the various security acts and the implementation of corrections or improvements in any weaknesses found as a result of evaluations

· Faster and better public access to and dissemination of Review Commission information and decisions through the use of modern automated technology and techniques, including the Agency’s website

· Timely implementation and oversight of the Agency’s succession and transition plans and other human capital objectives

The Review Commission updated its strategic plan for the period FY 2003 through FY 2008. As part of the update, two strategic goals will be eliminated, the external communications goal and the organizational goal. Consequently, performance goals associated with these two goals have been deleted from the performance plan. However, while the goals have been eliminated from the performance plan, they will continue to be a priority within the Agency and will be monitored for effectiveness.

**Staffing**

The FY 2005 budget requests funding for 17 FTEs for the Management and Administration function to perform the duties and responsibilities outlined above. The Management and Administration staff has responsibility for implementing the President’s management and reform efforts, including implementing and monitoring strategic and performance plans and reports, budget and performance integration, human capital and competitive sourcing, and e-government.

**Funding and FTE**

 

** IV. Budget by Object Classification Category**

**Budget by Object Classification Category  **

For FY 2005, the Review Commission requests $10,516,000. This amount is 6.6 percent above the FY 2004 appropriation of $9,863,000 and 4.0 percent above the amount requested in FY 2004 ($10,115,000). The request would continue to support 69 FTEs. The increase in the budget request reflects increased personnel/payroll costs. Within the funds requested, the Review Commission would support the same level of activities included in the FY 2004 level. The increase in the budget request reflects the 1.5 percent pay raise proposed for January 2005, rent estimates provided by the General Services Administration, and a 1.07 percent increase in other object classes. The request includes an increase of $145,000 in the costs of financial and administrative services provided by the Bureau of Public Debt.

The proposed budget by object classification category is shown in the table below, along with the current year budget. A narrative explanation of the amounts requested for each object classification follows the table.

**Object Classification Tablefor theOccupational Safety and Health Review CommissionFiscal Years 2004 and 2005($ in 000s)**

 

* The amount in the FY 2004 column does not agree with the amount in the “A Fiscal Year 2004 Integrated Budget Request and Annual Performance Plan” because funds have been redistributed to a different object class. The purpose the funds were requested for has not changed.

11.0 Full Time Permanent Positions

 

The request for FY 2005 includes $6,826,000 to fund the direct payroll costs of 69 FTEs. This is an increase of $479,000 from the FY 2004 level. This amount includes the effect of the general pay raise in January 2003 and of the proposed general pay raises in January 2004 and 2005. We expect to use the 69 FTE requested in fiscal year FY 2004.

11.7 Other Compensation

 

Consistent with the Review Commission’s encouragement of individual employee initiative and performance, $25,000 is requested to provide funds to reward employees for superior performance or special acts or services. Cash awards are a necessary incentive in the Review Commission’s continuing effort to improve the quality and timeliness of its work product, which in turn, contributes to overall agency efforts to accomplish its Annual Performance Plan objectives.

12.0 Personnel Benefits

 

An amount of $1,282,000 is needed to fund the payroll-related costs of employee benefits in FY 2005. These benefits principally consist of the government’s contribution to the CSRS and FERS retirement programs, life and health insurance programs, the Transit Subsidy Program, and the Thrift Savings Plan. The request reflects the decrease in the government contribution rates for the CSRS. Personnel Benefits are increasing as a proportion of personnel costs in general as the FERS program covers more employees and as the costs and types of other benefits increase.

21.0 Travel 

 

The Review Commission requests $117,000 for travel. Travel of administrative law judges to conduct hearings will require an estimated $99,000. The request also includes funds for travel associated with training, conferences and supervisory travel to the regional offices.

22.0 Transportation of Things

 

An amount of $7,000 is requested to fund the cost of shipping materials between Review Commission offices and other locations, and the shipping costs associated with the purchase of supplies and equipment.

23.1 Rental Payments to GSA

 

The request includes $1,265,000 for office space rent. These projected rent costs are based on estimates provided by the General Services Administration (GSA) to the Review Commission in August 2003. As requested by GSA, funds for security are included under this object class forFY 2004. The security function is now with the Department of Homeland Security, therefore, in FY 2005, costs for security are included under Services by Other Federal Agencies. The reduction results from the change in the object class under which security is being presented.

23.3 Communications, Utilities and Miscellaneous Charges 

 

Telephone and postage costs are projected to require $61,000 in FY 2005. Local phone service and telecommunications is expected to require $39,000. Long distance service is estimated at $6,000, and postage for the required mailing of letters, cases, and other materials is expected to be $16,000.

24.0 Printing

 

The printing costs consist mainly of the charges for publishing proposed regulations and announcements in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and the Federal Register, purchasing copies of the CFR and the Federal Register and other GPO publications. Together, these printing/publishing costs are expected to approximate $9,000 in fiscal year 2004. The balance of the budget -- $8,000 -- is needed for the production of compact discs, which contain the latest decisions reached by the Review Commission’s Administrative Law Judges and by the full Commission.

25.0 Other Services

 

An amount of $372,000 is requested for Other Services. These funds will support: court reporting ($92,000), maintenance and development of the Review Commission’s automated data processing system ($51,000), support for new information technology security ($28,000), and on-line legal research ($35,000). The category also includes funding for other contractual services such as the annual audit of our financial statements ($41,000), the services of a librarian ($25,000), training ($15,000), and contracting for services required to support the agency’s mission ($58,000). Finally, this category includes funds needed for continuing maintenance of the Review Commission’s Internet website, which is housed and maintained by the Government Printing Office.

The funds requested would allow the Agency to correct weaknesses identified in the evaluation of the security of its information technology systems, provide training for employees, and conduct the audit of our financial statements.

25.3 Services by Other Federal Agencies

 

An amount of $326,000 is requested for services provided by other federal agencies. This area includes $15,000 for the costs of support for personnel and payroll services provided by the National Finance Center, $250,000 for the costs of financial and administrative services provided by the Bureau of Public Debt, $41,000 for the costs of building security provided by the Department of Homeland Security, and $20,000 for other interagency services. The costs of services provided by the Bureau of Public Debt have more than doubled because of increased reporting requirements as a result of the Taxpayer Accountability Act of 2002 and an increase in the number of transactions. The balance of the increase results from the rise in costs due to inflation.

25.7 Repair and Maintenance of Equipment

 

An amount of $36,000 is requested for repair and maintenance of equipment including equipment used for printing and reproduction of cases and automated data processing equipment. The balance of the request ($10,000) is for maintenance of software licenses that ensure the security and integrity of our system.

26.0 Supplies

 

The amount of $45,000 is requested for materials and publications. General office supplies will require an estimated $22,000. Automated data processing supplies, including software, will require approximately $20,000. Subscriptions to periodicals and other publications will require $3,000.

31.0 Equipment

 

The amount of $127,000 is required for equipment in FY 2005. Subscriptions and other publications necessary to maintain our legal libraries will require $68,000 and $38,000 will be applied to computer acquisitions. This amount will enable the Review Commission to continue the replacement cycle established in earlier years. The expected life cycle of our automated data processing equipment is four years. Our automated data processing equipment includes personal computers, printers, a local area network, and associated peripherals. The remaining $21,000 of the amount requested for equipment will be used to replace worn or obsolete equipment. Within this amount we will also fund any furniture that may be needed.

**V. Other Tables**

**Appropriation History Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission **

 

1 Reduced to $8,081,000 by P.L. 104-134.2 Reduced to $7,738,000 by P.L. 104-208.3 Reduced to $8,092,000 by H.R. 1664.4 Reduced to $8,470,000 by P.L. 106-113.5 Reduced to $8,958,000 by P.L. 107-206.6 Reduced to $9,610,125 by P.L. 108-7.7 Reduced to $9,804,808 by P.L. 108-199.

**Authorized Full Time Positions, by Function**