Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

OSHRC

Fiscal Year 2014

Performance Budget and Justification

April 2013
Table of Contents

Fiscal Year 2014 Performance Budget and Justification

Page

I. Introduction -- Mission, Vision, and Strategic Goals....................................................... 1

II. Budget Request Summary................................................................................................. 3

III. Justification by Organizational Unit ................................................................................. 6

IV. Budget by Object Classification Category........................................................................ 25

V. Other Tables...................................................................................................................... 30
I. INTRODUCTION -- MISSION,

VISION, AND

STRATEGIC GOALS
- 1 -

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

Our Mission

The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC or Review Commission) is 

an independent, adjudicatory agency created by the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 

(the Act). Our sole statutory mission is to serve as an administrative court providing fair and 

expeditious 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 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.

Our Functions and Procedures

Our Rules of Procedure (which mirror the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) provide two levels 

of adjudication when an employer 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 (ALJ). The Judge’s decision 

becomes final unless the decision is directed for review by a Commission Member. The second 

level is a discretionary appellate review of the Judge’s decision by Commission Members who 

are appointed by the President. 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.

Our principal (National) office is located in Washington, D.C. OSHRC also has two regional 

offices: one in Atlanta, GA, and one in Denver, CO. The regional offices are staffed with 

support staff, attorneys, and ALJs. The ALJs travel, as necessary, to adjudicate cases near locales 

where the alleged workplace violations took place.

Vision Statement

The Review Commission strives to be:

 A judicial body that is -- and is recognized for being -- objective, fair, prompt, 

professional, and respected.

 An agency that creates a body of law through its decisions that define and 

explain the rights and responsibilities of employers and employees under the 

Act.
- 2 -

 A model Federal agency with highly effective processes, a highly motivated, 

qualified and diverse workforce, and modern information management, 

communications, and administrative systems.

 An agency that values teamwork, develops its employees, and strives to 

improve its performance, service, and value to the American people.

Strategic Goals

OSHRC has three overarching strategic goals: 1) Respect for the rule of law by assuring fair, 

just, and expeditious adjudication of disputes brought before the Commission and its judges; 

2) Expanding transparency and openness by providing for stakeholder engagement and ensuring 

that the Review Commission keeps interested parties and the public it serves informed of the 

agency’s work at all levels, consistent with due process requirements; and 3) Responsible 

stewardship of the fiscal and human resources employed by the Review Commission in 

accordance with the agency’s statutory mandate and other applicable law.
II. BUDGET REQUEST 

SUMMARY
- 3 -

Budget Request Summary

To continue our mission of adjudicating OSHA-issued workplace safety citations, the 

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission requests an appropriation of $12,634,830

to fund essential agency programs and support 69 full-time equivalent (FTE) positions in FY 

2014. 

The funding request would allow us to fulfill our legislative mandate to serve as an 

administrative court providing fair and prompt resolution of disputes involving OSHA, 

employers charged with violations of Federal safety and health standards, and employees and/or 

their representatives. The request also supports the goal in the Review Commission’s Strategic 

Plan to improve service to the public. 

Our case intake at the ALJ level increased about fifty percent between FY 2009 and FY 2011. 

While recent data suggests that the number of new cases may appear to be stabilizing, our FY 

2012 case intake was 31 percent above that of FY 2009. At the same time, our end-of-year case 

inventory in FY 2012 was 48.5 percent above that of FY 2009. Thus, to continue our mission of 

adjudicating OSHA-issued workplace safety citations, and to avoid the type of severe case 

backlog that has affected the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, the Review 

Commission is requesting three additional FTE positions to support the ALJs in the Office of the 

Chief Administrative Law Judge. Specifically, this includes two attorney positions and one 

support staff position. The attorneys will primarily be engaged in drafting decisions for the ALJs 

in cases that go to hearing, helping to minimize delays and eliminate chokepoints in issuing 

decisions once a hearing has been completed. This is of particular concern since, under the Act, 

a cited employer has no obligation to abate an alleged violation until the Review Commission 

has finished its adjudication of a case. The additional support staff position will primarily handle 

the increased legal assistant work resulting from our caseload increase.

The Review Commission is also requesting one FTE position, a supervisory attorney advisor, to 

support the Commission function. Filling this position will facilitate the legal analysis of cases 

pending at the Commission level and thus help expedite the issuance of decisions by the 

Commission. 

Our FY 2014 estimated costs include: 

 $9,806,830 to support direct payroll and related costs for 69 FTE positions. These costs 

are approximately 78 percent of the Review Commission’s budget request. This level of 

FTE positions will be used to handle the increased case load which has developed over 

the past several fiscal years, especially at the ALJ level.

 $1,540,000 for office space rent.

 $440,000 for services provided by other Federal agencies, such as support for financial 

and administrative services provided by the Bureau of the Public Debt (BPD) and 

personnel and payroll services provided by the National Finance Center (NFC).
- 4 -

 Funds to enable the Review Commission to complete its annual performance plan goals

and targets and to implement government wide and Review Commission specific 

transparency initiatives.
- 5 -

FY 2014 

Appropriations Language

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES 

For expenses necessary for the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, 

$12,634,830. Note.--A full-year 2013 appropriation for this account was not enacted at the time 

the budget was prepared: therefore, this account is operating under a continuing resolution (P.L. 

112-175). The amounts included for 2013 reflect the annualized level provided by the 

continuing resolution.
III. PERFORMANCE BUDGET 

JUSTIFICATION BY 

ORGANIZATIONAL UNIT
- 6 -

Justification by Organizational Unit

The Review Commission has three main offices which function in concert to achieve the 

agency’s overarching mission: 

1. The Administrative Law Judge function;

2. The Commission function;

3. The Office of Executive Director function.

Each office has staff and resources assigned exclusively to it, but all three work collaboratively 

to meet or exceed the Review Commission’s strategic goals. The separation of staff between the 

Administrative Law Judges and Commission Members stems principally from the nature of their 

functions, which must be apart so that each of these review levels is, both in fact and appearance, 

independent of the other. The Office of the Executive Director 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 (in millions) and FTE by Function

Function FY 2012 Enacted* FY 2013 CR Level** FY 2014 Request

$ FTE $ FTE $ FTE

Administrative Law 

Judge 4.6 24 4.6 25 5.1 28

Commission 5.2 26 5.3 30 5.7 31

Executive Director 1.8 9 1.8 10 1.8 10

Total 11.6 59 11.7 65 12.6 69

*FY 2012 reflects actual FTE. 

**OSHRC’s FY 2013 costs are estimated at the annualized Continuing Resolution (CR) level, as outlined in P.L. 

112-175. The FTE level of 65 is estimated as of 9/30/13 and accounts for vacant Commissioner positions being 

filled during FY 2013.
- 7 -

Administrative Law Judge Function

The front line of our agency’s delivery of services to the American public rests with the 

Administrative Law Judges. Our judges travel around the country to conduct formal hearings 

and related proceedings in a fair, just and expeditious manner. (These hearings are required to be 

conducted in a location that involves as little inconvenience and expense to the parties as 

practicable.) The ALJ function is directly related to the public service goal of fair, just and 

expeditious adjudication of disputes brought before the Commission and its ALJs. 

The Administrative Law Judges report through the Chief Judge to the Chairman. However, they 

act independently in arriving at case decisions. The Commission’s rules are similar to the 

Federal rules. In the absence of specific Review Commission rules, the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure are followed. The Commission’s Rules are constructed and administered to secure the 

just and timely 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, and are designed to provide all 

parties with a fair hearing and swift adjudication of their case. To contest all or part of a 

citation, penalty, or abatement period, an employer must file a notice of contest with the 

Secretary of Labor 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 and docketing. After the case is docketed, it is 

forwarded to the Office of the Chief Judge for assignment 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, 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, 

and to strengthen its settlement procedures and case management responsibilities by constant 

monitoring of its Simplified Proceedings and Mandatory Settlement programs. The 

Administrative Law Judge function addresses a caseload that is becoming larger and more 

complex, as reflected by the increasing number and complexity of OSHA citations. 

OSHA conducted 40,961 inspections in FY 2012 and estimates that it will complete 41,000 

inspections in FY 2013 and 39,250 inspections in FY 2014. Of particular importance from the 

Review Commission’s resource perspective has been a marked increase in the number of 

citations being contested, and the resulting number of contests being docketed. In FY 2009, the 

Review Commission docketed 2,058 contests whereas in FY 2010, the Review Commission 

docketed 2,565 contests. This represents an increase of approximately 25 percent in one fiscal 

year. In FY 2011, we received 3,175 new cases which is an increase of over 50 percent over two 

years. Moreover, OSHA implemented a new administrative penalty policy at the beginning of 
- 8 -

FY 2011. As a result of this new policy, the average penalty for a serious violation has 

increased, and the contest rate estimated by OSHA has increased from seven percent in FY 2009

to eleven percent in FY 2011 and FY 2012, which contributed to the increase in our caseload.

While recent data suggests that the number of new cases may appear to be stabilizing, our FY 

2012 case intake was 31 percent above that of FY 2009. At the same time, our case inventory at 

the end of FY 2012 was 48.5 percent above that of FY 2009.

Moreover, in addition to the higher level of contests as a result of the new OSHA administrative 

penalty policy, OSHA’s emphasis in more recent years has been on 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, 

asbestos, lead poisoning, process safety, and construction industry hazards, etc.). These cases 

command a greater portion of the ALJs’ time. 

The complexity of these cases is the result of the existence of 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 issues raised

 Various types of cases, such as those involving asbestos, lead poisoning, 

ergonomics, and process safety management and/or confined spaces.

The Review Commission is working to increase the efficiency of case processing by moving an 

appropriate portion of its ALJ docket into its Mandatory Settlement Part and Simplified 

Proceedings programs, both of which are innovative methodologies to speed the settlement or 

adjudication of pending cases. During FY 2011, the Review Commission began an evaluation of

its current Mandatory Settlement Part system to ascertain whether even greater improvement in 

this settlement process can be achieved. This evaluation, “Dispute Resolution in the 

Administrative Process: Evaluation of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission 

Settlement Part Program,” was completed in FY 2013 by alternative dispute resolution experts at 

the Indiana University School of Public & Environmental Affairs. The evaluation declared the 

Commission’s dispute resolution program to be “successful” and noted that OSHRC “has done 

an admirable job addressing an increased caseload within constrained resources while at the 

same time meeting the expectations of its external stakeholders.” With the higher caseload 

levels of recent years, Mandatory Settlement Part has been an important tool in minimizing a 
- 9 -

backlog of cases at the ALJ level. The Commission is currently considering specific suggestions 

for improvement contained in the evaluation. In particular, the evaluation recommended that the 

Commission provide “training and regular continuing legal education in mediation and dispute 

resolution to every ALJ who is expected to serve as a settlement judge.” The Commission agrees 

with this recommendation, since training of our ALJs is critical to the success of Mandatory 

Settlement Part. However, its implementation is dependent on adequate budgetary resources.

Under Commission Rule 2200.120, where the parties consent thereto, the Chief Administrative 

Law Judge may assign a Settlement Judge to a pending proceeding to aid the parties in disposing 

of the case. Where the aggregate amount of the penalty sought by the Secretary of Labor is 

$100,000 or greater, the Mandatory Settlement procedure goes into effect. The Settlement Judge 

appointed by the Chief Administrative Law Judge has full control of the proceeding and may 

require that the parties’ representatives be accompanied by officials having full settlement 

authority. This procedure has aided the Commission in disposing of some extremely complex 

cases, with the participation and approval of all parties. (If settlement efforts are not successful, 

the case may be assigned to a different judge for trial.)

The Simplified Proceedings process includes cases where proposed penalties are not more than

$20,000, and up to $30,000, when found eligible by the Chief Judge. The Simplified 

Proceedings process allows parties with relatively simple cases to have their “day in court” 

unencumbered by the formal Rules of Procedure and evidence, while ensuring 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 reduces the time and legal expenses to employers contesting 

relatively small penalty cases.

In FY 2012, approximately 58 percent of new cases were assigned to Simplified Proceedings. 

The Review Commission projects that approximately 63 percent of new cases will be assigned to 

the Simplified Proceedings process in FY 2013 and FY 2014. 

Simplified Proceedings Case Activity

FY 2009 through FY 2014

FY 2009

Actual

FY 2010

Actual

FY 2011

Actual

FY 2012

Actual

FY 2013

Estimate

FY 2014

Estimate

New Cases 2,058 2,565 3,175 2,696 2,800 2,800

Cases 

assigned to

Simplified 

Proceedings

1,041 1,327 1,783 1,571 1,750 1,750
- 10 -

Anticipated ALJ Workload for FY 2014

Four major factors have an impact on the ALJs’ workload: (1) the quantity, magnitude, and 

nature of the cases; (2) the success of the Simplified Proceedings process; (3) the time, effort and 

complexity of cases assigned to the Mandatory Settlement process; and (4) the number of trials 

held, and their length and complexity.

The number of OSHA inspections and their focus directly affects the Review Commission’s 

caseload. In particular, inspections of high hazard workplaces – especially those with high injury 

and illness rates, fatalities, repeat offenders, and egregious violations – generally result in larger 

contestable proposed penalties. These inspections also tend to result in more complex and 

contentious cases, which consume extensive time. The 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 lengthy and complicated. 

The following table provides actual Administrative Law Judge workloads for fiscal years 2009, 

2010, 2011, and 2012, and estimated workloads for fiscal years 2013 and 2014.

FY 2009

Actual

FY 2010

Actual

FY 2011

Actual

FY2012

Actual

FY 2013

Estimate

FY 2014

Estimate

OSHA Inspections*: 40,549 40,942 40,648 40,961 41,000 39,250

Administrative Law Judge Workload:

a. Case Inventory,

Start of Year 739 777 983 1,345 1,154 1,179

b. New Cases 2,058 2,565 3,175 2,696 2,800 2,800

c. Total Caseload 2,797 3,342 4,158 4,041 3,954 3,979

d. Disposals

(1) With 

Hearing 67 107 111 95 110 120

(2) Without 

Hearing 1,953 2,252 2,702 2,792 2,665 2,655

e. Total 

Dispositions 2,020 2,359 2,813 2,887 2,775 2,775

Total Case 

Inventory, 

End of Year

777 983 1,345 1,154 1,179 1,204

*Provided by Directorate of Evaluation and Analysis, OSHA.
- 11 -

Staffing

The Office of the Chief Administrative Law Judge requires 28 FTE positions in FY 2014 to 

support the workload based on OSHA’s planned inspections and contest rates in the coming 

years, and to meet performance targets, given the number and complexity of the cases 

anticipated. This FTE position level includes two additional attorneys to support the ALJs in the 

Office of the Chief Administrative Law Judge. These attorneys will primarily be engaged in 

drafting decisions for the ALJs in cases that go to hearing. These positions are required to help

minimize delays and chokepoints in issuing decisions once a hearing has been completed, a 

critical necessity as employers have no obligation to abate an alleged violation until the Review 

Commission has finished its adjudication of a case. This FTE position level also includes an 

additional support staff position to primarily handle the increased legal assistant work resulting 

from our caseload increase. 

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

the Administrative Law Judge level. 

The Chief Administrative Law Judge:

 Reviews and screens all docketed cases, determines the level of complexity and assigns 

each to an Administrative Law Judge;

 Exercises strong management and monitors the progress of cases in order to ensure that 

performance goals are met;

 Supervises judicial and administrative staff, and ensures that they receive appropriate 

training to perform their responsibilities; and

 Examines judicial case management practices of other entities to ensure that OSHRC’s 

procedures are as efficient as possible.

Funding (in millions) and FTE

FY 2012 Enacted* FY 2013 CR 

Level**

FY 2014 Estimated

$ FTE $ FTE $ FTE

Administrative 

Law Judge 4.6 24 4.6 25 5.1 28

*FY 2012 reflects actual FTE. 

**OSHRC’s FY 2013 costs are estimated at the annualized Continuing Resolution (CR) level, as outlined in P.L. 112-175. 

The FTE level of 65 is estimated as of 9/30/13 and accounts for vacant Commissioner positions being filled during FY 

2013.
- 12 -

Strategic Plan and Outcome Goals

The Review Commission’s Strategic Plan for 2010 – 2015 includes the following goals and 

outcomes related to this function:

Public Service Goal Outcome Goals

Respect for the rule of 

law by assuring fair, just, 

and expeditious 

adjudication of disputes 

brought before the 

Review Commission and 

its Judges.

 Ensure that a significant proportion of both complex and non-complex 

cases at the Administrative Law Judge level are resolved in less than 

one year.



The Office of the Chief Administrative Law Judge will advance this strategic goal through the 

following strategies:

 Expeditious assignment of cases to judges;

 Using objective criteria to determine complex cases, and track the processing 

of these cases;

 Monitoring case performance, and improving case management information 

systems and reports;

 Providing training to all judges on a variety of subjects, including technical 

and legal issues, legal writing, case management and alternative dispute 

resolution (ADR), to help develop services and processes equal to the very best 

in judicial practice;

 Enhancing the current case tracking system in FY 2013 to accommodate efiling. In FY 2014, explore options to expand e-filing in a cost-effective

manner;

 Implementing appropriate changes in the agency’s Rules of Procedure to 

improve case processing (e.g., Mandatory Settlement Part and Simplified 

Proceedings), and seeking new ADR methods, including a review of 

recommendations resulting from the evaluation of the Mandatory Settlement 

Part; and

 Continuing to use a team of judges to handle, on a rotational basis, extremely 

complex cases and assigning appropriate staff to timely process and monitor 

such cases, including settlement discussions.
- 13 -

To best serve the American people, the Review Commission revised its strategic plan for the 

period FY 2010 through FY 2015. OSHRC’s Strategic Plan includes the following goals for the 

Office of the Chief Administrative Law Judge for fiscal years 2010 through 2015. 

Outcome Goals Performance

Measures

FY 

2009

Actual

(Target)

FY 

2010

Actual

(Target)

FY

2011

Actual

(Target)

FY

2012

Actual

(Target)

FY

2013 

(Target)

FY

2014

(Target)

Ensure that a significant 

proportion of noncomplex cases at the ALJ 

level are resolved in less 

than one year.

Percent within 

one year.

98%

Target 

Met

(98%)

98%

Target

Met

(98%)

98%

Target Met

(98%)

96%

Target 

Not Met

(98%)

98% 98%

Ensure that a significant 

proportion of complex 

cases at the ALJ level are 

resolved in less than one 

year.

Percent within 

one year.*

98%

Target 

Exceeded

(95%)

89%

Target 

Not Met

(95%)

84%

Target Not

Met

(95%)

87%

Target 

Not Met

(95%)

95% 95%

*Note: For FY 2008 – 2009, the target case resolution period for complex cases at the ALJ level was 18 months (540 days). In 

accordance with the Review Commission’s revised Strategic Plan (FY 2010- 2015), the target period has been reduced to one 

year commencing in FY 2010.

The Office of the Chief Administrative Law Judge in the last year had operated at less than full 

capacity due to vacancies which had occurred in the past two years. This, along with the 

significant increase in our caseload, had impacted the time in resolving cases. However, all of the 

judicial vacancies have been filled and we are now operating with a full complement of ALJs.

Nevertheless, our end-of-the year case inventory was 48.5 percent higher in FY 2012 than it was 

in FY 2009. Furthermore, with a full complement of judges on board, our current legal support 

staff is stretched thinner, resulting in potential delays and chokepoints in issuing decisions. As a 

result, absent additional legal and writing support for our ALJs, the downturn in our performance 

indicators at the ALJ level may continue. This is of particular concern since, under the Act, a 

cited employer has no obligation to abate an alleged violation until the Review Commission has 

finished its adjudication of a case.
- 14 -

Commission Function

The Act 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. This appellate level of 

review must be prompt, fair, and protective of the parties’ rights.

Proceedings before the Commission

The Commission adjudicates contested cases independently from the enforcement and rulemaking functions vested in OSHA. Disputed enforcement proceedings are tried initially before 

the Review Commission’s Administrative Law Judges. Each Commission member has the 

discretionary 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 the Judge’s findings of fact, conclusions 

of law, penalty assessments and abatement orders.

Each Commissioner has 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. Each counsel also aids the Commissioner in researching 

and editing draft opinions submitted by the General Counsel after the Commission decides a 

case. 

The Office of the General Counsel (OGC) provides legal advice and assists the Review 

Commission in complying with the various laws, regulations and executive orders governing its 

operations. OGC has primary responsibility for preparing and presenting factual and legal 

analyses to assist Commission members in adjudicating appeals, and also provides legal advice 

on ethics, FOIA, EEO, procurement, appropriations, Privacy Act and other areas. The 

Commission function also includes the work of the Commission’s Executive Secretary, who is 

responsible for the docketing of cases at both the ALJ and Commission levels. 

Commission Operations

The Commissioners strive to minimize the time for deciding 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 that have a major impact on the operations 

of the Commission are: the presence of a quorum, the size and complexity of cases, and the 

novelty of the issues presented for review.

The Act requires a quorum of two Commissioners to take official action. Further, by statute, 

decisions require the affirmative vote of two Commissioners. During periods when the 

Commission lacks a quorum, no cases can be decided. If there are only two Commissioners, it 
- 15 -

may be more difficult to reach agreement sufficient to dispose of some cases. In cases where 

such agreement cannot be reached, deadlocks result, and action on important issues and issuance 

of some pending cases may be delayed.

The Commission operated with only two Commissioners in FY 2012 due to the third

Commissioner’s term expiring in FY 2011. The Commission resolved 23 cases during fiscal 

year 2012 and met all of its GPRA goal targets for FY 2012 at the Commission level. 

Historically, 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 have an impact on the number of cases 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 longer, more costly trials. Consequently, the complexity and size of the cases both at 

the Administrative Law Judge and at the Commission levels has increased significantly in recent 

years.

Anticipated Commission Workload for FY 2014

The Review Commission focuses on solid case production, including deciding and issuing 

decisions in older cases in an effort to reduce case inventory. However, the cases that are going 

to hearings before the Commission’s ALJs are becoming more complex (e.g., imposition of 

higher penalties and/or more complex technical issues), which may result in a higher percentage 

of cases being petitioned for review. 

In FY 2012, the Commission had 35 cases pending at the beginning of the year. It received 19

new cases and issued 23 decisions by year-end. Thus, the Commission entered FY 2013 with 31

cases pending review. For FY 2013, the Commission anticipates receiving 19 new cases and 

disposing of 15 cases, ending that year with an inventory of 35 cases. As noted, the Commission 

currently has one vacancy, and a sitting Commissioner’s term expires on April 27, 2013. The 

potential lack of a quorum could adversely affect our performance at the Commission level in 

FY 2013.
- 16 -

Commission Case Activity

FY 2009

Actual

FY 2010

Actual

FY2011

Actual 

FY 2012

Actual

FY 2013

Estimate

FY 2014

Estimate

New Cases:

Cases Directed for 

Review: 16 24 24 14 15 20

Other New Cases:

 Interlocutory

 Appeals 0 0 6 2 2 2

 Remands 6 0 0 3 2 2

 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0

 Total Other New

 Cases: 6 0 6 5 4 4

Total New Cases: 22 24 30 19 19 24

Case Inventory 

from Prior Year: 20 22 31 35 31 35

Total Caseload: 42 46 61 54 50 59

Dispositions: 20 15 26 23 15 25

Case Inventory, 

End of Year: 22 31 35 31 35 34

Staffing

We request funding for 31 FTE positions for the Commission function in FY 2014. This staff 

level includes 10 FTE positions for the three Commissioners and their immediate staff, 16 FTE

positions for the Office of General Counsel and 5 FTE positions for the Office of the Executive 

Secretary. This level includes a supervisory attorney advisor to support the Office of the General 

Counsel. Filling this position will facilitate the legal analysis of cases pending at the 

Commission level and thus help expedite the issuance of decisions by the Commission, a critical 

necessity as employers have no obligation to abate an alleged violation until the Review 

Commission has finished its adjudication of a case. This FTE position was included in OSHRC’s 

FY 2012 budget submission.
- 17 -

Funding (in millions) and FTE

FY 2012 Enacted* FY 2013 CR 

Level**

FY 2014 Estimated

$ FTE $ FTE $ FTE

Commission 5.2 26 5.3 30 5.7 31

*FY 2012 reflects actual FTE. 

**OSHRC’s FY 2013 costs are estimated at the annualized Continuing Resolution (CR) level, as outlined in P.L. 

112-175. The FTE level of 65 is estimated as of 9/30/13 and accounts for vacant Commissioner positions being 

filled during FY 2013.

Strategic Plan and Outcome Goals

The Review Commission’s Strategic Plan includes the following goals and outcomes related to 

this function:

Public Service Goal Outcome Goal

Respect for the rule of 

law by assuring fair, just, 

and expeditious 

adjudication of disputes 

brought before the 

Review Commission and 

its Judges.

•

•

•

Resolve the oldest cases on the Review Commission’s docket.

Reduce the average age of open cases at the Commission-level.

Resolve all priority cases in a timely manner.

The Commission will advance its strategic goal through the following strategies:

 Having disposed of all “legacy” cases, reviewing what changes and 

improvements in our processes could prevent the accumulation of legacy cases 

in the future, and reflecting these changes and improvements in the new 

Strategic Plan to be developed in fiscal year 2014;

 Continuing our effort to reduce the average age of Commission-level cases to 

two years or less;

 Expediting the disposition of priority cases that require immediate action (in 

general, court remands, interlocutory reviews, Federal Rule 60(b) cases, and 

Commission Rule 101(a) defaults);

 Implementing internal markers to assist in the preparation of cases and 

issuance of Commission decisions;
- 18 -

 Accelerating the 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;

 Expanding the use of teams in the Office of the General Counsel to reduce the 

time needed to write decisional memoranda and draft decisions;

 Developing new methods to shorten case preparation time;

 Developing procedures for case processing and decision quality;

 Implementing changes to the Agency’s Rules of Procedure to improve case 

processing;

 Making greater use of oral arguments and requests for amicus briefs for 

complex cases and cases that present significant questions of law; and

 Developing case processing measures for employees assigned to cases to 

ensure individual performance plans support priorities in the Review 

Commission’s strategic and annual performance plans.

The following performance goals have been developed for fiscal years 2010 through 2014 to 

support the FY 2010 – 2015 Strategic Plan:
- 19 -

Outcome 

Goals

Performance

Measures

FY

2010 

Actual

(Target)

FY

2011 

Actual

(Target)

FY 

2012

Actual

(Target)

FY 

2013

(Target)

FY

2014

(Target)

Resolve the 

oldest cases 

on the Review 

Commission’s 

docket. 

All cases docketed at 

the Commission level 

prior to 2008 resolved. 

20%

Target Not Met

(30% of oldest 

cases)

80%

Target Met 

(70% of oldest 

cases)

Completed 

by end of

FY 2011

Completed 

by end of

FY 2011

Completed 

by end of

FY 2011

Reduce the 

average age 

of open cases 

at the 

Commissionlevel. 

Average age of open 

cases.

32 months

Target Met

(41 months or 

less) 

15 months

Target Met

(36 months or 

less)

18 months

Target Met

(33 months 

or less)

(30 months 

or less)

(27 months 

or less)

Resolve all 

priority cases 

in a timely 

manner.

Percent of priority cases 

disposed of within 6 

months.

100%

Target Met

(100%)

100%

Target Met

(100%)

100%

Target Met

(100%)

(100%) (100%)
- 20 -

Office of the Executive Director Function

The Office of the Executive Director provides administrative support services for the entire 

Review Commission to assure success in fulfilling its mission. 

Administrative Operations

The Executive Director function provides operational management for the agency, including 

procurement, information technology management, human resources management, budget and 

financial management, and administrative services. The day-to-day tasks of this office are led by 

the Executive Director and include: 

 Supporting the development and implementation of the Agency’s strategic 

goals;

 Maintaining and enhancing a website to provide the public with greater access 

to Review Commission information;

 Providing agency-wide support in the areas of finance, budget, procurement

and contracting, human resources, equal opportunity and general 

administrative services;

 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 space;

 Implementing case management and administrative systems through IT 

hardware and software;

 Developing and maintaining computer systems and information security 

enhancements; and

 Enhancing telecommunications and improving technology efficiency and 

effectiveness.

Anticipated Office of Executive Director Workload for FY 2014

During FY 2014, Office of the Executive Director staff will:

 Implement the Administration’s government-wide performance initiatives;

 Improve financial and administrative services and enhance integrity and 

efficiency of the Agency’s financial management and human resources 

programs;
- 21 -

 Provide greater online access to information generated by OSHRC to citizens 

and other interested parties as a part of the Review Commission’s transparency 

initiatives;

 Provide 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;

 Improve computer information security 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;

 Execute the Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) including maintenance, 

testing, and (if needed) implementation of the COOP for Washington, DC and 

the regional offices in Denver and Atlanta; 

 Make use of best knowledge management practices to ensure that employees 

are better prepared to perform their work, and to provide for continuity and 

succession planning; and

 Review information technology programs to determine ways to achieve cost 

savings. In particular, the Review Commission’s personal computer (PC) 

configuration is based on Microsoft Windows XP SP3 which is scheduled to 

move into end of life in April 2014 and will no longer be supported by 

Microsoft. In an effort to minimize the cost of upgrading both hardware and 

software, the Review Commission’s IT staff will repurpose machines that are 

Microsoft Windows 7 compatible and will make every effort to make as many 

PC’s Windows 7 compatible as possible. This is part of the ongoing software 

and hardware maintenance required to maintain a more stable and secure 

environment.

In FY 2013 and FY 2014, we plan to continue to enhance our web-based transparency initiatives, 

including enhancing the OSHRC website to make more information available to internal and 

external customers, revising our COOP plan, and undertaking other activities in support of the 

Review Commission’s mission. We also plan to explore options to expand e-filing in a costeffective manner. The Review Commission will also consider providing public access to the 

docket sheets of its cases to enhance the open government initiative.

Staffing
- 22 -

We request funding for 10 FTE positions for the Office of the Executive Director function to 

perform the duties and responsibilities outlined above. The Office has responsibility for 

implementing the Administration’s performance improvement efforts, including implementing 

and monitoring strategic and performance plans and reports, budget and performance integration, 

human capital development and E-government. 

Funding (in millions) and FTE

FY 2012 Enacted* FY 2013 CR 

Level**

FY 2014 Estimated

$ FTE $ FTE $ FTE

Executive Director 1.8 9 1.8 10 1.8 10

*FY 2012 reflects actual FTE. 

**OSHRC’s FY 2013 costs are estimated at the annualized Continuing Resolution (CR) level, as outlined in P.L. 

112-175. The FTE level of 65 is estimated as of 9/30/13 and accounts for vacant Commissioner positions being 

filled during FY 2013.

Strategic Plan and Outcome Goals

The Office of the Executive Director’s responsibilities include implementation of and/or 

providing Strategic Plan guidance for the following goals and outcomes:

Public Service Goal Outcome Goals

Expanding transparency 

and openness by 

providing for stakeholder 

engagement and 

ensuring that the Review 

Commission keeps 

interested parties and the 

public it serves informed 

of the agency’s work at 

all levels, consistent with 

due process 

requirements.

•

•

•

Ensure that the Review Commission’s website is accurate, current and complete, 

and serves as a useful repository for information about the agency and its 

adjudicatory activities.

Produce timely and accurate reports on the Review Commission’s activities, 

including all reports required by law.

Update agency’s FOIA regulations and FOIA reference guide. [Note: This 

priority goal was achieved during FY 2010.]

Responsible stewardship 

of the fiscal and human 

resources employed by 

the Review Commission 

in accordance with the 

agency’s statutory 

•

•

Improve the Review Commission’s outreach activities with affected public and 

with other Federal agencies.

Recruit and maintain a diverse and highly motivated staff with the skills to 

support the mission of the agency.
- 23 -

mandate and other 

applicable law.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Invest in human capital by increasing staff development and training 

opportunities and increasing employees’ capabilities and potential.

Ensure that the agency’s performance management system enhances individual 

and organizational effectiveness.

Improve case tracking through continued implementation and enhancement of a 

new IT case management system.

Develop metrics to measure ALJ effort devoted to non-hearing case resolution.

Make use of best knowledge management (KM) practices to ensure that 

employees are better prepared to perform their work, and to provide for 

continuity and succession planning.

Improve the quality of employee work life through enhanced use of IT, telework, 

wellness programs, etc.

Examine opportunities for insourcing of work that has been outsourced to 

contractors.
- 24 -

The following performance goals have been developed for fiscal years 2011, 2012, 2013 and 

2014 to support the FY 2010 – 2015 Strategic Plan:

Outcome 

Goals

Performance 

Measures

FY

2011

Actual

(Target)

FY

2012

Actual

(Target)

FY

2013

(Target)

FY

2014

(Target)

Invest in human 

capital by 

increasing staff 

development and 

training 

opportunities 

and increasing 

employees’ 

capabilities and 

potential.

One percent of basic 

payroll devoted to 

staff training and 

development by FY 

2015, and no fewer 

than 24 hours 

training per staff 

member per year. 

.45%

Target Partially 

Met

(.45% of basic

payroll to training 

and 10 hours)

.54% of basic 

payroll to 

training and 

62% of staff had 

12 hours of 

training*

Target Not Met; 

(.55% of basic 

payroll to 

training and 12 

hours)

(.55 of basic 

payroll to 

training and 12 

hours)

(.55 of basic 

payroll to 

training and 

12 hours)

Examine and 

identify 

contracted 

positions 

appropriate for 

insourcing.

Percentage of 

positions identified 

appropriate for 

insourcing that are 

insourced

One position 

identified

Target Met

(Positions 

identified)

One position 

insourced. No 

other position 

eligible.

Target Met

(Insource 

position 

identified and 

identify 

additional 

positions to 

insource)

(Insource any 

additional 

positions 

identified)

(Insource any 

additional 

positions 

identified)

Use of 360 

degree 

employeesupervisor 

feedback 

mechanisms.

All supervisors 

subject to 360 degree 

feedback, and 

feedback is used to 

ensure that 

individual and 

organizational 

effectiveness goals 

are being met.

Feedback 

Instrument 

developed

Target Met

(Appropriate 

feedback 

instrument 

developed)

Feedback 

Instrument used 

to evaluate 

supervisors

Target Met

(Feedback 

mechanism used 

to evaluate all 

supervisors)

(Feedback 

mechanism 

used to 

evaluate all 

supervisors)

(Feedback 

mechanism 

used to 

evaluate all 

supervisors)

*$39,589, or .54 percent of basic payroll, was devoted to training in FY 2012. We were challenged in fully meeting 

this goal due in part to being under a continuing resolution the first quarter of FY 2012, during which spending on 

training was severely constrained. Tracking the number of hours devoted to employee training was implemented in 

FY 2012. Approximately 62 percent of employees received twelve or more hours of training. 
IV. BUDGET BY OBJECT

CLASSIFICATION CATEGORY
- 25 -

Budget by Object Classification (BOC) Category

The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission requests an appropriation of 

$12,634,830 for FY 2014 to continue our mission of adjudicating OSHA-issued workplace safety 

citations. This amount will fund 69 FTE positions as well as pay other costs.

The proposed budget for FY 2014 by object classification category is shown in the table below, 

along with the FY 2012 actual costs, and the FY 2013 costs estimated at the annualized 

Continuing Resolution (CR) level as outlined in P.L. 112-175. A narrative explanation of the 

amount requested for each object classification follows the table.

Object Classification Table

Fiscal Years 2012, 2013 and 2014

(Dollars in Thousands)

Change

FY 2012 Actual –

FY 2014 Request

Budget Object Class

FY 2012

Enacted

FY 2013

CR Level

FY 2014

Request $ %

11.0 Personnel Compensation 6,573 $7,229 $7,719 +1,146 +17.43

12.0 Personnel Benefits 1,676 1,811 2,088 +412 +24.58

 Subtotal Personnel Costs 8,249 9,040 9,807 +1,558 +18.89

21.0 Travel 188 185 185 -3 -1.6

22.0 Transportation of Things 8 7 7 -1 -12.5

23.1

Space Rental Payments 

(GSA) 1,322 1,415 1,540 +218 +16.49

23.3

Communications, Utilities 

and Misc. 211 109 109 -102 -48.34

24.0 Printing and Reproduction 12 17 17 +5 +41.67

25.0 Other Services 1,187 800 805 -382 -32.18

26.0 Supplies and Materials 44 43 43 -1 -2.27

31.0 Equipment 232 122 122 -110 -47.41

Unobligated 214 -- -- -- --

Grand Total 11,667 11,738 12,635 +968 +8.3

 
- 26 -

Budget Object Classification Detail

11.0 Personnel Compensation

Change FY 2012 Actual – FY 2014 Request

FY 2012 Actual FY 2013 CR Level FY 2014 Request Amount Percent

$6,573,000 $7,229,000 $7,719,000 +$1,146,000 +17.43%

The Review Commission requests $7,719,000 to fund direct payroll costs in FY 2014. This 

includes funding for a comparability pay increase that is anticipated in January 2014. This 

amount will fund 69 FTE positions.

This object class also supports awards to recognize those employees whose performance is 

superior, and who perform special acts or services. In accordance with the guidance from the 

Office of Personnel Management, OSHRC reduced its spending on performance awards for nonSES employees and for members of the Senior Executive Service (SES) in FY 2011 and FY 

2012. We expect that this reduced level will continue and have reduced our awards amount 

accordingly for FY 2014.

12.0 Personnel Benefits

Change FY 2012 Actual – FY 2014 Request

FY 2012 Actual FY 2013 CR Level FY 2014 Request Amount Percent

$1,676,000 $1,811,000 $2,088,000 +$412,000 +24.58%

The Review Commission requests $2,088,000 to fund the payroll-related costs of employee 

benefits in FY 2014. These benefits principally consist of the government’s contributions to the 

CSRS and FERS retirement programs, life and health insurance programs, the Transit Subsidy 

Program, and the Thrift Savings Plan.

21.0 Travel

Change FY 2012 Actual – FY 2014 Request

FY 2012 Actual FY 2013 CR Level FY 2014 Request Amount Percent

$188,000 $185,000 $185,000 -$3,000 -1.6%

The Review Commission requests $185,000 for travel in FY 2014. Travel of Administrative 

Law Judges (ALJs) to conduct hearings accounts for the majority of this request. It should be 

noted that approximately 90 percent of the Review Commission’s travel budget pays for ALJ 

travel in order to conduct hearings. These hearings are required to be conducted in a location 

that involves as little inconvenience and expense to the parties as practicable. OMB 

Memorandum M-12-12 requires agencies to reduce travel expenses to a level at least 30 percent 

less than the amount spent on travel in FY 2010 in Fiscal Years 2013 through 2016. However, 
- 27 -

due to the inherent relationship between OSHRC ALJ hearings and the health and safety 

inspection process, OSHRC’s ALJ travel expenses were excluded from the 30 percent reduction. 

The remainder of these funds is for travel associated with training, necessary travel to the 

regional offices and other requirements.

22.0 Transportation of Things

Change FY 2012 Actual – FY 2014 Request

FY 2012 Actual FY 2013 CR Level FY 2014 Request Amount Percent

$8,000 $7,000 $7,000 -1,000 -12.5%

An amount of $7,000 is requested to fund the cost of shipping materials between Review 

Commission offices and other locations. 

23.1 Rental Payments to GSA

Change FY 2012 Actual – FY 2014 Request

FY 2012 Actual FY 2013 CR Level FY 2014 Request Amount Percent

$1,322,000 $1,415,000 $1,540,000 +$218,000 +16.49%

The request includes $1,540,000 for office space rental for the National and Regional Offices. 

These projected rent costs are based on FY 2014 estimates provided by the General Services 

Administration (GSA) to the Review Commission. 

23.3 Communications, Utilities and Miscellaneous Charges

Change FY 2012 Actual – FY 2014 Request

FY 2012 Actual FY 2013 CR Level FY 2014 Request Amount Percent

$211,000 $109,000 $109,000 -102,000 -48.34%

Telephone and postage costs are projected to require a total of $109,000 in FY 2014. This 

increase is due to the Review Commission’s transition to Networx and is based on the FY 2014

estimated costs received from the telecommunications vendor. Local phone service and 

telecommunications are projected to cost $89,000. Postage for the required mailing of letters, 

case files, and other materials related to cases is expected to be $20,000. 
- 28 -

24.0 Printing and Reproduction

Change FY 2012 Actual – FY 2014 Request

FY 2012 Actual FY 2013 CR Level FY 2014 Request Amount Percent

$12,000 $17,000 $17,000 +$5,000 +41.67%

The Review Commission requests $17,000 for printing costs in FY 2014. Printing costs consist 

mainly of the charges for publishing rules, proposed rules and other announcements in the Code 

of Federal Regulations (CFR) and/or the Federal Register, and for purchasing copies of the CFR 

and other GPO publications. Together, these printing/publishing costs are expected to 

approximate $10,000 in fiscal year 2014. The balance of the budget -- $7,000 -- is needed for 

printing of Rules of Procedure and the Guide to the Review Commission pamphlets, which are 

provided to parties to Review Commission proceedings.

25.0 Other Contractual Services

Change FY 2012 Actual – FY 2014 Request

FY 2012 Actual FY 2013 CR Level FY 2014 Request Amount Percent

$1,187,000 $800,000 $805,000 -382,000 -32.18%

The Review Commission requests $805,000 for Other Services in FY 2014. Requirements in this 

area fall into two basic categories: Interagency Agreements for services provided by other 

Federal agencies; and contractual services provided by non-Federal vendors. Additional 

information on each of these is provided in the following paragraphs.

Services Provided by Other Federal Agencies. A total of $440,000 is requested for services 

provided by other Federal agencies. This area includes $8,500 for personnel and payroll services 

provided by the National Finance Center, $299,500 for financial and administrative services 

provided by the Bureau of the Public Debt (including funds to BPD to support infrastructure 

upgrades), and $56,000 for building security (estimated) provided by the Department of 

Homeland Security. This category also includes funds needed for continuing maintenance of the 

Review Commission’s Internet website ($30,000), which is housed at and maintained by the 

Government Printing Office. The remaining amount will be used to fund other Interagency 

Agreements such as with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (Federal 

Occupational Health), the General Services Administration, and the U.S. Office of Personnel 

Management.

Other Contractual Services. OSHRC procures a variety of services to support us in carrying 

out our mission. These include: court reporting ($94,000); maintenance of the Review 

Commission’s information technology system ($53,000); evaluation and support for information

technology security ($29,000); and on-line legal research ($35,500). This category also includes 

funding for other contractual services such as the annual audit of our financial statements 

($32,000), library operations ($80,000), training and other requirements to support the agency’s 

mission. 
- 29 -

26.0 Supplies and Materials

Change FY 2012 Actual – FY 2014 Request

FY 2012 Actual FY 2013 CR Level FY 2014 Request Amount Percent

$44,000 $43,000 $43,000 -1,000 -2.27%

The Review Commission requests $43,000 for supplies and materials in FY 2014. This amount 

includes general office supplies ($22,000) and information technology supplies and software 

($21,000). 

31.0 Equipment

Change FY 2012 Actual – FY 2014 Request

FY 2012 Actual FY 2013 CR Level FY 2014 Request Amount Percent

$232,000 $122,000 $122,000 -110,000 -47.41%

The Review Commission requests $122,000 for equipment costs in FY 2014. Subscriptions and 

other publications necessary to maintain our legal libraries make up the bulk of the costs in this 

object class. The remainder is required for new and/or replacement computer and other 

information technology requirements, and to enable us to comply with Government-wide 

mandates such as the Federal Information Security Management Act. Our information 

technology equipment includes personal computers, printers, a local area network, and associated 

peripherals. Finally, a small portion of this funding will be used to purchase any office furniture 

that may be needed. 
V. OTHER TABLES
- 30 -

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

Appropriation History

Fiscal Year Request to Congress House Allowance Senate Allowance Appropriation

1995 $7,655,000 $7,595,000 $7,595,000 $7,595,000

1996 $8,127,000 $8,200,000 $8,100,000 $8,081,0001

1997 $7,753,000 $7,753,000 $7,753,000 $7,738,0002

1998 $7,800,000 $7,900,000 $7,800,000 $7,900,000

1999 $8,050,000 $8,100,000 $8,100,000 $8,092,0003

2000 $8,500,000 $8,100,000 $8,500,000 $8,470,0004

2001 $8,720,000 $8,600,000 $8,720,000 $8,720,000

2002 $8,964,000 $8,964,000 $8,964,000 $8,958,0005

2003 $9,577,000 $9,577,000 $9,577,000 $9,673,0006

2004 $10,115,000 $10,115,000 $9,610,000 $9,863,0007

2005 $10,516,000 $10,595,000 $10,595,000 $10,510,2408

2006 $10,510,000 $10,510,000 $10,510,000 $10,404,9009

2007 $10,346,000 $10,510,000 $10,346,000 $10,470,779

2008 $10,696,000 $10,696,000 $10,696,000 $10,696,00010

2009 $11,186,000 $11,186,000 $11,186,000 $11,186,000

2010 $11,712,000 $11,712,000 $11,712,000 $11,712,000

2011 $12,051,000 $11,712,000 $12,051,000 $11,712,00011

2012 $12,773,000 $11,689,000 $11,689,000 $11,689,00012

2013 $11,965,00013

 

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 $9,863,000 by P.L. 108-199

8 Reduced to $10,510,240 by P.L. 108-447

9 Reduced to $10,404,900 by P.L. 109-149

10 Reduced to $10,509,141 by P.L. 110-161

11 Reduced to $11,688,576 by P.L. 112-10

12 Reduced to $11,666,908 by P.L. 112-74

13 A full year FY 2013 appropriation for this account was not enacted at the time the budget was prepared.
- 31 -

Authorized Full Time Positions

By Function

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

Actual Estimate Estimate

Administrative Law Judge:

AL-II 1 1 1 

AL-III 11 11 11

GS-14 2 3 4

GS-13 1 1 3

GS-12 2 1 0

GS-11 2 2 2

GS-10 0 0 1

GS-9 1 1 1

GS-8 4 4 5

GS-7 0 1 0

Sub-total 24 25 28

Commission:

Executive Level III 1 1 1 

Executive Level IV 1 2 2 

ES-00 2 2 2 

GS-15 4 5 6 

GS-14 5 5 7

GS-13 5 5 5 

GS-12 2 2 1 

GS-11 3 5 4 

GS-10 1 1 1 

GS-9 1 1 1 

GS-8 0 0 1 

GS-7 1 1 0 

Sub-total 26 30 31

Office of the Executive Director:

ES-00 1 1 1 

GS-15 2 2 2 

GS-14 1 1 1 

GS-13 0 1 1 

GS-12 3 3 3 

GS-11 1 0 0 

GS-7 0 1 1 

GS-6 1 0 0 

GS-5 0 1 1 

Sub-total 9 10 10 

Total full-time positions: 59 65 69