Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission 

OSHRC 

 

Fiscal Year 2010 

Performance Budget and Justification 

 

May 2009 
i 

Table of Contents 

Fiscal Year 2010 Performance Budget and Justification 

 Page 

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

II. Performance Budget Justification by Organizational Function........................................ 3 

III. Budget by Object Classification Category........................................................................ 19 

IV. Other Tables...................................................................................................................... 24 
I. INTRODUCTION -- MISSION, 

VISION, AND

STRATEGIC GOAL
- 1 - 

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission 

Our Mission 

The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC) is an independent, 

adjudicatory agency created by the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the Act). Our 

sole statutory mandate 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. 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 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 

Administrative Law Judges who travel, as necessary, to adjudicate cases in locales where the 

alleged workplace violations took place. 

Our Vision

Our vision is simple, direct and performance oriented. We 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; 
- 2 - 

• 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

OSHRC’s strategic goal is: To ensure fair, just, and expeditious adjudication of disputes brought 

before the Commission and its Judges. The Review Commission’s current strategic plan covers 

the period FY 2009 through FY 2014. 
II. PERFORMANCE BUDGET 

JUSTIFICATION
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 $11,712,000 

to fund essential agency programs and support 67 full-time equivalent (FTE) positions in FY 

2010. 

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

administrative court providing fair and prompt resolution of disputes involving the Occupational 

Safety and Health Administration, 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. 

Our FY 2010 budget request includes: 

• $8,948,375 to support direct payroll and related costs for 67 FTEs. These costs represent 

76 percent of the Review Commission’s appropriation. 

• $1,465,814 for office space rent. 

• $436,810 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). 

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

and targets and to further implement the E-Gov Act and other initiatives. 

- 3 - 
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 Administration 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 goal. This separation of staff between the 

Administrative Law Judges and Commissioners 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 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 (in millions) and FTE by Function

FY 2009 Estimate FY 2010 Estimate 

$ FTE $ FTE

Administrative Law Judge 4.5 24 4.7 24 

Commission 5.0 31 5.2 31 

Administration 1.7 12 1.8 12

Total 11.2 67 11.7 67 

- 4 - 
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. The 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, 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

Our agency 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 increasingly more 

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

OSHA conducted 38,591 inspections in FY 2008, an increase of more than 2 percent above the 

anticipated level, and projects that they will conduct 37,700 inspections in FY 2009 and in FY 

2010. (Note: The FY 2009 and 2010 estimates are based on Office of Management and Budget 

guidance as of February 2009, and are used for budgeting purposes only. They do not reflect 

potential policy decisions concerning OSHA enforcement.) OSHA’s emphasis during recent 

years has been on more serious workplace hazards, and the consequent increase in proposed 

penalties has translated into more complicated cases and more costly trials (cases involving lockout/tag-out, confined spaces, health care hazards, asbestos, lead poisoning, process safety, and 

- 5 - 
construction industry hazards, etc.). These cases command a greater portion of the judges’ 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 

• Types of cases, such as those involving asbestos, lead poisoning, ergonomics, 

and process safety management and/or confined spaces 

Case processing is expedited by moving a greater numbers of cases into the Mandatory 

Settlement and Simplified Proceedings programs, innovative methodologies to speed the 

adjudication or settlement of pending cases. 

Under Commission Rule 2200.120, where the parties consent thereto, the Chief Law Judge may 

assign a Settlement Judge to a pending proceeding to aid the parties in disposing of cases. 

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 

approval of all parties. 

The Simplified Proceedings process has been expanded to include 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 an administrative law 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. 

- 6 - 
In FY 2008, 50 percent of new cases were assigned to Simplified Proceedings. The Review 

Commission projects that at least 50 percent of new cases will be assigned to the Simplified 

Proceedings process in FY 2009 and FY 2010. 

Simplified Proceedings Case Activity

FY 2005 through FY 2010 

FY 2005 FY 2010 

Actual

FY 2006 

Actual

FY 2007 

Actual

FY 2008 

Actual

FY 2009 

Estimate Estimate

New Cases 2,202 2,002 1,998 1,962 2,200 2,200 

Cases 

assigned to 

Simplified 

Proceedings 

1,217 1,063 1,104 990 1,100 1,100 

Anticipated Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Workload for FY 2010 

Three 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 and Mandatory Settlement 

processes; and (3) the number of trials held, and their length and complexity. 

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

the highest hazard workplaces – especially those with high injury and illness rates, fatalities, 

repeat offenders, and the most egregious workplace hazards, which frequently results in larger 

contestable proposed penalties. These inspections 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 elongated and complicated. 

- 7 - 
The following table provides actual Administrative Law Judge caseloads and accomplishments 

for fiscal years 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008, and estimated caseloads and accomplishments for 

fiscal years 2009 and 2010. 

FY 2005

Actual

FY 2006

Actual

FY 2007

Actual

FY 2008

Actual

FY 2009 

Estimate

FY 2010

Estimate

OSHA Inspections*: 38,714 38,579 39,324 38,591 37,700 37,700 

 

Administrative Law Judge Workload: 

a. Case Inventory, 

Start of Year 761 708 685 625 739 739 

b. New Cases 2,202 2,002 1,998 1,962 2,200 2,200 

c. Total Caseload 2,963 2,710 2,683 2,587 2,939 2,939 

d. Disposals 

(1) With Hearing 57 62 60 69 75 75 

(2) Without Hearing 2,198 1,963 1,998 1,779 2,125 2,125 

e. Total Dispositions 2,255 2,025 2,058 1,848 2,200 2,200 

 

Total Case Inventory, 

End of Year 708 685 625 739 739 739 

*Provided by Directorate of Evaluation and Analysis, OSHA. (Note: The FY 2009 and 2010 estimates are based 

on Office of Management and Budget guidance as of February 2009, and are used for budgeting purposes only. 

They do not reflect potential policy decisions concerning OSHA enforcement.) 

- 8 - 
Staffing 

The Office of the Administrative Law Judge requires 24 FTE in FY 2010. This staff level is 

consistent with FY 2009, and includes 12 Administrative Law Judges, staff attorneys and support 

staff. This staffing level will be needed to support the projected workload, based on OSHA’s 

planned inspections in the coming years, and meet performance targets, given the number and 

complexity of the cases anticipated. 

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 2009 Estimate FY 2010 Estimate

$ FTE $ FTE

Administrative Law Judge 4.5 24 4.7 24 

- 9 - 
Public Service Goal and Outcome Goals

The Review Commission’s Strategic Plan for 2009 – 2014 includes the following goals and 

objectives related to this function: 

Public Service Goal Outcome Goals

$ Increase the percent of non-complex cases at the Administrative Law Judge level 

that are resolved in less than one year 

To ensure fair, just, and 

expeditious adjudication 

of disputes brought 

before the Review 

Commission and its 

Judges

$ Increase the percent of complex cases at the Administrative Law Judge level that 

are resolved within 18 months 

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

following strategies: 

• Expeditious assignment of cases to judges; 

• Use of 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;

• 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; 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. 

- 10 - 
To best serve the American people, the Review Commission revised its strategic plan for the 

period FY 2006 – FY 2011, and again for the period FY 2009 through FY 2014. OSHRC’s 

Strategic Plan includes the following goals for the Office of the Administrative Law Judges for 

fiscal years 2005 through 2010. 

Performance

Measures Outcome Goals

FY 2005

Actual 

(Target)

FY 2006 

Actual 

(Target)

FY 2007

 Actual 

(Target)

FY 2008 

Actual 

(Target) 

FY 

2009 

Target

FY 2010

Target 

• Increase the percent of noncomplex cases at the ALJ 

level that are resolved in 

less than one year 

Percent within 

365 days 

98% 

Target 

Exceeded 

(93%) 

99% 

Target 

Exceeded 

(94%) 

99% 

Target 

Exceeded 

(97%) 

99% 

Target Met 

(99%) 

98% 98% 

• Increase the percent of 

complex cases at the ALJ 

level that are resolved 

within 18 months 

Percent within 

540 days 

98% 

Target 

Exceeded 

(93%) 

99% 

Target 

Exceeded 

(94%) 

97% 

Target not 

met 

(98%) 

99% 

Target Met 

(99%) 

95% 95% 

- 11 - 
Commission Function 

OSHRC Commissioners are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, and serve 

as an appellate level of review. The Commissioners review and decide cases contested under the 

Occupational Safety and Health Act, following an initial decision by an Administrative Law 

Judge. This appellate level of review must be prompt, fair, and protective of the parties’ rights. 

Overall, this is our primary public service goal. 

Proceedings before the Commission

Our Commissioners adjudicate 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. 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 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 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 may also provide legal advice on FOIA, 

EEO, procurement, appropriations, Privacy Act and other areas. 

Commission Operations

Our Commissioners strive 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 

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. 

- 12 - 
The Commission consists of three Members appointed by the President. The Occupational 

Safety and Health 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 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 and 

issuance of some pending cases may be delayed. 

The Commission operated during FY 2008 with two Commissioners and one vacancy. 

Nevertheless, the two Commissioners resolved 18 cases during the fiscal year. 

 

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 2010 

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

decisions in older cases to maintain and/or reduce case inventory in FY 2009. 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 2008, the Commission had 25 cases pending at the beginning of the year. It received 13 

new cases and issued 18 decisions by the end of the fiscal year. Thus, the Commission entered 

FY 2009 with 20 cases pending review. For FY 2009, the Commission anticipates receiving 24 

new cases and disposing of 20 cases, ending that year with an inventory of 24 cases. Actual 

dispositions, of course, may be affected if a full Commission is not in place. 

- 13 - 
Commission Case Activity 

FY 2005

Actual

FY 2006

Actual

FY 2007

Actual

FY 2008

Actual

FY 2009

Estimate

FY 2010

Estimate

New Cases: 

Cases Directed for 

Review: 20 12 21 11 18 22 

Other New Cases: 

 Interlocutory 

 Appeals 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 Remands 2 1 4 2 6 4 

 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 Total Other New 

 Cases: 2 1 4 2 6 4 

Total New Cases: 22 13 25 13 24 26 

Case Inventory 

from Prior Year: 54 40 27 25 20 24 

Total Caseload: 76 53 52 38 44 50 

Dispositions: 36 26 27 18 20 20 

Case Inventory, 

End of Year: 40 27 25 20 24 30 

Staffing 

Our FY 2010 budget requests 31 FTE for the Commission function, including 10 FTEs for the 

three Commissioners and their immediate staff, 16 FTEs for the Office of General Counsel, and 

5 FTEs for the Office of the Executive Secretary. 

Funding (in millions) and FTE

FY 2009 Estimate FY 2010 Estimate

$ FTE $ FTE

Commission 5.0 31 5.2 31 

- 14 - 
Public Service Goal and Outcome Goal

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

this function: 

Public Service Goal Outcome Goal

To ensure fair, just, and 

expeditious adjudication 

of disputes brought 

before the Commission 

and its judges

$ Reduce the length of time to resolve Commission-level cases 

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

• Focusing on the disposition of older cases, with the immediate aim of reducing 

the existing backlog and the eventual goal of disposing of 75% of cases 

directed for review within 12 months; 

• Expediting 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 Federal Rule 60(b) cases); 

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

issuance of Commission decisions; 

• Accelerating 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. 

- 15 - 
The following performance goals have been developed for fiscal year 2010 to support the FY 

2009 – 2014 Strategic Plan: 

Performance 

Measures Outcome Goals

FY 

2005 

Actual 

(Target)

FY 

2006 

Actual 

(Target)

FY 

2007 

Actual 

(Target)

FY 2008 

Actual 

(Target) 

FY 2009 

(Target) 

FY 2010

(Target)

$ Reduce the length 

of time to resolve 

Commission-level 

cases 

Percent of 

cases over 2 

years old 

disposed of 

at the 

Commission 

level 

52% 

(100%)

22% 

Target 

not met

(100%)

32% 

Target 

not met

(100%)

23% 

Target 

Not Met 

(100%) 

(100%) (100%) 

$ Reduce the length 

of time to resolve 

priority cases 

Percent of 

priority cases 

disposed of 

within 6 

months 

100% 

Target 

met 

(100%)

100% 

Target 

met 

(100%)

100% 

Target 

met 

(100%)

100% 

Target 

Met 

(100%) 

(100%) (100%) 

- 16 - 
Office of Administration Function 

The Office of Administration (OA) provides administrative support services for the entire 

Review Commission to assure success in fulfilling our mission. 

Administrative Operations

The Office of Administration 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 Director of Administration and include: 

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

goal; 

• 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, 

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 Administration Workload for FY 2010 

During FY 2010, Office of Administration 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; 

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

and other interested parties, as required by the E-Gov Act; 

- 17 - 
• 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; 

• 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; 

• 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; and 

• Further enhance implementation of Homeland Security Presidential Directive 

(HSPD) 12; and 

In FY 2010, OA plans to continue with E-gov initiatives, including redesigning the 

OSHRC website to make it more accessible to internal and external customers, revising 

our Continuity of Operations (COOP) plan, and undertaking other activities in support of 

the Review Commission’s mission. 

Staffing 

Our FY 2010 budget requests funding for 12 FTE for the Office of Administration function to 

perform the duties and responsibilities outlined above. The Office of Administration staff 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 2009 Estimate FY 2010 Estimate

$ FTE $ FTE

Administration 1.7 12 1.8 12 

- 18 - 
III. BUDGET BY OBJECT

CLASSIFICATION CATEGORY
- 19 - 

Budget by Object Classification Category 

The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission requests an appropriation of 

$11,712,000 and 67 FTE for FY 2010. The funding and staffing requested will enable the 

Review Commission to carry out its mission, as required by the Occupational Safety and Health 

Act. The growth in the FY 2010 budget request is required for higher salary rates approved by 

Congress, as well as to keep pace with inflation and other cost increases imposed upon us. The 

proposed budget for FY 2010 by object classification category is shown in the table below, along 

with the FY 2009 request. A narrative explanation of the amount requested for each object 

classification follows the table. 

Object Classification Table

Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010 

(Dollars in Thousands) 

Change FY 2009-2010

Budget Object Class FY 2009 FY 2010 $ %

11.0 Personnel Compensation $6,917 $7,231 +314 +4.5

12.0 Personnel Benefits 1,619 1,717 +98 +6

 Subtotal Personal Services 8,536 8,948 +412 +4.8

21.0 Travel 126 185 +59 +46.8

22.0 Transportation of Things 7 7 0 0

23.1 Space Rental Payments (GSA) 1,473 1,466 -7 -.5

23.3 Communications, Utilities and Misc. 65 95 +30 +46.1

24.0 Printing and Reproduction 17 17 0 0

25.0 Other Services 800 821 +21 +2.6

26.0 Supplies and Materials 45 45 0 0

31.0 Equipment 117 128 +11 +9.4

 Total 11,186 11,712 +526 +4.7
- 20 - 

Object Classification Detail 

11.0 Personnel Compensation

Change FY 2009-FY 2010

FY 2009 FY 2010 Amount %

$6,917,000 $7,231,000 +$314,000 +4.5 

The budget request for FY 2010 includes $7,121,000 to fund the direct payroll costs of 67 FTE. 

This includes funding for comparability pay increases that will be effective in January 2009, as 

well as proposed comparability pay increases in January 2010. 

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

superior, and who perform special acts or services. Cash awards are a necessary incentive under 

the Review Commission’s performance appraisal system, and form an important component of 

the continuing effort to improve the quality and timeliness of work products that contribute to 

overall agency efforts to accomplish its Strategic Plan objectives. The Review Commission has 

implemented a results-oriented performance management systems for both senior executive and 

GS level employees. As part of this effort, the Review Commission also revamped its system for 

employee recognition to link awards to the accomplishment of critical elements and performance 

goals. Under this system, employee performance awards are directly linked to performance 

appraisals, which are based on individual performance agreements, established in advance, by 

employees and their supervisors. 

12.0 Personnel Benefits

Change FY 2009-FY 2010

FY 2009 FY 2010 Amount %

$1,619,000 $1,717,000 +$98,000 +6 

This budget includes $1,717,000 to fund the payroll-related costs of employee benefits in FY 

2009. 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 - 

21.0 Travel

Change FY 2009-FY 2010

FY 2009 FY 2010 Amount %

$126,000 $185,000 +59,000 +46.8 

The Review Commission requests $185,000 for travel in FY 2010. Travel of Administrative 

Law Judges (ALJs) to conduct hearings accounts for the majority of this request. Travel costs 

have risen substantially in recent years. It should be noted that approximately 90 percent of the 

Review Commission’s travel budget pays for ALJ travel. By law, these hearings must be 

conducted as close as possible to the site of the alleged violation. 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 2009-FY 2010

FY 2009 FY 2010 Amount %

$7,000 $7,000 -0- -0- 

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

Change FY 2009-FY 2010

FY 2009 FY 2010 Amount %

$1,473,000 $1,466,000 -7,000 -.5 

The request includes $1,466,000 for office space rental for the National and Regional Offices. 

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

Administration (GSA) to the Review Commission. 
- 22 - 

23.3 Communications, Utilities and Miscellaneous Charges

Change FY 2009-FY 2010

FY 2009 FY 2010 Amount %

$65,000 $95,000 +30,000 +46.15 

Telephone and postage costs are projected to require a total of $95,000 in FY 2009. Local phone 

service and telecommunications is projected to cost $69,000; long distance service is estimated at 

$8,000. Postage for the required mailing of letters, case files, and other materials related to cases 

is expected to be $18,000. 

24.0 Printing and Reproduction

Change FY 2009-FY 2010

FY 2009 FY 2010 Amount %

$17,000 $17,000 -0- -0- 

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, Federal Register and other GPO publications. Together, these 

printing/publishing costs are expected to approximate $10,000 in fiscal year 2010. The balance 

of the budget -- $7,000 -- is needed for printing Rules of Procedure and Guide to the Review 

Commission pamphlets, which are provided to parties, as well as the production of compact 

discs, which contain the latest decisions of the Review Commission’s Administrative Law 

Judges and Commission for distribution to the public. 

25.0 Other Services

Change FY 2009-FY 2010

FY 2009 FY 2010 Amount %

$800,000 $821,000 +21,000 +2.6 

A total of $821,000 is requested for Other Services in FY 2010. 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 $427,235 is requested for services 

provided by other Federal agencies. This area includes $7,500 for personnel and payroll services 

provided by the National Finance Center, $325,235 for financial and administrative services 
- 23 - 

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

and the establishment of a Capital Fund), and $56,000 for building security (estimated) provided 

by the Department of Homeland Security. The remaining amount ($38,500) will be used to fund 

other Interagency Agreements such as FOH, GSA (HVAC), and OPM. 

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

out our mission. These include: court reporting ($92,000); maintenance of the Review 

Commission’s automated data processing system ($51,000); evaluation and support for 

information technology security ($28,000); and on-line legal research ($35,000). This category 

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

statements ($35,000), library operations ($45,000), training ($27,000), and other requirements to 

support the agency’s mission ($65,765). This category includes funds needed for continuing 

maintenance of the Review Commission’s Internet website ($15,000), which is housed and 

maintained by the Government Printing Office. 

26.0 Supplies and Materials

Change FY 2009-FY 2010

FY 2009 FY 2010 Amount %

$45,000 $45,000 0 0 

The amount of $45,000 is requested for supplies and materials in FY 2010, including general 

office supplies ($22,000) and automated data processing supplies and software ($20,000). 

31.0 Equipment

Change FY 2009-FY 2010

FY 2009 FY 2010 Amount %

$117,000 $128,000 +11,000 +9.4 

The amount of $128,000 is required for equipment in FY 2010. 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 automated data processing 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. 
IV. OTHER TABLES

 
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 

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 
Authorized Full Time Positions 

by Function 

FY 2008 FY2009 FY2010

 

Administrative Law Judge: 

AL-1 1 1 1 

AL-III 11 11 11 

GS-14 3 3 3 

GS-12 1 1 1 

GS-11 3 2 2 

GS-9 0 1 1 

GS-8 5 5 5

Sub-total 24 24 24 

Commission: 

Executive Level III 1 1 1 

Executive Level IV 2 2 2 

ES-00 2 2 2 

GS-15 8 9 9 

GS-14 4 3 3 

GS-13 4 4 4 

GS-12 4 4 4 

GS-11 4 4 4 

GS-9 2 2 2

 Sub-total 31 31 31 

Administration: 

ES-00 1 1 1 

GS-15 1 1 1 

GS-14 3 3 3 

GS-13 1 0 0 

GS-12 0 0 0 

GS-11 3 4 4 

GS-9 1 0 1 

GS-7 0 1 0 

GS-6 1 1 1 

GS-5 1 1 1

 Sub-total 12 12 12 

Total full-time positions: 67 67 67 

-25-