FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION 

JUSTIFICATION OF 

APPROPRIATION ESTIMATES 

FOR 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

FISCAL YEAR 2012 
Table of Contents 

Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Request and Annual Performance Plan 

Executive Summary ......................................................................................................... i 

Mission ........................................................................................................................... 1 

Functions and Procedures ............................................................................................. 1 

Strategic Goals ............................................................................................................... 2 

Organization Chart .......................................................................................................... 3 

Commission Members .................................................................................................... 4 

Appropriation Language.................................................................................................. 5 

Authorizing Legislation .................................................................................................... 5 

Justification by Function ................................................................................................. 6 

 General Statement 

 Activities: 

 Administrative Law Judge Function 

Commission Review Function 

 Office of the Executive Director Function 

Charts and Graphs ....................................................................................................... 17 

Budget Authority by Object Class 

Personnel Summary 

Amounts Available for Obligation 

Summary of Changes by Budget Authority 

Appropriations and Staffing History Table 
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission (“Commission”) is an 

independent adjudicative agency that provides administrative trial and appellate review 

of legal disputes arising under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (“Mine 

Act”), as amended. Section 113 of the Mine Act establishes the Commission and sets 

forth its responsibilities. The Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act of 

2006, P.L. 109-236 (“MINER Act”), enacted in June of 2006, added an additional 

responsibility to the Commission, resolving disputes between the Secretary of Labor 

and underground coal operators with respect to the contents of emergency response 

plans or the Secretary’s refusal to approve such plans. 

Most cases that come before the Commission involve civil penalties proposed by the 

Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) against mine 

operators. The Commission is responsible for addressing whether the alleged 

violations occurred, as well as the appropriateness of proposed penalties. Other types 

of cases include contests of MSHA orders to close a mine for health or safety reasons, 

miners’ charges of discrimination based on their complaints regarding health or safety, 

and miners’ requests for compensation after being idled by a mine closure order. Unlike 

most of the cases that come before the Commission, disputes involving the temporary 

reinstatement of a miner or an emergency response plan must be decided on an 

expedited basis. 

The Commission’s Administrative Law Judges (“judges”) decide cases at the trial level. 

The five-member Commission provides administrative appellate review. Review of a 

judge’s decision by the Commission is not automatic, and requires the approval of at 

least two Commissioners. Most of the cases accepted for review are generated from 

petitions filed by parties adversely affected by a judge’s decision. In addition, the 

Commission, on its own initiative, may decide to review a case. A judge’s decision that 

is not accepted for review becomes a final, non-precedential order of the Commission. 

Appeals from the Commission’s decisions are to the federal circuit courts of appeals. 

The Commission is requesting a budget of $22,417,000 for FY 2012 to support the fulltime equivalent (FTE) of 128 staff members. This represents an increase of 65 FTEs 

i
and $12,059,000 over anticipated FY 2011 funding1

. The FY 2010 Supplemental 

Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-212) provided the Commission with an additional 

appropriation of $3,800,000. This supplemental funding was available for obligation for 

one year, effective July 29, 2010. Including the supplemental, the Commission’s total 

FY 2010 appropriations level was $14,158,000 and 80 FTEs. Supplemental funds 

expire July 28, 2011. The Commission intends to retain staff funded through the 

supplemental for the remaining two months of FY 2011, using funds appropriated to the 

Commission in FY 2011. Therefore, the Commission anticipates that as of the end of 

FY 2011, it will have a staff of 80 FTE. 

Cases at the trial level are handled by the Commission’s Office of Administrative Law 

Judges (OALJ). The backlog of trial-level cases has been the subject of much 

discussion, especially in the wake of the tragic accident that occurred on April 5, 2010 at 

the Upper Big Branch Mine. The backlog is the result of a dramatic increase in the 

number of new cases filed with the Commission. From FY 2000 through FY 2005, the 

average number of cases filed was 192 per month, or 2,307 per year. However, since 

FY 2006 the number of new cases filed increased steadily, and in FY 2010, over 11,000 

new cases were filed. 

The Commission began FY 2011 with a backlog of 18,170 cases and anticipates that by 

the end of FY 2011, the backlog of undecided cases will reach 19,537.2

 Assuming the 

Commission receives the President’s FY 2012 request by October 1, 2011, it projects 

that the number of undecided trial cases will drop to 17,162 cases by the end of FY 

2012. This would represent the first drop in the backlog since FY 2004.3 

The Commission has taken a number of steps to dispose of cases more efficiently and 

reduce the backlog. In an attempt to expedite the processing of settlement decisions, 

the Commission promulgated a final rule in November 2010 requiring that parties submit 

proposed settlement orders to the Commission in electronic form 75 Fed. Reg. 73955 

(Nov. 30, 2010). In December 2010, the Commission published a final rule setting forth 

simplified procedures for litigating certain categories of cases before the Commission’s 

judges 75 Fed. Reg. 81459 (Dec. 28, 2010). 

In recent years, the Commission’s appellate review function has also seen a dramatic 

increase in the number of filings. The trend of parties filing an increased number of 

petitions for substantive review is likely to continue for the foreseeable future, and 

                                                           

1 This assumes an FY 2011 appropriation of $10,358,000. 

2 This again assumes an FY 2011 appropriation of $10,358,000 and that the Commission is able to retain 

staff, funded July 29, 2010—July 28, 2011 through the FY 2010 Supplemental Appropriation, until the end 

of FY 2011 using funds appropriated in FY 2011. 

3 Projections assume that the number of incoming cases levels off at 11,000 new cases annually.

ii
iii

perhaps accelerate as the Commission’s judges issue a greater number of decisions in 

the course of addressing the Commission’s case backlog. 

In addition to petitions for substantive review, the Commission at the appellate level 

considers requests to reopen cases in which a mine operator is in default for failure to 

respond to the Secretary’s proposed penalty or to a judge’s order. They often involve 

operators who are contesting citations, orders, and civil penalties for the first time and 

who are unfamiliar with Commission procedures. The number of these requests, 

referred to as default cases, has increased sharply. In FY 2011, the Commission plans 

to promulgate a new rulemaking intended to speed the consideration and processing of 

these requests. 

The Commission’s Office of the Executive Director (OED) supports all functions of the 

Commission through budget and accounting, human resources, procurement, 

information technology, facilities management, and general administrative services. 

The FY 2012 budget includes funding for an additional two FTEs for OED, which will 

ensure the Office’s continued ability to provide a high level of support to Commission 

operations, and to a significantly larger Commission staff. 

The FY 2010 supplemental appropriation included funding for the “exploration of 

information technology upgrades that would speed the processing of cases and would 

allow for increased tracking capabilities for individual cases.”4

 The Commission has 

research underway to identify market technological solutions to accomplish this goal. 

The FY 2012 budget includes $1,000,000 to implement an electronic filing and casetracking system to replace the Commission’s current paper-centric process. 

Finally, the GSA lease for the Commission’s headquarters in Washington, D.C. is due to 

expire on September 2012. The request includes $1,980,000 to cover the cost of 

moving the Commission’s headquarters to a new location in Washington, D.C.5

                                                           

4 Senate Report No. 111-188 (2010).

5 The Mine Act requires that the principal office of the Commission be located in the District of Columbia 

(30 U.S.C. § 823a). 
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION 

MISSION

The Commission is an independent adjudicatory agency charged with resolving 

disputes arising from the enforcement of safety and health standards in the nation’s 

mines. Under its enabling statute, the Mine Act, the Commission does not regulate the 

mining industry, nor does it enforce the Mine Act; those functions are delegated to the 

Secretary of Labor acting through MSHA. The Commission’s mission is to provide just, 

speedy, and articulate adjudication of proceedings authorized under the Mine Act, 

thereby enhancing compliance with the Act and contributing to the improved health and 

safety of the nation’s miners. 

The scope of the Commission’s mission was expanded by the passage of the MINER 

Act. That statute amended the Mine Act and vested the Commission with the 

responsibility for resolving disputes over the contents of mine emergency plans adopted 

by underground coal mine operators and submitted to MSHA for review and approval. 

The MINER Act imposed tight deadlines on the Commission and its judges with respect 

to these proceedings and the Commission has adopted procedural rules to implement 

those deadlines. 

FUNCTIONS AND PROCEDURES

The Commission carries out its responsibilities through trial-level adjudication by judges 

and appellate review of judges’ decisions by a five-member Commission appointed by 

the President and confirmed by the Senate. Most cases involve civil penalties assessed 

against mine operators by MSHA and address whether or not the alleged safety and 

health violations occurred and if so, the degree of gravity and negligence involved, so 

that appropriate sanctions may be imposed. Other types of cases involve mine 

operators’ contests of mine closure orders, miners’ complaints of safety or health 

related discrimination, miners’ applications for compensation after a mine is idled by a 

closure order, and review of disputes between MSHA and underground coal mine 

operators relating to those operators’ mine emergency plans. 

Once a case is filed with the Commission, it is referred to the Chief Administrative Law 

Judge (“Chief Judge”). Thereafter, litigants in the case must submit additional filings 

before the case is assigned to a judge. To expedite the decisional process, the Chief 

Judge may rule on certain motions and where appropriate, issue orders of settlement, 

dismissal, or default. Otherwise, once a case is assigned to an individual judge, that 

judge is responsible for the case and rules upon motions and settlement proposals, 

schedules the case for hearing, holds the hearing, and issues a decision based upon 

1
2

the record. A judge’s decision becomes a final, non-precedential order of the 

Commission unless it is accepted for review by the five-member Commission. 

The five-member Commission provides administrative appellate review based on the 

record. It may, in its discretion, review decisions issued by judges when requested by a 

litigant, or it may, on its own initiative, direct cases for review. The Commission’s 

decisions are precedential, and appeals from the Commission’s decisions are heard in 

the federal courts of appeals. 

The Office of the Executive Director (OED) supports the above functions by providing 

budget and financial management, and administrative and technical services, including 

human resources and IT, procurement and contracting, and facilities management. 

STRATEGIC GOALS

The Commission has set forth the following strategic goals: 1) to ensure expeditious, 

fair, and legally sound adjudication of cases at the trial and appellate levels, and 

2) manage the Commission’s human resources, operations, facilities, and information 

technology (“IT”) systems to ensure a continually improving, effective, and efficient 

organization. 
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION 

3
COMMISSION MEMBERS

NAME TERM EXPIRATION

Mary Lu Jordan, Chairman August 30, 2014 

Michael F. Duffy August 30, 2012 

Michael G. Young August 30, 2014 

Robert F. Cohen, Jr. August 30, 2012 

Patrick K. Nakamura August 30, 2016 

***** 

 

4
5

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION 

APPROPRIATION LANGUAGE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES 

For necessary expenses of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission: 

$22,417,000. 

AUTHORIZING LEGISLATION

Authorizing Legislation

Containing Indefinite 

Authority FY 2010 FY 2010 Supplemental* 

FY 2011 

(estimate) FY 2012 

Federal Mine Safety and 

Health Act of 1977, as 

amended 

(30 U.S.C. §801 et seq.) 

$10,358,000 $3,800,000 $10,358,000 $22,417,000 

* Available July 29, 2010—July 28, 2011, in accordance with P.L. 111-222. 
JUSTIFICATION BY FUNCTION 

GENERAL STATEMENT

The Commission was established as an independent agency by Section 113(a) of the 

Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977. It is not part of The Department of Labor 

(DOL) or the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA). 

The Commission fulfills its mission through three main functions. The trial-level function 

lies within the Office of the Administrative Law Judge. At the trial level, the 

Commission’s judges hear and decide cases initiated by the Secretary of Labor, mine 

operators, miners, and miners’ representatives. The appellate function is carried out by 

the five-member Commission, its staff, and the Office of the General Counsel. The 

Commission hears appeals of judges’ decisions by granting a petition for discretionary 

review from one or more of the parties or by directing review on its own motion. In 

addition, at the appellate level, the Commission considers motions to reopen cases 

where an operator has failed to contest a proposed penalty, or to respond to the 

Secretary of Labor’s penalty petition, in a timely manner. Finally, the Office of the 

Executive Director (OED) supports both the trial-level and appellate functions by 

providing budget management, administrative and technical services. 

FTE by Function and Funding

FY 2010 FY 2010 

Supplemental*

FY 2011 

Estimate

FY 2012 

Request

FTE

AMOUNT 

(000) FTE AMOUNT 

(000)

FTE AMOUNT 

(000)

FTE AMOUNT 

(000)

Office of 

Administrative 

Law Judges 

41 6,483 15 3,445 40 6,292 100 17,345 

Office of the 

Commission 16 3,028 2 355 17 3,219 20 3,921 

Office of the 

Executive 

Director 

6 847 0 0 6 847 8 1,151 

Total 63** 10,358 17 3,800 63 10,358 128 22,417 

 * Available for expenditure July 29, 2010—July 28, 2011. The Commission intends to carry this staff 

over for the remaining two months of FY 2011, using funds appropriated in FY 2011. 

**FTE for FY2010 represents the FTE ceiling, not the actual cumulative FTE. 

6
The chart below shows the Commission’s FTE levels since FY 2009. It illustrates that 

the FY 2010 Supplemental Appropriation, enacted at the end of July, 2010, supported 

increased FTE levels for two months of FY 2010 and 10 months of FY 2011. The 

Commission intends to carry over staff funded under the supplemental using funds 

appropriated in FY 2011. 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Oct-08

Dec-08Feb-09

Apr-09Jun-09

Aug-09

Oct-09

Dec-09Feb-10

Apr-10Jun-10

Aug-10

Oct-10

Dec-10Feb-11

Apr-11Jun-11

Aug-11

Oct-11

Dec-11Feb-12

Apr-12Jun-12

Aug-12

# FTE

Month/Year

Commission FTE Levels

FTE Level FTE Level FY 10 Supplemental

Administrative Law Judge Function 

The Commission employs administrative law judges to hear and decide contested 

cases at the trial level. The judges travel to hearing sites located at or near the mine 

involved in order to afford mine operators, miners and their representatives a full 

opportunity to participate in the hearing process. Commission judges are also 

responsible for evaluating and approving or denying settlement agreements proposed 

by the parties under the Mine Act. 

The Commission estimates that 19,537 trial level cases will be pending at the beginning 

of fiscal year 2012. New case filings are not expected to decrease in FY 2012, as 

7
operators continue to elect to contest higher civil penalties proposed by MSHA and as 

MSHA increases its utilization of its “pattern of significant and substantial violations” 

sanctions. Therefore, the Commission anticipates that it will receive 11,000 new cases 

during the fiscal year. We project that 13,375 cases will be disposed of during the year, 

resulting in an end-of-year inventory of 17,162 undecided cases. This would be the first 

time since FY 2004 that the Commission’s inventory would decrease from one year to 

the next. 

Commission Trial-Level Workload, FY 2000 - FY 2012

1000

3000

5000

7000

9000

11000

13000

15000

17000

19000

FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012

# Cases

Backlog New Cases Cases Disposed

 

The Commission began fiscal year 2011 with an inventory of 18,170 undecided cases, 

and 11,000 new cases are anticipated for the year. A total of 9,633 cases are expected 

to be decided, resulting in an end-of-fiscal-year inventory of 19,537 undecided cases. 

The Commission estimates that depending on experience, judges will dispose of an 

average of 450-500 cases per year. Actual case disposals will depend largely on the 

complexity of the cases before each judge. 

8
Administrative Law Judge Caseload Data 

 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 

 Actual Estimate Estimate 

Cases pending beginning of year 14,213 18,170 19,537

New cases received 11,087 11,000 11,000

Total case workload 25,300 29,170 30,537 

Cases decided 7,130 9,633 13,375 

Cases pending end of year 18,170 19,537 17,162 

Performance Objective and Goals for FY 2012 

The Commission has established new performance objectives and goals that are more 

easily understood, relevant to its existing processes and workload, and more accurately 

measure performance. 

The Commission’s FY 2012 budget includes the following objective for the 

Administrative Law Judge function: 

• Dispose of cases in a timely manner. 

The following performance goals have been established for FY 2012 to support this 

objective. 

9
PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT MATRIX 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES* 

OBJECTIVE : DISPOSE OF CASES IN A TIMELY MANNER 

FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012

Goal Actual Goal Goal 

Average days from receipt to disposition of 

penalty cases* n/a 499 550 450 

Percent of cases disposed of within 365 days 

of receipt* n/a 28% 30% 35% 

Number of cases pending over 365 days 11,500 7,680 9,500 7,500 

Percent of cases pending over 365 days* n/a 42% 49% 44% 

Percent of settlement orders issued within 60 

days of settlement motion 65% 54% 55% 65% 

Percent of dispositions under simplified 

proceedings*** n/a n/a Baseline 

Average days from receipt to disposition under 

simplified proceedings*** n/a n/a Baseline 

* The timeframes above include time allowed under the Commission’s Procedural Rules for the Secretary 

of Labor to file a petition (generally 45 days), time under the rules for an operator to answer (generally 30 

days), and time granted by a judge when he or she stays a proceeding. 

** New metric, baseline established FY 2010. 

*** Simplified proceedings regulation finalized December 2010. Baseline metrics to be established in FY 

2011.

Office of the Administrative Law Judges Staffing 

The Commission currently has the full-time equivalent (FTE) of 20 judges, six of whom 

were hired with funds from the FY 2010 Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-

212). The Commission plans to retain the 20-judge staffing level through the end of 

fiscal year 2011, two months beyond the expiration of supplemental funds, using funds 

appropriated in FY 2011.6

 Funding for a total of 29 judges with support staff is included 

in the FY 2012 budget. The FY 2012 budget request will enable the Commission to 

reverse the trend of increasing backlogs by the end of the fiscal year. 

                                                           

6 Assumes an FY 2011 Appropriation of $10,358,000. 

10
The Commission’s FY 2012 budget includes 100 FTEs and $17,344,569 for OALJ, an 

increase of 60 FTE and $11,052,504 over the estimated FY 2011 appropriation level. 

However, OALJ added 15 FTEs as a result of the FY 2010 supplemental appropriation, 

and the Commission intends to carry over that supplemental staff for the final two 

months of FY 2011 after the supplemental funds expire. Therefore, the effective FTE 

increase for OALJ is 45 FTEs. The Commission seeks to add judges and support 

personnel in line with a plan that would allow a 1-to-1-to-1 ratio of judges to law clerks to 

legal assistants. 

The Commission previously concluded that one judge supported by a law clerk and a 

shared legal assistant could dispose of 500 cases per year. However, that ratio was 

resulting in case processing bottlenecks at the legal assistant level. Legal assistants 

maintain the judges’ dockets, proof documents, perform data entries on the 

Commission’s case tracking system, type documents, prepare monthly reports 

accounting for each of the judges’ cases, maintain the judges’ hearing calendars, and 

make travel and courtroom arrangements for hearings. Thus, as the number of cases 

assigned to each judge increases, so does the workload of the legal assistants. 

Consequently, the 2012 budget request staffs each judge with one law clerk and one 

legal assistant. Four additional docket clerks are also included in the request, in order 

for the necessary processing of unassigned cases to occur in a timely manner. 

Along with increasing its staff, the Commission must also ascertain the most efficient 

way to process cases in order to reduce the backlog. One way to achieve this goal is 

through technology. The Commission is currently researching technological solutions 

available in the marketplace that will provide a number of utilities, including electronic 

filing, fully electronic case files, electronic assignment and distribution of cases, 

automated notifications to parties and case tracking. Our FY 2012 budget includes 

$1,000,000 to implement this technology. In addition, staff training is necessary for both 

new and current employees to more efficiently perform their day-to-day tasks. 

Accordingly, a $55,000 training budget is included in the FY 2012 budget. 

FY 2010 FY 2010 

Supplemental*

FY 2011 

Estimate

FY 2012 

Request

FTE AMOUNT 

(000) FTE AMOUNT (000) FTE AMOUNT (000) FTE AMOUNT (000)

Office of 

Administrative 

Law Judges 

41** 6,483 15 3,445 40 6,292 100 17,345 

* Available for expenditure July 29, 2010—July 28, 2011. The Commission intends to carry this staff over 

for the remaining two months of FY 2011, using funds appropriated in FY 2011. 

** FTE for FY2010 represents the FTE ceiling, not the actual cumulative FTE.

11
Commission Review Function 

The five-member Commission decides two principal types of cases: (1) substantive 

cases, which are cases where a judge has issued a decision on the merits and either a 

party has filed a petition for review with the Commission or at least two Commissioners 

have decided to grant review on their own initiative; and (2) default cases, which are 

cases where an operator has failed to timely contest a proposed penalty or to respond 

to the Secretary’s penalty petition and the operator has filed a motion to reopen the final 

order. 

The authority for the review of judges’ decisions is set forth in section 113(d)(1) of the 

Act. The Act states that a judge’s decision shall become final 40 days after its issuance, 

unless within that period any two Commissioners direct that the decision be reviewed. 

Most substantive cases come before the Commission when two or more 

Commissioners vote to grant a petition for discretionary review filed by a party 

adversely affected or aggrieved by the judge’s decision. The Commission is also 

charged with the responsibility of reviewing judges’ decisions regarding disputes 

arising over the emergency response plans of underground coal operators pursuant to 

the MINER Act. 

Two or more Commissioners may also direct any judge’s decision for review sua 

sponte (on the Commission’s own motion, without the parties filing a petition). Sua 

sponte review is limited to judges’ decisions that are contrary to law or Commission 

policy, or that present a novel question of policy. 

By law, a quorum of three Commissioners is required to consider and decide 

substantive cases. Many of the Commission’s cases present issues of first impression 

under the Mine Act. That is, the cases raise issues that have not been resolved by 

prior decisions of the Commission or the courts, or the cases involve the interpretation 

of safety and health standards and regulations newly promulgated by MSHA. 

In recent years, the Commission’s appellate review function has seen a dramatic 

increase in the number of filings of both default and substantive cases. The trend of 

parties filing an increased number of petitions for substantive review is likely to continue 

for the foreseeable future, and perhaps accelerate as the Commission’s judges issue a 

greater number of decisions in the course of addressing the Commission’s case 

backlog. In FY 2009, parties filed a total of such 14 petitions, and the Commission 

granted 10 of them. In FY 2010, parties filed a total of 32 petitions, and the Commission 

granted 19 of them – essentially a doubling of the number of new substantive cases 

reaching the Commission. 

The increase in petitions filed by parties and granted by the Commission will have a 

significant impact on the Office of General Counsel (OGC), which is responsible for 

conducting the initial research in substantive cases and preparing draft opinions for the 

Commission members. In addition, during FY 2010, the increased number of default 

cases handled by the Commission continued to be a major challenge. Each default 

12
case must be carefully analyzed by an OGC attorney-advisor, who then prepares a draft 

order for consideration by the Commissioners. 

The OGC, among other things, plays an important role in handling substantive cases 

that have been appealed to the five Commissioners. Because of the recent increase in 

these appeals and the expectation that many more will be filed in the future, an 

additional attorney-advisor is needed. The OGC attorneys also perform other duties 

(such as responding to FOIA requests, ethics counseling and training, review of 

financial disclosure forms, and equal employment opportunity counseling and training), 

which will substantially increase as the size of the Commission staff expands. In 

addition, OGC is primarily responsible for formulating and drafting the Commission’s 

rulemaking initiatives, such as more efficient settlement procedures, simplified 

proceedings for litigating certain categories of cases, and improved handling of default 

cases. 

The Commission began FY 2010 with an inventory of 95 undecided cases and received 

213 new cases during the year. One hundred eighty-nine (189) case dispositions were 

made during FY 2010, 20 of which were substantive cases and 169 were default cases. 

In FY 2011, the Commission began the year with an inventory of 119 undecided cases, 

and 230 new cases are anticipated for the year. An estimated 220 case dispositions 

are expected, consisting of 35 dispositions in substantive cases and 185 dispositions in 

default cases. 

In FY 2012, it is expected that 129 cases will be pending before the Commission at the 

beginning of the year. It is anticipated that a total of 240 new cases will be filed during 

FY 2012. Two-hundred twenty (220) dispositions are expected, of which an estimated 

40 will be in substantive cases and 180 in default cases. It is expected that the 

Commission’s review docket will contain 149 undecided cases at the end of FY 2012. 

Commission Review Caseload Data 

 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 

 Actual Estimate Estimate 

Cases pending beginning of year 95 119 129 

New cases received 213 230 240 

Total case workload 308 349 369 

Cases decided 189 220 220 

Cases pending end of year 119 129 149 

13
Commission Review Staffing 

The Commission is requesting a budget of $3,920,986 and 20 FTE for its appellate 

review activities in FY 2012. This includes 11 FTEs for the five Commissioners and 

their immediate staff7

 and 9 FTEs for OGC. This is an increase of $702,071 and 3 

FTEs over the amount estimated to be available for FY 2011. However, with the 

supplemental appropriation, 2 FTEs and $355,000 were added to the Office of the 

Commission from July 29, 2010—July 28, 2011. The Commission plans to use 

appropriations from FY 2011 to fund supplemental staff for the final two months of the 

fiscal year. Therefore, the Commission anticipates that at the end of FY 2011, the 

Commission Review Function will have 19 FTEs. 

2010 

FY 2010 FY 2010 

Supplemental*

FY 2011 

Estimate

FY 2012 

Request

FTE AMOUNT 

(000)

FTE AMOUNT 

(000)

FTE AMOUNT 

(000)

FTE AMOUNT 

(000)

Office of the 

Commission 16** 3,028 2 355 17 3,219 20 3,921 

 * Available for expenditure July 29, 2010—July 28, 2011. The Commission intends to carry this staff 

over for the remaining two months of FY 2011, using funds appropriated in FY 2011. 

** FTE for FY2010 represents the FTE ceiling, not the actual cumulative FTE. 

Performance Objective and Goals for FY 2012 

The Commission has updated and clarified its performance objectives and goals for its 

Commission review function. Our FY 2012 budget includes the following two objectives 

for this function: 

• Issue decisions in substantive cases accepted for review in a timely manner 

• Issue orders in default cases in a timely manner 

The following performance goals have been developed for fiscal year 2012 to support 

this objective. 

                                                           

7 Includes a Senior Executive Service individual brought on-board at the beginning of FY 2011 to oversee 

hiring, the development and execution of a backlog reduction plan, and implementation of an electronic 

case management system for a term of up to two years, in accordance with Senate Report 111-188 

(2010). 

14
PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT MATRIX 

COMMISSION REVIEW FUNCTION 

FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012

Goal Actual Goal Goal

OBJECTIVE: Issue opinions in substantive cases accepted for review in a timely manner

Undecided substantive cases over 18 months 

of age 

0 2 3 2 

Percent of undecided substantive cases over 

18 months of age 

0 7% 10% 8% 

Undecided substantive cases 12—18 months 

of age 

0 9 6 6 

Percent of undecided substantive cases 12—

18 months of age 

0 32% 20% 16% 

OBJECTIVE: Issue orders in default cases in a timely manner

Undecided default cases over 6 months of 

age * 

n/a 36 20 15 

Percent of undecided default cases over 6 

months of age* 

n/a 38% 20% 15% 

* New performance metric, baseline established in FY 2010. 

Office of the Executive Director Function 

The OED provides administrative services to support the Commission in fulfilling its 

mission and strategic goals. The primary functions are financial management, human 

resources, procurement and contracting, information technology, facilities management, 

and general administrative service support. 

The financial management services function includes the areas of budget and 

accounting, such as budget formulation, budget execution, funds control, financial 

reporting, and vendor payments. 

Human resources covers the areas of recruitment and placement, classification and pay 

administration, performance management and incentive awards, employee benefits and 

retirement, personnel security, coordination of employee training program, and wellness 

and employee assistance programs. 

15
16

Procurement and contracting, another vital function of OED, covers specifics such as 

maintaining a simplified acquisition program for supplies and services, contract 

implementation and oversight, and coordination of services and supplies. 

Information technology, which falls under the banner of this Office, entails help desk 

functions, network administration, policy formulation for IT, and telecommunication. 

The facilities management covers property and space management, organization 

management, and physical security. 

Other general administrative services provided by OED include the administration of 

employee travel authorizations and reimbursements, and the metro subsidy program. 

Office of the Executive Director Staffing 

The Commission is requesting an FY 2012 budget of $1,151,445 and 8 FTE for the 

Office of the Executive Director. This is an increase of $304,425 and 2 FTE over the 

anticipated FY 2011 level. The additional FTE for the Office of the Executive Director 

include one Information Technology specialist and one Administrative Assistant, 

required to support the increased IT and staff support needs of Commission staff. 

FY 2010* FY 2011 FY 2012 Increase or 

Decrease

FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount 

Office of the 

Executive 

Director 

6** 847,020 6 847,020 8 1,151,445 +2 304,425 

* OED received no funding from the FY 2010 Supplemental. 

** FTE for FY2010 represents the FTE ceiling, not the actual cumulative FTE. 
CHARTS AND GRAPHS 

17
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION 

Budget Authority by Object Class 

(In thousands) 

FY 2010 

Actual 

FY 2010 

Supplemental 

Estimate* 

FY 2011 

Estimate 

FY 2012 

Estimate** 

Personnel Compensation 5,807 949 6,034 11,746 

Other than Full-Time 

Permanent 333 0 360 380

Total, Personnel 

Compensation 6,140 949 6,394 12,126 

Personnel Benefits, Civilian 1,400 177 1,352 3,266 

Benefits to Former 

Employees - - - 11 

Travel and Transportation of 

Persons 175 84 136 465 

Transportation of Things 3 6 8 31 

Rental Payments to GSA 1,385 92 1,385 1,722 

Communications, Utilities, 

and Misc. 145 63 112 157 

Printing and Reproduction 28 - 7 23 

Other Services 840 2,097 831 1,674 

Supplies and Materials 102 25 133 855 

Equipment 140 307 0 2,087

Total 10,358 3,800 10,358 22,417 

* FY 2010 Supplemental costs include staff loaned or detailed from other federal agencies, contract staff, 

exploration of electronic case filing, and rental for temporary space, which are included in “Other 

Services”. 

** In FY 2012, the $1.98 million request of moving Washington DC headquarters is distributed between 

“Other Services”, “Supplies and Materials” and “Equipment”. The $1 million request for implementation of 

electronic case filing is distributed between “Other Services” and “Equipment”. 

18
 FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

Personnel Summary 

2010 

ACTUAL

2010 

SUPPLEMENTAL 

2011 

ESTIMATE

2012 

REQUEST

ACCOUNT: SALARIES & EXPENSES

Executive Level III 

Executive Level IV 

1

4

1 

4 

1

4

5 5 5

ES 1 1 1 2

AL-2 

AL-3 

1

13 6

1 

13 

1

28

15 7 15 31

GS-15 

GS-14 

GS-13 

GS-12 

GS-11 

GS-9 

GS-8 

GS-7 

GS-6 

GS-5 

6

4

2

3

11

3

7

5

1

1

1

6

3

5 

4 

2 

3 

 12 

4 

8 

3 

2 

- 

5

4

5

3

33

5

8

27

2

-

43 17 43 92

Total Permanent Full-time Positions 63 - 63 128

Unfilled positions end-of-year 3 - - -

Total, full-time permanent employment 

end-of-year 

60 - -

Cumulative Full-time equivalent (FTE) 

usage 

48 - - -

________________________________________________________________ 

 

FY 2010 Actual FY 2011 Est. FY 2012 Est. 

Average EX Salary 

Average ES Salary 

Average AL Salary 

Average GS Salary 

$157,460

$156,673

$164,427

$78,273

$157,460 

$156,673 

$164,427 

$78,273 

$157,460

$167,337

$166,427

$81,285

 

19
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

Amounts Available for Obligation 

FY 2010 FY 2010 

Supplemental 

FY 2011 FY 2012 

FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount 

Appropriation, total 

estimated obligations 48* 10,358,000 17 3,800,000 63 10,358,000 128 22,417,000 

*Actual cumulative FTE usage for 2010. 

Summary of Changes by Budget Authority 

Budget Authority FY 2010 FY 2010 

Supplemental FY 2011 FY 2012 

Net Change (FY 

2011 to 

FY 2012) 

Appropriations 10,358,000 3,800,000 10,358,000 22,417,000 +12,059,000 

Full-time Equivalent* 63 17 63 128 65 

*Represents FTE ceiling, given budget authority, 

20
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION 

Appropriations and FTE History 

(e) = estimated 

Fiscal Year Budget Estimate 

to Congress 

House 

Allowance 

Senate 

Allowance Appropriation FTE1

2000 6,159,000 6,060,000 6,159,000 6,136,0002 43 

2001 6,320,000 6,200,000 6,320,000 6,320,000 42 

2002 6,939,000 6,939,000 6,939,000 6,934,0003 38 

2003 7,127,000 – – 7,131,3434 35 

2004 7,774,000 7,774,000 7,774,000 7,728,1335 40 

2005 7,813,000 7,813,000 7,813,000 7,809,0246 40 

2006 7,809,000 7,809,000 7,809,000 7,730,9107 10 

2007 7,576,000 7,731,000 7,731,000 7,777,6528 44 

2008 8,096,000 8,096,000 7,954,563 7,954,563 48 

2009 8,653,000 8,653,000 8,653,000 8,653,000 50 

2010 9,857,567 9,857,567 10,358,000 10,358,0009 63 

3,800,000 3,800,000 3,800,00010 1711

2011 13,105,000 13,905,000 15,755,000 10,358,000(e) 63(e) 

2012 22,417,000 128(e) 

21

                                                           

1 FTE for FY 2010 and before represent the FTE ceiling given budget authority, not the actual FTE. 2 Reflects reduction of $23,000 pursuant to the Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2000, P.L. 106-113. 

3

 Reflects reduction of $5,000 pursuant to Sectiom1403 of P.L. 107-206. 

4

 Reflects adjustments pursuant to the Omnibus Appropriations Act, P.L. 108-7. 

5

 Reflects reduction of $45,867 pursuant to the Consolidated Appropriations Act, P.L. 108-199. 

6

 Reflects a congressional add-on of $59,000 and a reduction of $62,976 pursuant to section 122(a) of 

P.L.108-447. 

7

 Reflects reduction of $78,090 pursuant to Title III, Chapter 8, of the Department of Defense 

Appropriations Act, P.L. 109-148. 

8

 Reflects reduction of $144,437 pursuant to Sec. 528(a) of P.L. 110-161. 9 Reflects Senate Approved Mark-up of $500,000 pursuant to P.L. 111-117. 10 Reflects supplemental funding of $3,800,000 pursuant of P.L. 111-212. 11 Temporary FTE provided July 29, 2010—July 28, 2011 though FY 2010 supplemental appropriation.