Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

OSHRC

Fiscal Year 2013

Performance Budget and Justification

February 2012
i

Table of Contents

Fiscal Year 2013 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........................................................................ 21

IV. Other Tables...................................................................................................................... 26
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
3

Budget Request Summary

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

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission requests an appropriation of $11,965,000

to fund essential agency programs and support 65 full-time equivalent (FTE) positions in FY 

2013. 

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 2013 budget request includes: 

 $9,267,000 to support direct payroll and related costs for 65 FTEs. These costs represent 

77 percent of the Review Commission’s appropriation. 

 $1,415,000 for office space rent. 

 $430,600 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.
4

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 2012 Estimated 

Actuals* FY 2013 Estimate

$ FTE $ FTE

Administrative Law Judge 4.4 24 4.6 25

Commission 5.5 30 5.5 30

Executive Director 1.7 9 1.8 10

Total 11.6 63 11.9 65

*Actual FTE is estimated to be 63 in FY 2012.
5

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 40,648 inspections in FY 2011, and estimates that it will complete 42,250 

inspections in FY 2012 and 43,100 inspections in FY 2013. Of particular importance from the 

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

citations being contested, and the resulting number of contests being docketed. We received 

2,058 new contests during FY 2009, 2,565 during FY 2010 and 3,175 during FY 2011. This 

represents an increase of about 50 percent. Moreover, OSHA has announced a new 
6

administrative penalty policy which went into effect at the beginning of FY 2011. This new 

penalty policy is expected to increase the average penalty for a serious violation and could lead 

to a further increase in our caseload.

Moreover, in addition to an expected 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 2012, the Review Commission intends to continue to study its 

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

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

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.)
7

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

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

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

unencumbered by the formal Rules of Procedure and evidence, while ensuring that due process 

requirements will be maintained. Under this process, a business, with or without counsel, can 

present its case before a Review Commission judge and receive a prompt decision. Most 

paperwork, including legal filings, has been eliminated so that justice can be rendered swiftly 

and inexpensively. The process reduces the time and legal expenses to employers contesting 

relatively small penalty cases.

In FY 2011, over 50 percent of new cases were assigned to Simplified Proceedings. The Review 

Commission projects that in FY 2012 and FY 2013 50 percent of new cases will be assigned to 

the Simplified Proceedings process. 

Simplified Proceedings Case Activity

FY 2008 through FY 2013

Anticipated Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Workload for FY 2013

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 

FY 2008

Actual

FY 2009

Actual

FY 2010

Actual

FY 2011

Actual

FY 2012

Estimate

FY 2013

Estimate

New Cases 1,962 2,058 2,565 3,175 3,250 3,350

Cases 

assigned to

Simplified 

Proceedings

990 1,041 1,327 1,783 1,625 1,675
8

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. 

The following table provides actual Administrative Law Judge workloads for fiscal years 2008, 

2009, 2010, and 2011, and estimated workloads for fiscal years 2012 and 2013.

FY 2008

Actual

FY 2009

Actual

FY 2010

Actual

FY2011

Actual

FY 2012

Estimate

FY 2013

Estimate

OSHA 

Inspections*: 38,591 40,549 40,942 40,648 42,250 43,100

Administrative Law Judge Workload:

a. Case Inventory,

Start of Year 625 739 777 983 1,345 1,545

b. New Cases 1,962 2,058 2,565 3,175 3,250 3,350

c. Total Caseload 2,587 2,797 3,342 4,158 4,595 4,895

d. Disposals

(1) With 

Hearing 69 67 107 111 130 150

(2) Without 

Hearing 1,779 1,953 2,252 2,702 2,920 3,050

e. Total 

Dispositions 1,848 2,020 2,359 2,813 3,050 3,200

Total Case 

Inventory, 

End of Year

739 777 983 1,345 1,545 1,695

*Provided by Directorate of Evaluation and Analysis, OSHA.
9

Staffing

The Office of the Chief Administrative Law Judge requires 25 FTE in FY 2013. This staff level 

includes 12 Administrative Law Judges, along with 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 2012 Estimated 

Actuals FY 2013 Estimate*

$ FTE $ FTE

Administrative Law Judge 4.4 24 4.6 25

*We expect to fill all judicial vacancies in FY 2012. Therefore, we anticipate a full complement of judges in FY 

2013.
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

Respect for the rule of 

law by assuring fair, just, 

and expeditious 

adjudication of disputes 

brought before the 

Review Commission and 

its Judges.

$ Ensure that a significant proportion of both complex and non-complex cases at 

the Administrative Law Judge level are resolved in less than one year.



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

following strategies:

 Expeditious assignment of cases to judges;

 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 2008

Actual

(Target)

FY 2009 

Actual

(Target)

FY 2010

Actual

(Target)

FY 2011

Actual

(Target)

FY2012

(Target)

FY 2013

(Target)

Ensure that a significant 

proportion of noncomplex cases at the 

ALJ level are resolved 

in less than one year.

Percent within 

one year.

99%

Target met

(99%)

98%

Target met

(98%)

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.*

99%

Target met

(99%)

98%

Target 

exceeded

(95%)

89%

Target not 

met

(95%)

84% 

Target not

met 

(95%)

95% 95%

*Note: For FY 2008 and 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 have met their target goal for resolution of non-complex 

cases within one year, the resolution of complex cases has been more problematic. There were 

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

FYs, an increase that continued in fiscal year 2011. In addition, this workload 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. Finally, several long-serving ALJs retired 

midway through fiscal year 2011, leaving temporary vacancies as we recruited to fill the 

vacancies. We expect to have all the judicial vacancies filled in FY 2012, which should help us 

improve our performance. We will also detail attorney-writers on a rotating basis from 

elsewhere in the agency to assist the judges with drafting their decisions, and will consider other 

actions if necessary, both to improve our performance in this area and to address our growing 

case inventory.
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. The 

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

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

was moved back into the Commission function from the Office of the Executive Director in mid 

fiscal year 2011. 

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 
13

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

novelty of the issues presented for review.

The 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 seven months of FY 2011, the Commission operated with a full Commission. 

For the remainder of the fiscal year, the Commission operated with only two Commissioners due 

to one Commissioner’s term expiring. The Commission resolved 26 cases during fiscal year 

2011 and met its high priority goal of resolving all the “legacy” cases on its docket, those cases 

docketed at the Commission level prior to 2008.

 

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 2013

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 2011, the Commission had 31 cases pending at the beginning of the year. It received 30

new cases and resolved 26 cases by year-end. Thus, the Commission entered FY 2012 with 35

cases pending review. For FY 2012, the Commission anticipates receiving 29 new cases and 

disposing of 30 cases, ending that year with an inventory of 34 cases. And for FY 2013, the 

Commission anticipates receiving 29 new cases and disposing of 30 cases, ending that year with 

an inventory of 33 cases. 
14

Commission Case Activity

FY 2008 

Actual

FY 2009

Actual

FY 2010

Actual

FY2011

Actual 

FY 2012

Estimate

FY 2013

Estimate

New Cases:

Cases Directed for 

Review: 11 16 24 24 24 24

Other New Cases:

 Interlocutory

 Appeals 0 0 0 6 3 3

 Remands 2 6 0 0 2 2

 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0

 Total Other New

 Cases:

2

6 0 6 5 5

Total New Cases: 13 22 24 30 29 29

Case Inventory 

from Prior Year: 25 20 22 31 35 34

Total Caseload: 38 42 46 61 64 63

Dispositions: 18 20 15 26 30 30

Case Inventory, 

End of Year: 20 22 31 35 34 33

Staffing

Our FY 2013 budget requests 30 FTEs for the Commission function, including 10 FTEs for the 

three Commissioners and their immediate staff, 15 FTEs for the Office of General Counsel, and 

5 FTEs for the Office of the Executive Secretary. 

Funding (in millions) and FTE

FY 2012 Estimated 

Actuals FY 2013 Estimate

$ FTE $ FTE

Commission 5.5 30 5.5 30
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:

 The Commission has successfully disposed 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 or “legacy” cases, and decided the 

remaining eight cases in fiscal year 2011. A continuing priority is to maintain

the average age of Commission-level cases at 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
16

 Developing case processing measures for employees assigned to cases to 

ensure individual performance plans support priorities in the Review 

Commission’s strategic and annual performance plans.

The following 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 Actual

(Target)

FY 

2012 

(Target)

FY 2013

(Target)

Resolve the oldest 

cases on the 

Review 

Commission’s 

docket. 

All cases docketed at the 

Commission level prior to 

2008 resolved. 

20%

Target not met

(30% of oldest 

cases)

80%

Target met 

(70% of oldest 

cases)

Completed by 

end of

FY 2011

Completed by 

end of

FY 2011

Reduce the 

average age of 

open cases at the 

Commissionlevel. *

Average age of open 

cases.

32 months

Target met

(41 months or 

less) 

15 months

Target met

(36 months or 

less)

(33 months or 

less)

(30 months or 

less)

Resolve all 

priority cases in a 

timely manner.

Percent of priority cases 

disposed of within 6 

months.

100%

Target met

(100%)

100%

Target met

(100%)

(100%) (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. 
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. 

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 Director of Administration and include: 

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

goals;

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

to Review Commission information;

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

and contracting, human resources, equal opportunity and general 

administrative services;

 Providing personnel, payroll, benefits, reproduction, and mail services, and 

travel assistance to agency employees;

 Procuring goods and services, maintenance and needed repairs of equipment, 

training, reference materials, supplies and office space;

 Implementing case management and administrative systems through IT 

hardware and software;

 Developing and maintaining computer systems and information security 

enhancements; and

 Enhancing telecommunications and improving technology efficiency and 

effectiveness.

Anticipated Office of Executive Director Workload for FY 2013

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

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

external customers, revising our Continuity of Operations (COOP) plan, and undertaking other 

activities in support of the Review Commission’s mission.

Staffing

Our FY 2013 budget requests funding for 10 FTEs for the Office of the Executive Director 

function to perform the duties and responsibilities outlined above. 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. 

* We anticipate that all vacancies in the Office of the Executive Director will be filled by FY 2013. 

Funding (in millions) and FTE 

FY 2012 Estimated Actuals FY 2013 Estimate*

$ FTE $ FTE

Executive Director 1.7 9 1.8 10
19

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.]

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.
20

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

to support the FY 2010 – 2015 Strategic Plan:

Outcome Goals Performance Measures

FY

2011 Actual

(Target)

FY

2012 

(Target)

FY 2013 

(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. 

.35%

Target partially 

met*

(.45% of basic

payroll to training 

and 10 hours)

(.55% of basic 

payroll to training 

and 12 hours)

(.55 of basic 

payroll to 

training and 

12 hours)

Examine and 

identify 

contracted 

positions 

appropriate for 

insourcing.

Percentage of positions 

identified appropriate for 

insourcing that are 

insourced

One position 

identified

Target Met

(Positions 

identified)

(Insource position 

identified and 

identify additional 

positions to 

insource)

(Insource any 

additional 

positions 

identified)

Use of 360 degree 

employeesupervisor 

feedback 

mechanisms.

All supervisors subject 

to 360 degree feedback, 

and feedback is used to 

ensure that individual 

and organizational 

effectiveness goals are 

being met.

Feedback 

Instrument 

developed

Target Met

(Appropriate 

feedback 

instrument 

developed)

(Feedback 

mechanism used to 

evaluate all 

supervisors)

(Feedback 

mechanism 

used to 

evaluate all 

supervisors)

* $31,970, or .45 percent of basic payroll, was devoted to training in FY 2011. However, of the total amount 

obligated $24,822 was expensed. This is due in part to being under a continuing resolution the first six months of FY 

2011, during which spending on training was severely constrained. The hourly goal will be implemented in FY 

2012.
III. BUDGET BY OBJECT

CLASSIFICATION CATEGORY
21

Budget by Object Classification Category

The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission requests an appropriation of 

$11,965,000 for FY 2013. The funding requested will enable the Review Commission to carry 

out its mission, as required by the Occupational Safety and Health Act and to support 65 FTE. . 

The proposed budget for FY 2013 by object classification category is shown in the table below, 

along with the FY 2012 estimated actuals. A narrative explanation of the amount requested for 

each object classification follows the table.

Object Classification Table

Fiscal Years 2012 and 2013

(Dollars in Thousands)

Change FY 2012-2013

Budget Object Class FY 2012 FY 2013 $ %

11.0 Personnel Compensation $7,360 $7,456 +96 +1.3

12.0 Personnel Benefits 1,690 1,811 +121 +7.1

 Subtotal Personal Services 9,050 9,267 +217 +2.4

21.0 Travel 185 185 0 0

22.0 Transportation of Things 7 7 0 0

23.1 Space Rental Payments (GSA) 1,273 1,415 +142 +11.2

23.3 Communications, Utilities and Misc. 95 109 +14 +14.7

24.0 Printing and Reproduction 17 17 0 0

25.0 Other Services 867 800 -67 -7.7

26.0 Supplies and Materials 45 43 -2 -4.4

31.0 Equipment 128 122 -6 -4.7

 Total 11,667 11,965 +298 +2.5
22

Object Classification Detail

11.0 Personnel Compensation

Change FY 2012-FY 2013

FY 2012 FY 2013 Amount %

$7,360,000 $7,456,000 +$96,000 +1.3

The budget request for FY 2013 includes $7,456,000 to fund the direct payroll costs of 65 FTE. 

This includes funding for comparability pay increases that are anticipated in January 2013. 

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

superior, and who perform special acts or services. For FY 2011, the Review Commission 

reduced its total spending on individual performance awards for members of the Senior 

Executive Service (SES) to no more than five percent of aggregate salaries. It also reduced 

spending for performance awards and individual contribution awards (e.g. special act) for all 

non-SES employees. For FY 2012, the Review Commission will spend no more than one 

percent of the aggregate salaries of those employees at the end of the previous fiscal year on 

individual performance awards. The reductions are made in accordance with the guidance from 

the Office of Personnel Management. We expect that this reduced level will continue and have 

reduced our awards amount accordingly for FY 2013.

 

12.0 Personnel Benefits

Change FY 2012-FY 2013

FY 2012 FY 2013 Amount %

$1,690,000 $1,811,000 +$121,000 +7.1

This budget includes $1,811,000 to fund the payroll-related costs of employee benefits in FY 

2013. 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.
23

21.0 Travel

Change FY 2012-FY 2013

FY 2012 FY 2013 Amount %

$185,000 $185,000 -0- -0-

The Review Commission requests $185,000 for travel in FY 2013. 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 2012-FY 2013

FY 2012 FY 2013 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 2012-FY 2013

FY 2012 FY 2013 Amount %

$1,273,000 $1,415,000 +142,000 +11.2

The request includes $1,415,000 for office space rental for the National and Regional Offices. 

These projected rent costs are based on FY 2013 estimates provided by the General Services 

Administration (GSA) to the Review Commission. 
24

23.3 Communications, Utilities and Miscellaneous Charges

Change FY 2012-FY 2013

FY 2012 FY 2013 Amount %

$95,000 $109,000 +14,000 +14.7

Telephone and postage costs are projected to require a total of $109,000 in FY 2013. This 

increase is due to the Review Commission’s transition to Networx and is based on the FY 2013 

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

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

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

24.0 Printing and Reproduction

Change FY 2012-FY 2013

FY 2012 FY 2013 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 2013. 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 2012-FY 2013

FY 2012 FY 2013 Amount %

$867,000 $800,000 -67,000 -7.7

A total of $800,000 is requested for Other Services in FY 2013. 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.
25

Services Provided by Other Federal Agencies. A total of $430,600 is requested for services 

provided by other Federal agencies. This area includes $8,497 for personnel and payroll services 

provided by the National Finance Center, $299,402 for financial and administrative services 

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

upgrades), and $45,000 for building security (estimated) provided by the Department of 

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

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

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

Agreements such as 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 ($94,000); maintenance of the Review 

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

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

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

($32,000), library operations ($60,000), training and other requirements to support the agency’s 

mission.

26.0 Supplies and Materials

Change FY 2012-FY 2013

FY 2012 FY 2013 Amount %

$45,000 $43,000 -2,000 -4.4

The amount of $43,000 is requested for supplies and materials in FY 2013, including general 

office supplies ($21,000) and information technology supplies and software ($22,000). 

31.0 Equipment

Change FY 2012-FY 2013

FY 2012 FY 2013 Amount %

$128,000 $122,000 -6,000 -4.7

The amount of $122,000 is required for equipment in FY 2013. 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
26

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

Appropriation History

Fiscal Year Request to Congress House Allowance Senate Allowance Appropriation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

1 Reduced to $8,081,000 by P.L. 104-134

2 Reduced to $7,738,000 by P.L. 104-208

3 Reduced to $8,092,000 by H.R. 1664

4 Reduced to $8,470,000 by P.L. 106-113

5 Reduced to $8,958,000 by P.L. 107-206

6 Reduced to $9,610,125 by P.L. 108-7

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

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

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

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

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

12 Reduced to $11,666,908 by P.L.112-74
27

Full Time Positions

by Function

FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013

Actuals Estimated Estimate

Actuals

Administrative Law Judge:

AL-1 0 0 0 

AL-II 1 1 1 

AL-III 10 10 11

GS-14 3 2 4 

GS-13 0 2 0 

GS-12 2 1 1 

GS-11 2 2 2 

GS-9 1 1 1 

GS-8 5 5 5 

Sub-total 24 24 25

Commission:

Executive Level III 1 1 1 

Executive Level IV 1 2 2 

ES-00 2 2 2 

GS-15 4 5 5 

GS-14 5 5 7 

GS-13 5 5 5 

GS-12 1 2 1 

GS-11 4 5 4 

GS-10 1 1 1 

GS-9 0 1 1 

GS-8 1 0 1 

GS-7 0 1 0 

Sub-total 25 30 30

Office of the Executive Director:

ES-00 0 1 1 

GS-15 2 1 2 

GS-14 2 2 2 

GS-12 1 2 2 

GS-11 3 2 2 

GS-9 0 0 0 

GS-7 0 0 0 

GS-6 1 1 1 

Sub-total 9 9 10 

Total full-time positions: 58 63 65