Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission 

OSHRC 

 

Fiscal Year 2012 

Performance Budget and Justification 

 

February 2011 
i 

Table of Contents 

Fiscal Year 2012 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........................................................................ 23 

IV. Other Tables...................................................................................................................... 28 
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 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. 

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. 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 $12,773,000 

to fund essential agency programs and support 71 full-time equivalent (FTE) positions in FY 

2012. 

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 (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 strategic plan to improve service to the public. 

Our FY 2012 budget request includes: 

• $10,108,968 to support direct payroll and related costs for 71 FTEs. These costs 

represent 79 percent of the Review Commission’s appropriation. This level of FTE will 

be used to handle an expected increased case load, especially at the ALJ level. 

• $1,308,000 for office space rent. 

• $465,842 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 implement government wide and Review Commission specific 

transparency 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 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. 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 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

FY 2010 Authorized FY 2012 Estimate

$ FTE $ FTE

Administrative Law Judge 4.7 24 5.0 27 

Commission 5.2 31 5.0 27 

Executive Director 1.8 12 2.8 17

Total 11.7 67 * 12.8 71 

During FY 2010 the Review Commission organizationally transferred its Office of Executive 

Secretary from the Commission-level function to the Office of the Executive Director. This 

transfer did not affect or increase overall Review Commission staffing. This transfer is reflected 

in the FY 2012 estimate. 

* Note: Total FTE encumbered during FY 2010 was 60. 

- 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

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 completed 40,942 inspections in FY 2010 and estimates that it will complete 42,250 

inspections in FY 2011 and, 42,500 inspections in FY 2012. Even more important 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. For example, 

during FY 2009, the Review Commission docketed 2,058 contests. We received 2,565 new 

contests during FY 2010. This represents an increase of approximately 25% in one fiscal year. 

Moreover, OSHA has announced a new administrative penalty policy which went into effect at 

the beginning of FY 2011. This new penalty policy is expected to increase the average penalty 

- 5 - 
for a serious violation from approximately $1,000 to $3,000 - $4,000. Accordingly, both OSHA 

and the Review Commission are expecting a greater percentage of citations to be contested 

during FY 2011 and FY 2012. 

Based on preliminary estimates provided by OSHA, it is possible that the Review Commission 

could see a range of 3000 – 4000 contests docketed during FY 2011 as a consequence of 

employers challenging the proposed higher assessed penalties. Such a contest rate would be far 

in excess of anything the Review Commission has experienced in many years. For FY 2012, 

OSHA’s preliminary estimate of contests is approximately 4000. Over time, it is possible that 

contest rates will decline back to current levels. Nevertheless, the Review Commission is 

expecting a sizeable increase in contests during FY 2011 and 2012. 

Moreover, in addition to an expected large increase in 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 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 

• 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 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 and 2012, the Review Commission intends to study its current 

Mandatory Settlement Part system to ascertain whether even greater improvement in this 

settlement process can be achieved. With the expected large increase in contests to be docketed, 

this approach could be important in avoiding a backlog of cases at the ALJ level. 

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 

- 6 - 
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. (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. 

- 7 - 
In FY 2010, approximately 50 percent of new cases were assigned to Simplified Proceedings. 

The Review Commission projects that we will continue to assign 50 percent of new cases to the 

Simplified Proceedings process in FY 2011 and FY 2012. 

Simplified Proceedings Case Activity

FY 2006 through FY 2011 

FY 2007 

Actual

FY 2008 

Actual

FY 2009 

Actual

FY 2010 

Actual

FY 2011 

Estimate

FY 2012 

Estimate

New Cases 1,998 1,962 2,058 2,565 3,250 3,250 

Cases 

assigned to 

Simplified 

Proceedings 

1,104 990 1,041 1,327 1,625 1,625 

Anticipated Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Workload for FY 2012 

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 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 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. 

- 8 - 
The following table provides actual Administrative Law Judge workloads for fiscal years 2007, 

2008, 2009, and 2010, and estimated workloads for fiscal years 2011 and 2012. 

FY 2007

Actual

FY 2008

Actual

FY 2009

Actual

FY2010

Actual

FY 2011 

Estimate

FY 2012

Estimate

OSHA Inspections*: 39,324 38,591 40,549 40,942 42,250 42,500 

 

Administrative Law Judge Workload: 

a. Case Inventory, 

Start of Year 685 625 739 777 983 1,333 

b. New Cases 1,998 1,962 2,058 2,565 3,250 3,250 

c. Total Caseload 2,683 2,587 2,797 3,342 4,233 4,583 

d. Disposals 

(1) With 

Hearing 60 69 67 107 110 130 

(2) Without 

Hearing 1,998 1,779 1,953 2,252 2,790 2,920 

e. Total 

Dispositions 2,058 1,848 2,020 2,359 2,900 3,050 

 

Total Case Inventory, 

End of Year 625 739 777 983 1,333 1,533 

*Provided by Directorate of Evaluation and Analysis, OSHA. 

- 9 - 
Staffing 

The Office of the Chief Administrative Law Judge requires 27 FTE in FY 2012. This staff level 

is an increase over FY 2010 and FY 2011, and includes 12 Administrative Law Judges, and an 

increase in both staff attorneys and support staff. This staffing level is needed to support the 

projected increased 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. Due to an expected sizeable increase in the OSHA citation contest rate, the Review 

Commission’s budget includes staffing for two additional attorneys to support the ALJs. These 

attorneys will primarily be engaged in drafting decisions for the ALJs in cases that go to hearing. 

The additional support staff person will primarily handle legal assistant work, including sending 

appropriate notifications to parties, scheduling, etc. in matters that are before the Review 

Commission’s ALJs. 

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 2010 Authorized FY 2012 Estimate

$ FTE $ FTE

Administrative Law Judge 4.7 24 5.0 27 

- 10 - 
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

$ 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. 

Respect for the rule of 

law by assuring fair, 

just, and expeditious 

adjudication of disputes 

brought before the 

Review Commission and 

its Judges.

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. 

- 11 - 
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 Judges for fiscal years 2010 through 2015. 

Outcome Goals Performance

Measures

FY 2007

Actual 

(Target)

FY 

2008 

Actual

(Target)

FY 2009

 Actual 

(Target)

FY 2010 

Actual 

(Target) 

FY2011

(Target)

FY 2012

(Target) 

• Ensure that a significant 

proportion of non-complex 

cases at the ALJ level are 

resolved in less than one 

year. 

Percent within 

one year. 

99% 

Target 

Exceeded 

(97%) 

99% 

Target 

 Met 

(99%) 

98% 

Target Met

(98%) 

98% 

Target 

 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.* 

97% 

Target not 

met 

(98%) 

99% 

Target 

met 

(99%) 

98% 

Target 

Exceeded 

(95%) 

89% 

Target not 

met 

(95%) 

95% 95% 

Note: For FY 2007 – 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. 

Although Review Commission ALJs met their target goal for resolution of non-complex cases 

within one year, the resolution of complex cases was more problematic. There were several 

reasons for this. First, the ALJs FY 2010 workload substantially increased over prior FYs and 

included a 60% increase in the number of cases disposed of with hearings. Hearings are 

necessarily time consuming, and this had an effect on case disposal. In addition, some of the 

complex cases resolved by the ALJs were extraordinarily complicated and included some of the 

largest proposed OSHA penalties in history. Examples of such matters included the Imperial 

Sugar and BP cases, both of which were ultimately resolved by Review Commission ALJs 

utilizing Settlement Part procedures. 

- 12 - 
Commission Function 

OSHRC’s 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 

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. 

Proceedings before the Commission

The 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 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. 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. 

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. 

- 13 - 
The Commission consists of three Members appointed by the President. 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 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. 

During the first four and a half months of FY 2010, the Commission operated with only two 

Commissioners. For the remainder of the fiscal year, a full Commission (3 Commissioners) has 

been in place. The Commission resolved 15 cases during fiscal year 2010. 

 

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 2012 

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 2010, the Commission had 22 cases pending at the beginning of the year. It received 24 

new cases and resolved 15 cases by year-end. Thus, the Commission entered FY 2011 with 31 

cases pending review. For FY 2011, the Commission anticipates receiving 29 new cases and 

disposing of 24 cases, ending that year with an inventory of 36 cases. Actual dispositions, of 

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

- 14 - 
Commission Case Activity 

FY 2007

Actual

FY 2008

Actual

FY 2009

Actual

FY2010

Actual 

FY 2011

Estimate

FY 2012

Estimate

New Cases: 

Cases Directed for 

Review: 21 11 16 24 23 28 

Other New Cases: 

 Interlocutory 

 Appeals 0 0 0 0 5 3 

 Remands 4 2 6 0 1 1 

 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 Total Other New 

 Cases: 4 

2 

6 0 6 4 

Total New Cases: 25 13 22 24 29 32 

Case Inventory 

from Prior Year: 27 25 20 22 31 36 

Total Caseload: 52 38 42 46 60 68 

Dispositions: 27 18 20 15 24 31 

Case Inventory, 

End of Year: 25 20 22 31 36 37 

Staffing 

Our FY 2012 budget requests 27 FTE for the Commission function, including 10 FTEs for the 

three Commissioners and their immediate staff and 17 FTEs for the Office of General Counsel. 

Funding (in millions) and FTE

FY 2010 Authorized FY 2012 Estimate

$ FTE $ FTE

Commission 5.2 31 5.0 27 

- 15 - 
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: 

• Disposing of our inventory of older cases – those docketed at the Commission 

level prior to 2008. In fiscal year 2010, the Commission decided two of these 

ten older cases, with the rest anticipated to be decided during fiscal year 2011. 

Another priority is 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; 

• 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 

- 16 - 
ensure individual performance plans support priorities in the Review 

Commission’s strategic and annual performance plans. 

The following new performance goals have been developed for fiscal year 2010 and 2011 to 

support the FY 2010 – 2015 Strategic Plan: 

Outcome Goals Performance Measures

FY 

 2010 Actual

(Target) 

FY 

 2011 

(Target) 

FY 

2012 

(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) 

 

 (70% of 

oldest cases) 

Completed 

by end of 

 FY 2011

Reduce the average age 

of open cases at the 

Commission-level. * 

 Average age of open cases. 32 months 

Target Met 

(41 months or 

less) 

(36 months 

or 

less) 

(33 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%) (100%) 

* As of September 30, 2009, the average (mean) period of time for a case on the Review Commission’s docket 

was 46 months. The Review Commission’s revised Strategic Plan (FY 2010- 2015) anticipates reducing this 

average to 24 months by the end of FY 2015. However, resolving the oldest cases on the Review 

Commission’s docket, e.g., those cases docketed prior to 2008, which is reflected under the first outcome goal 

in this chart, is the highest priority. It is possible that, in the short term, the average age of open cases may 

increase. While this is not anticipated to occur, the presence of a full Commission will be an important factor in 

achieving our goal. 

- 17 - 
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. The Office also supervises the 

work of the Commission’s Executive Secretary, who is responsible for the docketing of cases at 

both the ALJ and Commission levels. 

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, 

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 2012 

During FY 2012, 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; 

- 18 - 
• 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; and 

• 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. 

In FY 2012, we plan to enhance our web-based transparency initiatives, including 

enhancing the OSHRC website to make more information available 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 2012 budget requests funding for 17 FTE for the Office of the Executive Director 

function to perform the duties and responsibilities outlined above. This staffing increase over the 

initial FY 2011 request is primarily due to the reassignment of the Office of Executive Secretary 

from the Commission function to the Office of Executive Director function during FY 2010. 

The associated functional transfer involved four positions previously assigned to the 

Commission function. 

The Office of the Executive Director 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. 

- 19 - 
Funding (in millions) and FTE 

FY 2010 Authorized FY 2012 Estimate

$ FTE $ FTE

Executive Director 1.8 12 2.8 17 

Strategic Plan and Outcome Goals

The Office of Administration’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.] 

- 20 - 
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. 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

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. 

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 implementation 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. 

The following new performance goals have been developed for fiscal years 2011 and 2012 to 

support the FY 2010 – 2015 Strategic Plan: 

Outcome Goals Performance Measures

FY 

 2011 

(Target) 

FY 

 2012 

(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% of basic 

payroll to 

training and 

10 hours) 

 

(.55% of basic 

payroll to 

training and 12 

hours) 

- 21 - 
Outcome Goals Performance Measures

FY 

 2011 

(Target) 

FY 

 2012 

(Target) 

Examine and identify 

contracted positions 

appropriate for 

insourcing. 

Percentage of positions identified 

appropriate for insourcing that are 

insourced 

(Positions 

identified) 

(50% of 

identified 

positions 

insourced) 

Use of 360 degree 

employee-supervisor 

feedback mechanisms. 

All supervisors subject to 360 

degree feedback, and feedback is 

used to ensure that individual and 

organizational effectiveness goals 

are being met. 

(Appropriate 

feedback 

instrument 

developed) 

(Feedback 

mechanism 

used for all 

supervisors) 

- 22 - 
III. BUDGET BY OBJECT

CLASSIFICATION CATEGORY
- 23 - 

Budget by Object Classification (BOC) Category 

The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission requests an appropriation of 

$12,773,000 and 71 FTE for FY 2012. 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 2012 budget request is required to pay salary and to provide for full 

staffing of all 71 approved FTE, as well as to pay other costs imposed upon us. The proposed 

budget for FY 2012 by object classification category is shown in the table below, along with the 

FY 2010 actuals. A narrative explanation of the amount requested for each object classification 

follows the table. 

Object Classification Table

Fiscal Years 2010 and 2012 

(Dollars in Thousands) 

Change 

FY 2010-2012 

Budget Object Class FY 2010 FY 2012 $ %

11.0 Personnel Compensation $6,849 $8,108 +1,259 +18.4

12.0 Personnel Benefits 1,621 2,001 +380 +23.4

 Subtotal Personal Services 8,470 10,109 +1,639 +19.3

21.0 Travel 215 188 -27 -12.5

22.0 Transportation of Things 8 7 -1 -12.5

23.1 Space Rental Payments (GSA) 1,265 1,308 +43 +3.4

23.3 Communications, Utilities and 

Misc. 

154 98 -56 -36.3

24.0 Printing and Reproduction 17 17 0 0

25.0 Other Services 1,159 869 -290 -25.0

26.0 Supplies and Materials 68 46 -22 -32.3

31.0 Equipment 326 131 -195 -59.8

Unobligated Balance 29 -- -- --

 Total 11,712 12,773 +1,061 +9.1

FTE 60* 71 + 11 +18.3

*FY 2010 Authorized FTE was 67. 

Sum of individual BOC expenditures and changes to BOCs may not add to totals due to rounding. 
- 24 - 

Object Classification Detail 

11.0 Personnel Compensation

Change FY 2010-FY 2012

FY 2010 FY 2012 Amount %

$6,849,000 $8,108,000 +$1,259,000 +18.4 

The budget request for FY 2012 includes $8,108,000 to fund the direct payroll costs of 71 FTE. 

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 system 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 2010-FY 2012

FY 2010 FY 2012 Amount %

$1,621,000 $2,001,000 +$380,000 +23.4 

This budget includes $2,001,000 to fund the payroll-related costs of employee benefits in FY 

2012. 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 2010-FY 2012

FY 2010 FY 2012 Amount %

$215,000 $188,000 -27,000 -12.5 
- 25 - 

The Review Commission requests $188,000 for travel in FY 2012. 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. 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 2010-FY 2012

FY 2010 FY 2012 Amount %

$8,000 $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, and the shipping costs associated with the purchase of 

supplies and equipment. 

23.1 Rental Payments to GSA

Change FY 2010-FY 2012

FY 2010 FY 2012 Amount %

$1,265,000 $1,308,000 +43,000 +3.4 

The request includes $1,308,000 for office space rental for the National and Regional Offices. 

These projected rent costs are based on FY 2012 estimates provided by the General Services 

Administration (GSA) to the Review Commission. 
- 26 - 

23.3 Communications, Utilities and Miscellaneous Charges

Change FY 2010-FY 2012

FY 2010 FY 2012 Amount %

$154,000 $98,000 -56,000 -36.3 

Telephone and postage costs are projected to require a total of $98,000 in FY 2012. Local phone 

service and telecommunications are projected to cost $70,000; 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 $20,000. 

24.0 Printing and Reproduction

Change FY 2010-FY 2012

FY 2010 FY 2012 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 and other GPO publications. Together, these printing/publishing 

costs are expected to approximate $10,000 in fiscal year 2012. The balance of the budget -- 

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

pamphlets, which are provided to parties to Review Commission proceedings. 

25.0 Other Services

Change FY 2010-FY 2012

FY 2010 FY 2012 Amount %

$1,159,000 $869,000 -290,000 -25.0 

A total of $869,000 is requested for Other Services in FY 2012. 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 $465,842 is requested for services 

provided by other Federal agencies. This area includes $8,092 for personnel and payroll services 

provided by the National Finance Center, $341,331 for financial and administrative services 

provided by the Bureau of the Public Debt (including funds to BPD to support infrastructure 
- 27 - 

upgrades), and $57,800 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 ($16,225), which is housed at and maintained by the 

Government Printing Office. The remaining amount 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 ($93,290); maintenance of the Review 

Commission’s information technology system ($52,730); 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 

($36,500), library operations ($50,700), training ($45,375), and other requirements to support the 

agency’s mission. 

26.0 Supplies and Materials

Change FY 2010-FY 2012

FY 2010 FY 2012 Amount %

$68,000 $46,000 -22,000 -32.3 

The amount of $46,000 is requested for supplies and materials in FY 2012, including general 

office supplies ($24,000) and information technology supplies and software ($22,000). 

31.0 Equipment

Change FY 2010-FY 2012

FY 2010 FY 2012 Amount %

$326,000 $131,000 -195,000 -59.8 

The amount of $131,000 is required for equipment in FY 2012. 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. 
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 

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

2011 $12,051,000 

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 

- 28 - 
- 29 - 

Authorized Full Time Positions 

by Function 

FY 2010 FY2011 FY2012

Administrative Law Judge: 

AL-I 1 0 0 

AL-II 0 1 1 

AL-III 11 11 11 

GS-14 3 3 3 

GS-13 0 0 2 

GS-12 1 1 1 

GS-11 2 2 2 

GS-9 1 1 2 

GS-8 5 5 5

Sub-total 24 24 27 

Commission: 

Executive Level III 1 1 1 

Executive Level IV 2 2 2 

ES-00 2 2 2 

GS-15 7 6 6 

GS-14 6 10 11 

GS-13 6 2 1 

GS-12 1 0 0 

GS-11 2 3 3 

GS-10 1 0 0 

GS-9 2 1 1 

GS-7 1 0 0

 Sub-total 31 27 27 

Administration: 

ES-00 1 1 1 

GS-15 1 2 2 

GS-14 3 4 4 

GS-11 4 4 6 

GS-10 0 1 1 

GS-9 1 1 1 

GS-8 0 1 0 

GS-7 1 0 0 

GS-6 0 1 1 

GS-5 1 1 1

 Sub-total 12 16 17 

Total full-time positions: 67 67 71