The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

OSHRC

FISCAL YEAR 2018

PERFORMANCE BUDGET AND JUSTIFICATION

May 2017
Table of Contents

Fiscal Year 2018

Performance Budget and Justification

I. INTRODUCTION – MISSION, VISION, AND STRATEGIC GOALS

Our Mission .............................................................................................................................. 1

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

Vision Statement....................................................................................................................... 1

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

II. BUDGET REQUEST SUMMARY

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

E-Filing System ........................................................................................................................ 3

Language Access Plan .............................................................................................................. 4

III. APPROPRIATIONS LANGUAGE

Appropriations Language.......................................................................................................... 5

IV. PERFORMANCE BUDGET JUSTIFICATION BY ORGANIZATIONAL UNIT

Performance Budget Justification by Organizational Unit ...................................................... 6

Administrative Law Judge Function......................................................................................... 7

Commission Function ............................................................................................................. 17

Office of the Executive Director Function.............................................................................. 23

V. BUDGET BY OBJECT CLASSIFICATION CATEGORY

Object Classification Table..................................................................................................... 32

Budget Object Classification Detail........................................................................................ 33

VI. OTHER TABLES

Appropriation History............................................................................................................. 37

Authorized Full Time Positions By Function ......................................................................... 38
I. INTRODUCTION –

MISSION, VISION, AND

STRATEGIC GOALS
1

The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

Our Mission

The U.S. 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 parties are 

accorded due process.

Functions and Procedures

The Act and our Rules of Procedure (which are similar to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) 

provide two levels of adjudication when an employer contests an OSHA citation for alleged 

violations of the Act. The first is a trial level, which affords an opportunity for a hearing before 

a Review Commission Administrative Law Judge (ALJ or Judge). The Judge’s decision 

becomes final unless it is directed for review by the Commission. When such review is granted,

Commission Members (Commissioners) – who are appointed by the President and subject to 

Senate confirmation – address the issues presented by the case and issue a decision. Any final 

Commission decision may be appealed to the Federal courts of appeals. At both levels of 

decision, the Review Commission is charged with providing fair and impartial adjudication of 

cases concerning the safety and health of employees’ working conditions in the United States.

The principal (National) office of the Review Commission is located in Washington, DC. There 

are also two regional offices: one in Atlanta, GA, and one in Denver, CO. The regional offices 

are staffed with ALJs who travel, as necessary, to adjudicate cases in locales near where the 

alleged workplace violations took place.

Vision Statement

The Review Commission strives to be:

• An adjudicative 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 defines and explains the 

rights and responsibilities of employers and employees under the Act.

• A model Federal agency with highly effective processes; a highly motivated, qualified,

and diverse workforce; and modern information management, communications, and 

administrative systems.
2

• An agency that values teamwork; develops its employees; and seeks 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.

3) Providing responsible stewardship of resources to enhance agency operations and 

efficiencies in information management, financial management, human resources, and 

real property to accomplish the agency’s statutory and regulatory mandates.
II. BUDGET REQUEST

SUMMARY
3

Budget Request Summary

The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission requests an appropriation of 

$12,615,000 to continue our mission of adjudicating OSHA-issued workplace safety citations, 

fund essential agency programs, support 62 full-time equivalent (FTE) positions, and support our 

electronic filing (e-filing) system in fiscal year (FY) 2018. The funding request would also allow 

us to fulfill our legislative mandate to serve as an administrative court providing fair and prompt 

resolution of disputes involving OSHA, employers charged with violations of federal safety and 

health standards, and employees and/or their representatives. The request supports the goal in 

the Review Commission’s Strategic Plan to improve service to the public.

Our FY 2018 estimated costs include:

• $9,313,000 to support direct payroll and related costs for 62 FTE positions. These costs 

are approximately 75 percent of the Review Commission’s budget request.

• $1,529,675 for office space rent.

• $449,975 for services provided by other Federal agencies, such as support for financial 

and administrative services provided by the Bureau of the Fiscal Service (BFS), and 

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

• $110,000 to support and maintain OSHRC’s e-filing system.

• $1,212,350, the remaining amount, to be used for travel expenses for ALJs to hold 

hearings, court reporting services, managing the language access plan, the annual 

financial audit, the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) audit, 

training and development of staff, the maintenance and purchase of equipment, 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. 

E-Filing System

In 2013 the Review Commission began securing information technology (IT) infrastructure 

upgrades through the established Networx contract to support our cloud-based initiatives 

including an e-filing system to permit the electronic filing and service of litigation documents. 

The e-filing system was deployed in 2016. The e-filing system directly supports our annual 

performance plan’s goals and targets, promotes transparency, supports technology 

improvements, and integrates business process automation to improve accuracy and efficiency in 

case management practices. This budget request includes $110,000 for continued support 

($50,000 for licensing and hosting, and $60,000 for needed enhancements) of the e-filing system.
4

Language Access Plan

On February 17, 2011, the U.S. Attorney General issued a Memorandum for Heads of Federal 

Agencies, among others, regarding the Federal Government’s Renewed Commitment to 

Language Access Obligations Under Executive Order (EO) 13166 (AG Memo). The AG Memo 

requested that each agency join the Department of Justice (DOJ) in recommitting to the 

implementation of EO 13166 by: (1) establishing a Language Access Working Group (LAWG) 

to be responsible for implementing the Executive Order; (2) evaluating and/or updating its 

Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Plan; (3) establishing a schedule to periodically evaluate and 

update its LEP services, policies, plans, and protocols; (4) ensuring agency staff can competently 

identify LEP contact situations and take the necessary steps to provide meaningful access; (5) 

notifying the public of its LEP policies, plans, and procedures; (6) assessing non-English 

language proficiency when considering hiring criteria; and (7) collaborating with other agencies 

for written translations intended for mass distribution. 

The Review Commission has made significant progress in the development and implementation 

of a Language Access Plan (LAP) to fulfill its obligation under EO 13166. In 2011, OSHRC 

revised its LAP to more efficiently implement key actions required by EO 13166 and Title VI of 

the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In May 2014, responsibility for the LAP was transferred to the 

Office of the Chief Administrative Law Judge (OCALJ). A draft updated plan was developed 

and circulated to all Judges and key Review Commission staff members for review and 

feedback. The Review Commission implemented the revised and updated plan in August 2014. 

Based on feedback received from DOJ, the LAP was revised again in November 2015. The 

current LAP has already been implemented by OSHRC and a copy has been forwarded to DOJ 

for review.

The Review Commission’s goal is to ameliorate LEP as a barrier to accessing its programs and 

activities; consequently, the agency is committed to taking reasonable steps through which LEP 

persons can meaningfully access its services consistent with its fundamental mission and existing 

law. To accomplish this very important goal, the FY 2018 budget request includes $20,000 to 

cover services for translation of documents and interpreters for individuals with LEP.
III. APPROPRIATIONS

LANGUAGE 
5

FY 2018

Appropriations Language

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES 

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

$12,615,000.

Note: A full-year 2017 appropriation for this account was not enacted at the time the budget was 

prepared; therefore, the budget assumes this account is operating under the Further Continuing 

Appropriations Act, 2017 (P.L. 114–254). The amounts included for 2017 reflect the annualized 

level provided by the continuing resolution, “FY 2017 Continuing Resolution.”
IV. PERFORMANCE

BUDGET JUSTIFICATION

BY ORGANIZATIONAL

UNIT
6

Performance Budget 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; and

3. The Office of the 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

ALJs and Commissioners stems principally from the nature of their functions so that both of 

these review levels are, in fact and appearance, independent of the other. The Office of the 

Executive Director (OEXD) function supports both the ALJ 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 2016 Actual FY 2017 CR FY 2018 Request

$ FTE $ FTE $ FTE

Administrative Law 

Judge 5.9 26 5.3 26 5.3 26

Commission 5.1 22 5.7 28 5.7 28

Executive Director 1.6 7 1.6 8 1.6 8

 Total 12.6 55 12.6 62 12.6 62
7

Administrative Law Judge Function

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

Administrative Law Judges (ALJs or 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 Review Commission and its ALJs. 

The ALJs report through the Chief Judge to the Chairman of the agency. However, they act 

independently in arriving at case decisions. The Review Commission’s procedural rules are 

similar to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and are designed and administered to secure the 

just and timely determination of every contested case. In the absence of a specific Review 

Commission rule, the Federal Rules apply. 

Proceedings Before the Review Commission’s Administrative Law Judges

The events leading to the presentation of an OSHA case before a Review Commission Judge 

follow an established procedure, and they 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 OCALJ for assignment 

to an ALJ. The case is generally assigned to an ALJ in the Review Commission office closest to 

where the alleged violation occurred. Thereafter, the Judge has full responsibility for all prehearing and pre-trial procedures and is charged with providing a fair and impartial hearing in an 

expeditious manner and rendering a decision promptly.

Administrative Law Judge Operations

The Review Commission strives to expedite the judicial process in a fair and impartial manner 

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

monitoring its Simplified Proceedings and Mandatory Settlement programs. The Administrative 

Law Judge function handles a caseload that continues to grow in complexity as reflected by the 

increasing number and complexity of OSHA citations over the last several years. 

OSHA completed 31,948 inspections in FY 2016, and estimates that it will complete 32,540 in 

FY 2017, and 31,000 inspections in FY 2018. Of particular importance over the last several 

years from the Review Commission’s resources perspective, the number of citations being 

contested has remained high, resulting in the high number of contests being docketed. 
8

In FY 2008, the Review Commission docketed 1,962 contests. Since FY 2008, there has been a 

notable increase in the number of contests. Moreover, OSHA implemented a new administrative 

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

increased, and the contest rate increased. In FY 2014, the Review Commission docketed 2,017 

contests, as well as 2,164 contests in FY 2015, and 2,183 contests in FY 2016. This trend is 

expected to continue.

In addition to the greater number of contests that resulted from OSHA’s new administrative 

penalty policy, OSHA’s emphasis in 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 (e.g., cases involving heat stress, lock-out/tag-out, workplace violence, confined 

spaces, health care hazards, asbestos, process safety, construction industry hazards, etc.). Over 

the past few years, the Review Commission has noted an increase in the complexity of cases 

handled by ALJs. We attribute this trend to two factors. First, OSHA has increasingly focused 

its attention on encouraging more resource and time-intensive inspections. Second, the 

Department of Labor, Office of the Solicitor has decided to leverage litigation resources and 

focus less on high volume in favor of high-impact strategic cases. The increase in the 

complexity of cases challenges the Review Commission because Judges must invest a greater 

amount of time in handling those matters. 

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 fields such 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; or

• Various types of cases, such as those involving workplace violence, heat stress, 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Settlement Part Program,” was completed in FY 2013 by alternative dispute resolution (ADR) 
9

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

declared the agency’s ADR program to be “successful,” and noted that OSHRC “has done an 

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

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

recent years, Mandatory Settlement Part has been an important tool in avoiding a backlog of 

cases at the ALJ level. The Review Commission has reviewed the specific suggestions for 

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

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

dispute resolution to every ALJ who is expected to serve as a settlement judge.” The Review 

Commission agreed with this recommendation and as a result developed an ALJ training 

performance goal in our FY 2014 – 2018 Strategic Plan. 

Under Commission Rule 120, 29 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 2200.120, and where the 

parties consent, the Chief Judge may assign a Settlement Judge to a pending proceeding to aid 

the parties in disposing of the case. Where the aggregate amount of the penalty sought by the 

Secretary of Labor is $100,000 or greater, the Mandatory Settlement procedure goes into effect. 

The Settlement Judge appointed by the Chief ALJ has full control of the proceeding and may 

require that the parties’ representatives be accompanied at the settlement conference 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 the total proposed penalty is not more 

than $20,000, or 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 formal procedural and evidentiary rules, while ensuring that due process 

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

present its case before an ALJ 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 2016, approximately 34 percent of new cases were assigned to Simplified Proceedings. 

The Review Commission projects that approximately 30 percent of new cases will be assigned to 

the Simplified Proceedings process in FYs 2017 and 2018.
10

Simplified Proceedings Case Activity

FY 2013 through FY 2018

Anticipated Administrative Law Judge Workload for FY 2018

Four major factors impact the ALJs’ workload: (1) the quantity, magnitude, and nature of the 

cases; (2) the utilization 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 also 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.

FY 2013

Actual

FY 2014

Actual

FY 2015

Actual

FY 2016

Actual

FY 2017

Estimate

FY 2018

Estimate

New Cases 2,215 2,017 2,164 2,183 2,500 2,500

Cases 

Assigned to

Simplified 

Proceedings

919 708 586 738 750 750
11

Administrative Law Judge Workloads

The following table provides actual Administrative Law Judge workloads for FY 2013 – 2016, and 

estimated workloads for FY 2017 and 2018.

FY 2013

Actual

FY 2014

Actual

FY 2015

Actual

FY 2016

Actual

FY 2017

Estimate

FY 2018

Estimate

OSHA Inspections1: 39,228 36,163 35,817 31,948 32,540 31,000

Administrative Law Judge Workload:

A. Case Inventory,

Start of Year 1,154 909 888 1,099 1,109 1,049

B. New Cases 2,215 2,017 2,164 2,183 2,500 2,500

C. Total Caseload 3,369 2,926 3,052 3,282 3,609 3,549

D. Disposals

(1) With 

Hearing 68 50 61 42 75 75

(2) Mandatory 

Settlement 

Conferences

81 66 56 86 85 85

(3) Without 

Hearing 2,311 1,922 1,836 2,045 2,400 2,400

E. Total

 Dispositions 2,460 2,038 1,953 2,173 2,560 2,560

Total Case 

Inventory, 

End of Year 909 888 1,099 1,109 1,049 989

 

1 Provided by OSHA
12

Staffing

The OCALJ requires 26 FTE positions in FY 2018 to support the workload based on OSHA’s 

planned inspections and contest rates in the coming years, and to meet performance targets, 

given the number and complexity of the cases anticipated. 

The Chief Administrative Law Judge manages the effort to meet the agency’s Government 

Performance and Results Act (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 2017 CR FY 2018 Request

$ FTE $ FTE

Administrative Law 

Judge Function 5.3 26 5.3 26
13

Strategic Plan and Outcome Goals

The Review Commission’s Strategic Plan for FY 2014 – 2018 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 within one 

year to 20 months from docketing.

• Improve training opportunities for Administrative Law Judges.

OCALJ will advance this strategic goal through the following strategies:

1. Expedite the assignment of cases to Judges.

2. Use objective criteria to designate complex cases and track the processing of these cases.

3. Closely monitor case performance and improve case management information systems 

and reports.

4. Conduct early review and screening of potentially complex cases to expedite the 

disposition of such cases.

5. Implement appropriate changes in the agency’s Rules of Procedure to improve case 

processing (e.g., Mandatory Settlement Part and Simplified Proceedings) and seek new 

ADR methods. 

6. Provide training to all Judges on a variety of subjects, including technical and legal 

issues, legal writing, case management, and ADR to help them develop services and 

processes equal to the very best in judicial arenas.

7. Continue to use a team of Judges to handle, on a rotational basis, extremely complex 

cases and assign appropriate staff to timely process and monitor such cases, including 

settlement discussions. 

In accordance with Public Law 111-352, the Government Performance and Results 

Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRA Modernization Act of 2010) and Public Law 103-62, the 

Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993, the Review Commission revised its 

strategic plan for FY 2014 – 2018. The revised plan focuses on the three overarching goals: (1) 

respect for the rule of law; (2) expanding transparency and openness; and (3) responsible 

stewardship of agency resources. It also identifies innovative and comprehensive strategies to 

achieve the strategic goals and objectives. The following are the performance goals for the 

OCALJ for fiscal years 2014 through 2018:
14

Outcome 

Goals

Performance

Measures

FY

2014

Actual

(Target)

FY

2015

Actual

(Target)

FY

2016

Actual

(Target)

FY

2017

(Target)

FY

2018

(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.

97%

Target met

(95%)

New goal 

developed for 

FY 2015

New goal 

developed for 

FY 2016

New goal 

developed for 

FY 2017

New goal 

developed for 

FY 2018

Ensure that a 

significant 

proportion of 

complex 

cases at the 

ALJ level are 

resolved in 

less than one 

year.

Percent within 

one year. 

80%

Target not 

met

(89%)

New goal 

developed for 

FY 2015

New goal 

developed for 

FY 2016

New goal 

developed for 

FY 2017

New goal 

developed for 

FY 2018

Ensure that a 

significant 

proportion of 

both complex 

and noncomplex 

cases at the 

ALJ level are 

resolved 

within one 

year to 20 

months from 

docketing.

2

-Percent of 

simplified cases 

disposed of 

within one year 

at ALJ level.

-Percent of 

conventional 

cases disposed 

of within 17 

months.

-Percent of 

settlement part 

cases disposed 

of within 19 

months.

New goal 

developed to 

support FY 

2014 – 2018 

Strategic Plan

-Dispose of 

95% of 

simplified 

cases within 

one year.

97%

Target met

-Dispose of 

90% of 

conventional 

cases within 

17 months.

92%

Target met

-Dispose of 

98% of 

settlement part 

cases within 

19 months.

-Dispose of 

95% of 

simplified 

cases within 

one year.

93%

Target not 

met

-Dispose of 

90% of 

conventional

cases within 

17 months.

92%

Target met

-Dispose of 

98% of 

settlement part 

cases within 

19 months.

-Dispose of

95% of 

simplified 

cases within 

one year.

-Dispose of 

90% of 

conventional

cases within 

17 months.

-Dispose of 

98% of 

settlement 

part cases 

within 19 

months.

-Dispose of 

95% of 

simplified 

cases within 

one year.

-Dispose of 

90% of 

conventional

cases within 

17 months.

-Dispose of 

98% of 

settlement 

part cases 

within 19 

months.

 

2 Except for mandatory settlement cases, which are assigned by the Chief Judge upon receipt from the Office of the 

Executive Secretary, Judges are not assigned cases until initial pleadings have been filed. This assignment generally 

occurs approximately 60 days after the case has been docketed due to the parties’ frequent requests for extensions of 

time for filing initial pleadings.
15

Outcome 

Goals

Performance

Measures

FY

2014

Actual

(Target)

FY

2015

Actual

(Target)

FY

2016

Actual

(Target)

FY

2017

(Target)

FY

2018

(Target)

-Percent of 

complex cases 

disposed of 

within 20 

months at ALJ 

level.

95%

Target not 

met

-Dispose of 

95% of 

complex cases 

within 20 

months.

(FY 2015 will 

be the baseline 

year for this 

measure).

80%

Target not 

met

93%

Target not 

met

-Dispose of 

95% of 

complex cases 

within 20 

months (FY 

2015 was the 

baseline year 

for this 

measure).

94%

Target not 

met

-Dispose of 

95% of 

complex cases 

within 20 

months.

-Dispose of 

95% of 

complex cases 

within 20 

months.

Improve 

training

opportunities 

for ALJs.

Time and 

resources 

dedicated to 

judicial training 

with special 

emphasis on 

mediation and 

dispute 

resolution.

Pro rata share 

of the 

agency’s 

training 

resources was 

devoted.

Target met

(Pro rata share 

of the 

agency’s 

training 

resources)

Pro rata share 

of the agency’s 

training 

resources was 

devoted.

Target met

(An 

appropriate 

allocation of 

time and 

resources 

reflective of 

the number of 

ALJs)

Pro rata share 

of the agency’s 

training 

resources was 

devoted.

Target met

(Pro rata share 

of the agency’s 

training 

resources)

Continue to 

designate a 

pro rata share 

of the 

agency’s 

training 

resources.

Continue to 

designate a 

pro rata share 

of the 

agency’s 

training 

resources.

Publish 

significant 

procedural 

decisions and 

nondispositive 

orders 

separately 

from other 

decisions.

Key decisions 

and orders 

published within 

4 months of the 

order.

11 key

decisions and 

orders 

published.

Target not 

met

(15 key 

decisions and 

orders 

published)

13 key 

decisions and 

orders 

published.

Target not 

met

(20 key

decisions and 

orders 

published)

13 key 

decisions and 

orders 

published.

Target not 

met

(20 key 

decisions and 

orders 

published)

20 key 

decisions and 

orders 

published.

20 key 

decisions and 

orders 

published.
16

The Review Commission is evaluating the factors that impact the time frame by which complex 

cases are resolved by the Office of the Chief Administrative Law Judge to determine if the 

current outcome goal is a fair standard by which resolution should be measured. In FY 2016, 

two factors adversely impacted OCALJ’s ability to meet the targeted outcome goal. First, the 

Office of the Chief ALJ, including Denver and Atlanta, is staffed with five attorneys providing 

support to twelve judges who have significant complex caseloads. This low level of legal 

support resulted in significant delays in issuing decisions and resolving cases. 

Next, the complexity of the cases increased the time required to resolve cases at the ALJ level.

Factors leading to the increased complexity of cases include OSHA’s focus on encouraging more 

resource and time-intensive inspections, as well as the Department of Labor, Office of the 

Solicitor’s decision to leverage litigation resources and focus away from high volume and in 

favor of high-impact strategic cases. The increase in complexity of cases is a challenge for the 

Review Commission because processing such cases requires the Judges to invest a greater 

amount of time in handling the matters and places an increased demand on the FTE assigned to 

handle the volume of cases.
17

Commission Function

OSHRC’s Commissioners are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, and they 

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

under the Act, following an initial decision by an ALJ. 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 Judges. The Commission members may then review an ALJ’s 

decision.

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 ALJs. 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 ALJs become a final order of the 

Review Commission by operation of law. Once a case is directed for review, the Commission 

members have the 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 whether cases are appropriate for Commission review, the proper 

disposition of motions and cases, and aids the Commissioner in researching, drafting, and editing 

opinions 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 in their issuance of opinions, 

and it also provides legal advice on ethics, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), Equal 

Employment Opportunity (EEO), procurement, appropriations, Privacy Act, and other areas.

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

is responsible for the docketing of cases at both the ALJ and Commission levels and serves as 

the Records Management Officer for the agency in coordination with the National Archives and 

Records Administration (NARA). 

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: (1) the presence of a quorum; (2) the size and complexity of cases; (3) 
18

and the novelty of the issues presented for review.

The Act requires a quorum of two Commissioners to take official action, so 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.

The Commission operated with two Commissioners during all of FY 2016. This was the result 

of one Commissioner’s term expiring in April of FY 2015 without the nomination and 

confirmation of a new Commissioner. Notwithstanding the lack of a full complement of 

Commissioners for the fiscal year, the Commission resolved 19 cases and met two of its GPRA 

goal targets at the Commission level during FY 2016.

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 at the 

ALJ and Commission levels have increased significantly in recent years.

Anticipated Commission Workload for FY 2018

The 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 Review 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 2016, the Commission had 33 cases pending on its docket at the beginning of the year. It 

received 15 new cases and resolved 19 cases by year-end. Thus, the Commission entered FY 

2017 with 29 cases pending review. During FY 2017, the Commission estimates receiving 27

new cases and resolving 27 cases, ending FY 2017 with 29 cases pending review. For FY 2018, 

the Commission anticipates receiving 26 new cases, and disposing of 28 cases, ending that year 

with an inventory of 27 cases.
19

Commission Case Activity

FY 2013

Actual

FY 2014

Actual

FY 2015

Actual

FY 2016

Actual

FY 2017

Estimate

FY 2018

Estimate

New Cases:

Cases Directed 

for Review: 24 11 13 14 23 24

Other New Cases:

Interlocutory 

Appeals:

0 0 0 0 2 1

Remands: 1 0 1 1 2 1

Other: 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Other New 

Cases:

0 0 0 1 4 2

Total New Cases: 25 11 14 15 27 26

Case Inventory 

from Prior Year: 31 36 35 33 29 29

Total Caseload: 56 47 49 48 56 55

Dispositions: 20 12 16 19 27 28

Case Inventory, 

End of Year: 36 35 33 29 29 27

Staffing

The Commission function requires 28 FTE positions in FY 2018. This includes 9 FTE positions

for the three Commissioners and their immediate staff, 14 FTE positions for the Office of 

General Counsel, and 5 FTE positions for the Office of the Executive Secretary.

FUNDING (IN MILLIONS) AND FTE

FY 2017 CR FY 2018 Request

Commission 

Function

$ FTE $ FTE

5.7 28 5.7 28
20

Strategic Plan and Outcome Goals

The Review Commission’s Strategic Plan for FY 2014 – 2018 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.

• Develop and implement case management practices that will 

minimize the average age of all pending Commission-level cases.

3

• Further reduce the average age of the oldest pending Commission 

level cases.4

• Resolve all priority cases in a timely manner.

5

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

1. Focus on reducing the average age of the oldest pending cases and of all pending cases, 

with immediate aim of implementing the new case management practices adopted at the 

end of FY 2014: 

a. Periodic Docket Review

i. Conduct quarterly and semiannual case management docket reviews to identify 

opportunities to speed case processing.

o Quarterly Counsel’s meeting

o Semiannual Commission docket review

b. Strategic Plan Implementation Monitoring 

i. Incorporate data in quarterly docket reports on the age of each pending case, the 

average age of all pending cases, and the average age of the oldest 15% of cases.

ii. Review case management aspects of cases that exceed the target average in the 

periodic docket review meetings.

c. Efficient Briefing Practices

 

3 These goals will not apply to cases that are stayed at the Review Commission because criminal law investigations 

or prosecutions are being pursued.

4 The Commission intends to further reduce the average age of the oldest fifteen (15%) percent of pending cases. 

External factors, such as lack of a quorum or recusal of a Commissioner, may adversely affect the Commission’s 

ability to meet these goals. 

5 Priority cases include Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 60(b) cases, Commission Rule (CR) 101(a) 

defaults, court remands, and interlocutory reviews. However, some FRCP 60(b) and CR 101(a) cases—those with 

significant threshold issues—are not treated as priority cases because of the complexity of those issues. Also, where 

the parties have indicated intent to settle a priority case, the time frame will be tolled. 
21

i. To the degree practicable, strive to narrowly tailor the issues in the Briefing 

Notice.

2. Expedite the disposition of priority cases that are designated as requiring rapid action 

(e.g., court remands, interlocutory reviews, Rule 60(b) cases), such that they are disposed 

of within six months of designation.

3. Expand Knowledge Management (KM) and research tools to accelerate the preparation 

of cases and issuance of Commission decisions.

4. Identify and provide training opportunities to all agency attorneys and support staff that 

will enhance their capabilities, such as training on technical and legal issues, legal 

writing, ethics, and technology and case management.

5. Use individual performance plans that support priorities in the Review Commission’s 

strategic and annual performance plans.

6. Assign teams of attorneys and other staff to large, complex cases to speed their 

preparation and issuance.

7. Implement appropriate changes to the agency’s procedures to improve case processing at 

the Commission level. 

In accordance with Public Law 111-352, the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 and Public Law 

103-62, the GPRA of 1993, the Review Commission revised its strategic plan for the period FY 

2014 through 2018. The revised plan focuses on the three overarching goals of: (1) respect for 

the rule of law; (2) expanding transparency and openness; and (3) providing responsible 

stewardship of agency resources. It also identifies innovative and comprehensive strategies to 

achieve the strategic goals and objectives. The following are the performance goals for the 

Commission for FY 2014 – 2018:

Outcome 

Goals

Performance 

Measures

FY

2014

Actual

(Target)

FY

2015

Actual

(Target)

FY

2016

Actual

(Target)

FY

2017

(Target)

FY

2018

(Target)

Reduce the 

average age 

of open cases 

at the 

Commissionlevel. 

Average age of 

open cases.

26 months 

Target met

(27 months or 

less)

Replacement 

goal 

developed for 

FY 2015

Replacement 

goal 

developed for 

FY 2016

Replacement 

goal 

developed for 

FY 2017

Replacement 

goal 

developed for 

FY 2018

Resolve all 

priority cases 

in a timely 

manner.

Percent of 

priority cases 

disposed of 

within 6 

months.

100%

Target met

(100%)

100%

Target met

(100%)

100%

Target met

(100%)

(100%) (100%)
22

Outcome 

Goals

Performance 

Measures

FY

2014

Actual

(Target)

FY

2015

Actual

(Target)

FY

2016

Actual

(Target)

FY

2017

(Target)

FY

2018

(Target)

Develop and 

implement 

case 

management 

practices that 

will minimize 

the average 

age of all 

pending 

Commissionlevel cases.

Average age of 

all pending 

Commissionlevel cases.

Case 

management 

practices 

developed. 

The average 

age of all 

pending 

Commissionlevel cases is 

26 months. 

Target met 6

Develop case 

management 

practices.

(27 months or 

less)

Implemented 

case 

management 

practices.

The estimated 

average age of 

all pending 

Commissionlevel cases is 

21 months.

Target met

(24 months or 

less)

Implemented 

case 

management 

practices.

The estimated 

average age of 

all pending 

Commissionlevel cases is 

24 months.

Target not 

met

(23 months or 

less) 

Continue to 

implement 

case 

management 

practices.

(22 months or 

less)

Continue to 

implement 

case 

management 

practices.

(20 months or 

less)

Further 

reduce the 

average age 

of the oldest 

pending 

Commission 

level cases.

Using 

experience 

gained from the 

recent 

disposition of 

the legacy cases, 

as well as 

recommendactions derived 

from 

Commission’s 

public meeting 

on legacy cases, 

to develop and 

implement case 

management 

practices that 

minimize the 

average age of 

the oldest fifteen 

(15%) percent of 

pending cases.

Case 

management 

practices 

developed.

Target met

(Develop case 

management 

practices)

Case 

management 

practices were 

fully 

implemented.

Target met

(Implement 

case 

management 

practices)

Case 

management 

practices were 

fully 

implemented.

Target met

(Implement 

case 

management 

practices)

Reduce 

average age of

the oldest 15 

percent of 

pending 

Commission 

level cases by 

10 percent 

from FY 2014 

level.

Reduce 

average age of 

the oldest 15 

percent of 

pending 

Commission 

level cases by 

10 percent 

from FY 2014 

level.

 

6 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 Strategic Plan for FY 2014 – 2018 anticipated reducing this average to 24 

months by the end of FY 2015.
23

Office of the Executive Director Function

The Office of the Executive Director (OEXD) provides administrative support services for the 

entire Review Commission to assure success in fulfilling its mission. 

Administrative Operations

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

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

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

the Executive Director and include: 

• Supporting the development and implementation of the agency’s strategic goals;

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

Commission information;

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

contracting, human resources, equal opportunity, and general administrative services;

• Providing personnel, payroll, benefits, reproduction, 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 the Executive Director Workload for FY 2018

During FY 2018, 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;

• 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;
24

• 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 the National office, and the regional offices 

in Denver and Atlanta; 

• Make use of the best Knowledge Management practices to ensure that employees are 

better prepared to perform their work and to provide for continuity and succession 

planning; and

• Review information technology programs to determine ways to achieve cost savings.

In FYs 2015 and 2016, the Review Commission began the process of improving the quality of its

web-based transparency initiatives, including enhancing the OSHRC website to make more 

information available to internal and external customers, revising our COOP, and undertaking 

other activities in support of our mission. In FY 2016, the e-filing system was deployed and 

fully implemented.

This budget request includes $110,000 for continued support ($50,000 for licensing/hosting and 

$60,000 for enhancements) of the e-filing system. Effective management of this e-filing system 

is demonstrative proof of the agency’s commitment of using technology to improve accuracy and 

efficiency in its case management practices.

Staffing

The OEXD requires 8 FTE in FY 2018. The Office has responsibility for implementing the 

Administration’s performance improvement efforts, including implementing and monitoring 

strategic and performance plans and reports, budget, and performance integration, human capital 

development, and E-government.

FUNDING (IN MILLIONS) AND FTE

FY 2017 CR FY 2018 Request

$ FTE $ FTE

Executive Director 

Function 1.6 8 1.6 8
25

Strategic Plan and Outcome Goals

The OEXD’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 accessible to 

people with disabilities 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.

• Enhance the agency’s FOIA processing system by developing 

internet-based capabilities.

• Broaden the Review Commission’s outreach activities with other 

Federal agencies and the affected public, including targeted 

education and outreach for individuals with Limited English 

Proficiency (LEP).

Responsible stewardship 

of agency resources to 

enhance operations and 

efficiencies in IT, 

financial management, 

human resources, and 

real property to 

accomplish the agency’s 

statutory and regulatory 

mandates.

• Develop and present an annual budget and performance plan that 

clearly present how the organization will accomplish governmentwide management priorities, agency-wide goals, and organizational 

goals.

• Implement a comprehensive human capital plan designed to recruit, 

retain and develop staff; support succession planning by 

strategically aligning present and future human capital needs and 

workforce planning; and evaluate the performance management 

system based on individual and organizational effectiveness.

• Integrate knowledge management (KM) processes into a plan to 

capture, share, and generate knowledge and establish a unified 

knowledge network of people, processes and technology to enhance 

operations and efficiencies in all aspects of essential agency 

operations.

• Improve technology infrastructure through efficiencies and 

investments (e.g., training, equipment, services) to support the 

effective use of broadband, cyber security, and energy efficiency.

• Use existing and real property more effectively by implementing 

energy efficiency practices, space alignment efforts (e.g., 

sustainability) and expanding telework.

In accordance with Public Law 111-352, the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 and Public Law 

103-62, the GPRA of 1993, the Review Commission revised its strategic plan for the period FY 

2014 through 2018. The revised plan focuses on the three overarching goals of: (1) respect for 

the rule of law; (2) expanding transparency and openness; and (3) responsible stewardship of 
26

agency resources. It also identifies innovative and comprehensive strategies to achieve the 

strategic goals and objectives. OSHRC’s Strategic Plan includes the following goals for the 

Office of the Executive Director for FY 2014 – 2018:

Outcome 

Goals

Performance 

Measures

FY

2014

Actual

(Target)

FY

2015

Actual

(Target)

FY

2016

Actual

(Target)

FY

2017

(Target)

FY

2018

(Target)

Ensure that the 

Review 

Commission’s 

website is 

accessible to 

people with 

disabilities and 

serves as a 

useful 

repository for 

information 

about the 

agency and its 

adjudicatory 

activities.

Timeliness of 

postings to 

agency website.

All required 

material posted 

to the website 

in less than 7 

days and 

usually within 

one day after 

issuance.

Target met

(All material 

posted no later 

than 7 days 

after issuance)

All required 

material posted 

to the website 

in less than 7 

days and 

usually within 

one day after 

issuance.

Target met

(All material 

posted no later 

than 7 days 

after issuance)

All required 

material posted 

to the website 

in less than 7 

days and 

usually within 

one day after 

issuance.

Target met

(All material 

posted no later 

than 7 days 

after issuance)

All material 

posted no later 

than 7 days 

after issuance.

All material 

posted no later 

than 5 days 

after issuance.

Produce timely 

and accurate 

reports on the 

Review 

Commission’s 

activities, 

including all 

reports required 

by law.

Timeliness of 

submissions of 

required reports 

(e.g., financial 

statements, 

OMB, OPM, 

and EEO 

reports, etc.).

All material 

submitted by 

required 

deadlines.

Target met

(100% of all 

material to be 

submitted by 

required 

deadlines)

All material 

submitted by 

required 

deadlines.

Target met

(100% of all 

material to be 

submitted by 

required 

deadlines)

All material 

submitted by 

required 

deadlines.

Target met

(100% of all 

material to be 

submitted by 

required 

deadlines)

100% of all 

material to be 

submitted by 

required 

deadlines.

100% of all 

material to be 

submitted by 

required 

deadlines.
27

Outcome 

Goals

Performance 

Measures

FY

2014

Actual

(Target)

FY

2015

Actual

(Target)

FY

2016

Actual

(Target)

FY

2017

(Target)

FY

2018

(Target)

Broaden the

Review 

Commission’s 

outreach 

activities with 

other Federal 

agencies and 

the affected 

public, 

including 

targeted 

education and 

outreach for 

individuals 

with LEP.

Participation in 

professional 

conferences and 

meetings and 

strategic 

engagement 

with 

stakeholders.

Agency focus 

was to revise 

the draft 

language 

access plan 

and submit to 

DOJ for 

approval.

Target not 

met

(Agency to 

sponsor one 

outreach and 

educational 

activity per 

year)

Draft language 

access plan 

was posted on 

the agency’s 

website.

Target met

(Fully 

implement a 

language 

access plan 

and post to the 

agency’s 

website for 

public access)

Draft language 

access plan is 

posted on the 

agency’s 

website.

Target met

(Fully 

implement a 

language 

access plan and 

post to the 

agency’s 

website for 

public access)

Review

documents to 

be translated 

and posted on 

the agency’s 

website.

-Review 

documents to 

be translated 

and posted on 

the agency’s 

website.

-Participation 

in the 

American Bar 

Association’s 

Annual Labor 

and 

Employment 

Law 

Conference.

Develop and 

present an 

annual budget 

and 

performance 

plan that 

clearly present 

how the 

organization 

will accomplish 

governmentwide 

management 

priorities, 

agency-wide 

goals, and 

organizational 

goals.

System that 

links resources 

to specific 

activities that 

support 

measurable 

programmatic 

outcomes and 

objectives.

Resources 

were identified 

for various 

programs to 

support the 

methodology 

to efficiently 

align the 

budget with 

program goals.

Target met

(Identify 

resources to 

support the 

methodology 

to efficiently 

align the 

budget with 

program 

goals).

Agency 

program goals 

were aligned 

with the 

budget to 

efficiently 

accomplish the 

mission.

Target met

(Align budget 

with agency 

program goals 

to efficiently 

accomplish 

mission (e.g., 

program, 

human capital, 

procurement, 

IT 

infrastructure, 

space, and 

facilities).

Agency 

program goals 

continue to be

aligned with 

the budget to 

efficiently 

accomplish the 

mission.

Target met

(Align budget 

with agency 

program goals 

to efficiently 

accomplish 

mission (e.g., 

program, 

human capital, 

procurement, 

IT 

infrastructure, 

space, and 

facilities).

Align budget 

with agency 

program goals 

to efficiently 

accomplish 

mission (e.g., 

program, 

human capital, 

procurement, 

IT 

infrastructure, 

space, and 

facilities).

Align budget 

with agency 

program goals 

to efficiently 

accomplish 

mission (e.g., 

program, 

human capital, 

procurement, 

IT 

infrastructure, 

space, and 

facilities).
28

Outcome 

Goals

Performance 

Measures

FY

2014

Actual

(Target)

FY

2015

Actual

(Target)

FY

2016

Actual

(Target)

FY

2017

(Target)

FY

2018

(Target)

Implement a 

comprehensive 

human capital 

plan designed 

to recruit, 

retain, and 

develop staff; 

support 

succession 

planning by 

strategically 

aligning 

present and 

future human 

capital needs 

and workforce 

planning; and 

evaluate the 

performance 

management 

system based 

on individual 

and 

organizational 

effectiveness.

Increase 

personnel 

capabilities and 

development by 

improving 

training 

opportunities.

.55 percent of 

basic payroll 

devoted to 

staff training 

and 

development.

Target met

(.55 percent of 

basic payroll 

devoted to 

staff training 

and 

development)

.44 percent of 

basic payroll 

devoted to staff 

training and 

development.

Target not 

met

(.65 percent of 

basic payroll 

devoted to staff 

training and 

development)

.44 percent of 

basic payroll 

devoted to 

staff training 

and 

development.

Target not 

met7

(.70 percent of 

basic payroll 

devoted to 

staff training 

and 

development)

.80 percent of 

basic payroll 

devoted to 

staff training 

and 

development.

1 percent of 

basic payroll 

devoted to 

staff training 

and 

development.

 

7 The Review Commission devoted .44 percent of basic payroll to staff training and development. Our ability to 

expense .70 percent was severely impacted due to a nearly three-month Continuing Resolution which postponed the 

timely allocation of training funds.
29

Outcome 

Goals

Performance 

Measures

FY

2014

Actual

(Target)

FY

2015

Actual

(Target)

FY

2016

Actual

(Target)

FY

2017

(Target)

FY

2018 

(Target)

Integrate 

knowledge 

management 

(KM) 

processes into 

a plan to 

capture, share,

and generate 

knowledge and 

establish a 

unified 

knowledge 

network of 

people, 

processes, and 

technology to 

enhance 

operations and 

efficiencies in 

all aspects of 

essential 

agency 

operations.

Conduct 

periodic 

knowledge 

audits to identify 

sources of 

knowledge and 

“at risk” 

knowledge 

gaps.

8

Tailor IT 

infrastructure to 

support the 

effortless 

sharing and 

transfer of 

knowledge. 

Degree to which 

best practices 

and lessons 

learned are 

integrated into 

the performance 

management 

system.

Staff trained in 

learning 

solution 

designed to 

optimize 

organizational 

performance 

and identify 

KM gaps.

Target 

partially met

(Design the KM

audit to 

establish 

benchmarks to 

evaluate 

knowledge gaps 

in the essential 

agency 

operations and 

programs)

Identified 

knowledge 

gap 

vulnerabilities 

to enhance 

agency 

operations and 

programs. 

Target met

(Use findings 

from 

evaluation of 

KM audit to 

identify and 

address 

knowledge 

gaps)

Implemented a 

Phased 

Retirement 

directive, 

identified 

knowledge gap 

vulnerabilities,

and enhanced 

telework 

opportunities 

to retain 

employees that 

move outside 

of commuting 

area. 

Target Met 

(Use findings 

from 

evaluation of 

KM audit to 

identify and 

address 

knowledge 

gaps).

Evaluate and

address KM

vulnerabilities 

to further 

enhance 

agency 

operations and 

programs. 

Evaluate and 

address KM

vulnerabilities 

to further 

enhance 

agency 

operations and 

programs.

 

8 Areas identified as potential “at risk” knowledge gaps include programs and functions where a subject matter 

expert is eligible to leave the agency (through retirement or career transition) in one to three years and no backup 

expert has been identified to assume the duties and responsibilities vacated. 
30

Outcome 

Goals

Performance 

Measures

FY

2014

Actual

(Target)

FY

2015

Actual

(Target)

FY

2016

Actual

(Target)

FY

2017

(Target)

FY

2018

(Target)

Improve 

technology 

infrastructure 

through 

efficiencies 

and 

investments 

(e.g., training, 

equipment, 

services) to 

support the 

effective use 

of broadband, 

cyber security, 

and energy 

efficiency.

Streamline 

operations and 

infrastructure to 

eliminate 

duplication; 

minimize 

servers, storage 

and application 

sprawl.

Maintain 

standardized 

platforms 

including 

hardware and 

software.

Improve 

network/commu

nications to 

ensure 

customers can 

access necessary 

information 

without delay.

Evaluated 

expanding the 

existing IT 

infrastructure 

and began 

procuring 

equipment and 

services 

necessary to 

support the efiling initiative.

Target met

(Evaluate 

expanding the 

existing IT 

infrastructure 

to support efiling initiative)

Upgraded data 

circuits, 

implemented a 

new data 

analysis 

platform that 

scans internet 

traffic, trained 

staff on usage 

policies, and 

procured and 

installed Host 

servers.

Target met

(Implement 

recommended 

IT 

infrastructure 

upgrades 

identified in 

evaluation)

Upgraded 

Citrix to permit 

additional 

security 

measures, and 

servers to 

Virtual 

machines; 

implemented a 

cloud-based 

case 

management 

system and 

provided 

training to 

users; upgraded 

desktops; and 

procured new 

servers. 

Target met 

(Implement 

recommended 

IT 

infrastructure 

upgrades 

identified in 

evaluation)

Continue 

monitoring 

technology 

infrastructure 

to determine if 

additional 

resources are 

required.

-Reduce 

physical 

servers through 

virtualization.

-Reduce the 

number of 

operating 

systems in use.

-Evaluate and 

address 

enhancements 

to our e-filing 

system.

-Increase 

bandwidth for 

migration to 

cloud 

initiatives (i.e., 

electronic mail 

services to the 

cloud, and 

expand cloud 

storage space).

Use existing 

real property 

more 

effectively by 

implementing 

energy 

efficiency by 

implementing 

energy 

practices, 

space 

alignment 

efforts (e.g., 

sustainability),

and expanding 

telework

Implement 

measures to 

reduce operating 

expenses when 

negotiating lease 

and develop a 

system to 

evaluate areas of 

consumption 

that impact 

sustainability.

Use of virtual 

machines and 

all equipment 

purchases meet 

EPA Energy 

Efficiency 

standards.

Target met

(Establish goal 

of acquiring a 

percentage of 

supplies and 

equipment 

from ecofriendly 

sources)

Disposed of 

Use of virtual 

machines and 

all equipment 

purchases meet 

EPA Energy 

Efficiency 

standards. 

Moved to a 

shared printing 

environment by 

using installed 

copiers as 

default printers 

moving away 

from desktop 

printers. 

Expanded 

Use of virtual 

machines and 

all equipment 

purchases meet 

EPA Energy 

Efficiency 

standards. 

Expanded 

Citrix to 

accommodate 

additional 

telework staff. 

Continue 

monitoring to 

ensure supplies 

and equipment 

are procured 

from ecofriendly 

sources.

Continue 

monitoring to 

ensure supplies 

and equipment 

are procured 

from ecofriendly 

sources.
31

Outcome 

Goals

Performance 

Measures

FY

2014

Actual

(Target)

FY

2015

Actual

(Target)

FY

2016

Actual

(Target)

FY

2017

(Target)

FY

2018

(Target)

equipment 

through 

certified 

recyclers.

Target met

(Dispose of 

equipment in 

an environmentally 

friendly 

manner)

Citrix to 

accommodate 

additional 

telework staff.

Target met

(Increase the 

percentage of 

supplies and 

equipment 

procured from 

eco-friendly 

sources)

Target met 

(Increase the 

percentage of 

supplies and 

equipment 

procured from 

eco-friendly 

sources)

Enhance the 

agency’s 

FOIA 

processing 

system by 

developing 

internet-based 

capabilities.

Development of 

an electronic

form and/or 

request tracking 

capability.

Developed an 

electronic 

request form 

used for 

processing and 

expediting 

FOIA requests.

Target met

(Assessment of 

tools and 

resources 

necessary for 

processing and 

expediting 

FOIA requests 

electronically)

Successful 

implementation 

of FOIA online 

form and use of 

dedicated 

FOIA email 

address to 

expedite 

receipt, 

tracking, and 

processing of 

requests.

Target met

(Develop tools 

to be used for 

processing and 

expediting 

FOIA requests 

electronically)

Increased 

efficiency of 

FOIA online 

form and use of 

dedicated 

FOIA email 

address to 

expedite 

receipt, 

tracking, and 

processing of 

requests. 

Target met 

(Develop tools 

to be used for 

processing and 

expediting 

FOIA requests 

electronically)

Explore 

advanced 

options for 

online tracking 

capability.

Explore 

advanced 

options for 

online tracking 

capability.
V. BUDGET BY OBJECT

CLASSIFICATION

CATEGORY
32

Budget by Object Classification (BOC) Category

The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission requests an appropriation of 

$12,615,000 for FY 2018 to continue our mission of adjudicating OSHA-issued workplace safety 

citations. The requested amount assumes the support for 62 FTE positions as well as funding for 

other costs. 

The proposed budget for FY 2018 by object classification category is shown in the table below, 

along with the FY 2017 annualized Continuing Resolution amount (“CR”) and the FY 2016 

Actual amounts. A narrative explanation of the amount requested for each object classification 

follows the table.

Object Classification Table

Fiscal Years 2017 and 2018

(Dollars in Thousands)

 Change

 FY 2017 CR –

 FY 2018 Request

Budget Object 

Class

FY 2016 

Actuals

FY 2017

CR

FY 2018

Request $ %

11.0 Personnel 

Compensation $6,309 $7,253 $7,343 +90 +1.24

12.0 Personnel Benefits 1,898 1,950 1,970 +20 +1.03

Subtotal Personal Services 8,207 9,203 9,313 +110 +1.2

21.0 Travel 153 185 185 -0- -0-

22.0 Transportation of 

Things 10 10 10 -0- -0-

23.1 Space Rental 

Payments (GSA) 1,478 1,486 1,530 +44 +2.96

23.3 Communications, 

Utilities and Misc. 278 272 272 -0- -0-

24.0 Printing and 

Reproduction 7 17 17 -0- -0-

25.0 Other Services 1,600 1,030 1,004 -26 -2.52

26.0 Supplies and 

Materials 80 43 43 -0- -0-

31.0 Equipment 602 369 241 -128 -34.69

Unobligated 

Balance 224 -0- -0- -0- -0-

Grand Total 12,639 12,615 12,615 -0- -0-
33

Budget Object Classification Detail

11.0 Personnel Compensation

Change FY 2017 CR – FY 2018 Request

FY 2017 CR FY 2018 Request Amount Percent

7,253,000 7,343,000 +90,000 +1.24

The Review Commission requests $7,343,000 to fund direct payroll costs in FY 2018. This 

includes funding for a 1.9 percent pay increase that is anticipated in January 2018. This amount 

assumes the support for 62 FTE positions. This object class also supports awards to recognize 

those employees whose performance is superior and who perform special acts or services. 

12.0 Personnel Benefits

Change FY 2017 CR – FY 2018 Request

FY 2017 CR FY 2018 Request Amount Percent

1,950,000 1,970,000 +20,000 +1.03

The Review Commission requests $1,970,000 to fund the payroll-related costs of employee 

benefits in FY 2018. 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 2017 CR – FY 2018 Request

FY 2017 CR FY 2018 Request Amount Percent

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

The requested amount for travel in FY 2018 is $185,000. 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 2017 CR – FY 2018 Request

FY 2017 CR FY 2018 Request Amount Percent

10,000 10,000 -0- -0-

An amount of $10,000 is requested to fund the cost of shipping materials between Review 

Commission offices and other locations. 
34

23.1 Rental Payments to GSA

Change FY 2017 CR – FY 2018 Request

FY 2017 CR FY 2018 Request Amount Percent

1,486,000 1,530,000 +44,000 +2.96

The request includes $1,530,000 for office space rental for the National and Regional Offices. 

These projected rent costs are based on FY 2018 estimates provided by the General Services 

Administration (GSA) to the Review Commission. 

23.3 Communications, Utilities, and Miscellaneous Charges

Change FY 2017 CR – FY 2018 Request

FY 2017 CR FY 2018 Request Amount Percent

272,000 272,000 -0- -0-

The Review Commission requests $272,000 for communication costs in FY 2018. The Review 

Commission began the development and implementation of an e-filing system in FY 2013 with a 

hosted internet-based interface that accommodates the electronic filing of litigation documents. 

In FY 2016, the e-filing system was fully deployed. This request includes telecommunication 

costs to support our cloud initiative with increased security and bandwidth requirements and 

pave the way for future cloud initiatives.

Local phone service and telecommunication costs are projected to be $252,000. 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 2017 CR – FY 2018 Request

FY 2017 CR FY 2018 Request Amount Percent

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

The requested amount for printing in FY 2018 is $17,000. 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 FY 2018. 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 2017 CR – FY 2018 Request

FY 2017 CR FY 2018 Request Amount Percent

1,030,000 1,004,000 -26,000 -2.52
35

The requested amount for other services in FY 2018 is $1,004,000. This amount will allow the 

Review Commission to maintain our current services. 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 $449,975 is requested for services 

provided by other Federal agencies. Our costs have increased in this category as a result of 

additional service costs associated with a new time and attendance system provided by the 

National Finance Center (NFC), along with higher costs for our Interagency Agreements with the 

Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and NARA. This area includes $14,000 for personnel 

and payroll services provided by NFC, $315,000 for financial and administrative services 

provided by the Bureau of the Fiscal Service (BFS), and $58,000 for building security 

(estimated) provided by the Department of Homeland Security. The remaining amount will be 

used to fund other Interagency Agreements such as with the U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services (Federal Occupational Health), GSA, OPM, and NARA.

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

out our mission. These include: court reporting ($100,000); maintenance/incremental 

enhancements including security of the Review Commission’s information technology system, 

and services to support deployment of the e-filing system ($60,000); services for translation of 

documents and interpreters for individuals LEP ($20,000); independent evaluation of IT security

under the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) ($30,000); and on-line legal 

research ($43,000). This category also includes funding for other contractual services such as 

the annual audit of our financial statements ($30,000), library operations ($83,000), training, and 

other requirements to support the agency’s mission. This category also includes funds needed for 

continuing maintenance of the Review Commission’s website ($30,000).

26.0 Supplies and Materials

Change FY 2017 Enacted – FY 2018 Request

FY 2017 Enacted FY 2018 Request Amount Percent

43,000 43,000 -0- -0-

The requested amount for supplies and materials in FY 2018 is $43,000. This amount includes 

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

31.0 Equipment

Change FY 2017 Enacted – FY 2018 Request

FY 2017 Enacted FY 2018 Request Amount Percent

369,000 241,000 -128,000 -34.69

The requested amount for equipment in FY 2018 is $241,000. The Review Commission began the 

development and implementation of an e-filing system in FY 2013 with a hosted internet-based

interface that accommodates the electronic filing of litigation documents. As a result, our 
36

information technology infrastructure was upgraded and licensing, and hosting costs are required 

to maintain the system. The e-filing system was fully deployed in FY 2016. We estimate that the

licensing costs will be $50,000. Subscriptions and other publications necessary to maintain our 

legal libraries are included in this object class. The remainder is required for new and/or 

replacement computers and other information technology requirements, and to enable us to 

comply with government-wide mandates such as the FISMA. 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.
VI. OTHER TABLES
37

The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

Appropriation History

Fiscal Year Request to Congress House Allowance Senate Allowance Appropriation

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

1999 $8,050,000 $8,100,000 $8,100,000 $8,092,0009

2000 $8,500,000 $8,100,000 $8,500,000 $8,470,00010

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

2002 $8,964,000 $8,964,000 $8,964,000 $8,958,00011

2003 $9,577,000 $9,577,000 $9,577,000 $9,673,00012

2004 $10,115,000 $10,115,000 $9,610,000 $9,863,00013

2005 $10,516,000 $10,595,000 $10,595,000 $10,510,24014

2006 $10,510,000 $10,510,000 $10,510,000 $10,404,90015

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

2008 $10,696,000 $10,696,000 $10,696,000 $10,696,00016

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 $11,712,00017

2012 $12,773,000 $11,689,000 $11,689,000 $11,689,00018

2013 $11,965,000 $11,667,000 $11,667,000 $11,666,90819

2014 $12,634,830 $11,411,000

2015 $12,651,000 $12,651,000 $12,651,000 $11,639,000

2016 $13,212,000 $12,639,000 $11,100,000 $12,639,000

2017 $13,411,000 $12,975,000 $13,411,000 $12,615,00020

2018 $12,615,000

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

19 Reduced to $11,056,659 by P.L. 113-6 and Sequestration Order issued March 1, 2013

20 A full-year 2017 appropriation for this account was not enacted at the time the budget was prepared; therefore, the budget assumes this 

account is operating under the Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2017 (P.L. 114–254). The amounts included for 2017 reflect the 

annualized level provided by the continuing resolution, “FY2017 CR.”
38

Authorized Full Time Positions By Function

FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018

Actual Enacted Estimate

Administrative Law Judge:

AL-II 1 1 1

AL-III 11 11 11

GS-14 4 4 5

GS-13 1 1 0

GS-12 1 1 1

GS-11 0 0 0

GS-10 1 1 1

GS-9 1 1 2

GS-8 6 6 5

Sub-total 26 26 26

Commission:

Executive Level III 1 1 1

Executive Level IV 1 2 2

ES-00 2 2 2

GS-15 4 6 6

GS-14 4 4 4

GS-13 2 4 7

GS-12 4 4 1

GS-11 1 2 2

GS-10 0 0 0

GS-9 2 2 3

GS-8 1 1 0

GS-7 0 0 0

Sub-total 22 28 28

Office of the Executive Director:

ES-00 1 1 1

GS-15 2 2 2

GS-14 0 0 0

GS-13 0 0 0 

GS-12 3 3 4

GS-11 1 1 0

GS-9 0 0 0

GS-7 0 0 0

GS-6 0 1 1

Sub-total 7 8 8

Total full-time positions: 55 62 62