The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

OSHRC

FISCAL YEAR 2019

PERFORMANCE BUDGET AND JUSTIFICATION

February 2018
Table of Contents

Fiscal Year 2019

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

Administrative Law Judge Function......................................................................................... 6

Commission Function ............................................................................................................. 16

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

V. BUDGET BY OBJECT CLASSIFICATION CATEGORY 

Object Classification Table..................................................................................................... 37

Budget Object Classification Detail........................................................................................ 38

VI. OTHER TABLES

Appropriation History............................................................................................................. 42

Authorized Full Time Positions By Function ......................................................................... 43
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). The 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 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 the Review Commission’s Rules of Procedure provide two levels of adjudication 

when an employer timely contests an OSHA citation. The first level affords an employer and/or 

affected employee who files a timely notice of contest with the opportunity for a hearing before a 

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

order under the Act unless a member of the three-member Commission exercises their discretion 

to direct the case for review. The second level involves the Commission’s review of an ALJ 

decision. The Commission’s three members, appointed by the President and subject to Senate 

confirmation, serve six-year terms. The principal (National) office of the Review Commission is 

located in Washington, DC. There are also regional offices in Atlanta and Denver, where 

additional Review Commission ALJs and staff are assigned. Before both its ALJs and the 

Commission members, the agency seeks to provide fair, impartial, and timely adjudication of 

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

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 define and clarify 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.

• An agency that values teamwork, develops its employees, and strives to improve its 

performance, service, and value to the American people.
2

Strategic Goals

The Review Commission has set measurable, outcome-oriented objectives that advance the 

agency’s ability to meet its strategic goals. The agency has included its strategic goals and 

objectives and their associated measures in the updated Strategic Plan (FY 2018 – FY 2022) and 

as part of its performance budget. OSHRC has four overarching strategic goals: 

1. Promptly and fairly resolving the cases before it, including reducing the average age of 

Review-level cases;

2. To the extent consistent with the agency’s statutory authority and responsibilities, seeking 

to enhance the transparency of its operations; 

3. Promoting organizational excellence, including a culture of professionalism, mutual 

respect, and organizational pride, and ensuring that staff members are adequately trained 

and developed; and

4. Managing agency resources in a manner that instills public trust, including using 

information and technology to monitor, evaluate, and improve programs and processes in 

order to better accomplish the agency’s mission.
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) 2019. 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 2019 estimated costs include:

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

are approximately 74 percent of the Review Commission’s budget request.

• $1,624,950 for office space rent.

• $481,650 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.

• $1,085,400, the remaining amount, to be used for travel expenses for ALJs to hold 

hearings, court reporting services, management of the language access plan, the annual 

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

employee training and development, 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 and to 

implement an e-filing system, which permits the electronic filing and service of litigation 

documents. The e-filing system was successfully 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 and 

customized reporting) 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 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 important goal, the FY 2019 budget request includes $20,000 to cover 

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

LANGUAGE 
5

FY 2019

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 2018 appropriation for this account was not enacted at the time the budget was 

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

Appropriations Act, 2018 (Division D of P.L. 115-56, as amended). The amounts included for 

2018 reflect the annualized level provided by the continuing resolution.
IV. PERFORMANCE

BUDGET JUSTIFICATION

BY ORGANIZATIONAL

UNIT
5

Performance Budget Justification by Organizational Unit

The Review Commission has three main units 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 unit has staff and resources assigned exclusively to it, but all three units 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 each review level is, in fact and appearance, independent of the other. The Office of the 

Executive Director (OEXD) function supports the ALJ and Commission functions, as well as the 

agency’s strategic planning efforts. 

Funding and staffing by function is as follows:

FUNDING (IN MILLIONS) AND FTE BY FUNCTION

FY 2017 Actual FY 2018 CR FY 2019 Request

$ FTE $ FTE $ FTE

Administrative Law 

Judge 5.8 24 5.4 26 5.3 26

Commission 5.7 23 5.9 28 5.7 28

Executive Director 1.7 7 1.8 8 1.6 8

 Total 13.2 54 13.1 62 12.6 62
6

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. This function is 

directly related to achieving 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 when 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 of receipt of the citation issued 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 ALJ 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 32,369 inspections in FY 2017 and estimates that it will complete 30,000 in 

FY 2018, and 30,840 inspections in FY 2019. 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 contested cases being docketed. 

In FY 2008, the Review Commission docketed 1,962 contested cases. Since FY 2008, there has 

been a notable increase in the number of contested cases. Moreover, OSHA implemented a new

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

violation increased, and the contest rate increased. In FY 2015, the Review Commission 
7

docketed 2,164 contested cases as well as 2,183 contested cases in FY 2016, and 2,168 contested

cases in FY 2017. This trend is expected to continue.

In addition to the greater number of contested cases that resulted from OSHA’s administrative 

penalty policy,

1 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’s 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) 

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

 

1 OSHA implemented a new administrative penalty policy as of the beginning of FY 2011. Furthermore, the Federal 

Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 required OSHA to increase its minimum and 

maximum penalty amounts, leaving it no discretion in that area. 
8

declared the agency’s 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 and FY 2018 – 2022 Strategic Plans. 

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 2017, approximately 29 percent of new cases were assigned to Simplified Proceedings. 

The Review Commission projects that approximately 32 percent of new cases will be assigned to 

the Simplified Proceedings process in FY 2018 and FY 2019.
9

Simplified Proceedings Case Activity

FY 2014 through FY 2019

FY

2014 

Actual

FY

2015 

Actual

FY

2016 

Actual

FY

2017 

Actual

FY

2018 

Estimate

FY

2019

Estimate

New Cases 2,017 2,164 2,183 2,168 2,300 2,300

Cases 

Assigned to 

Simplified 

Proceedings

708 586 738 630 750 750

Anticipated Administrative Law Judge Workload for FY 2019

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.
10

Administrative Law Judge Workloads

The following table provides actual Administrative Law Judge workloads for FY 2014 – 2017 and 

estimated workloads for FY 2018 and 2019.

FY 2014

Actual

FY 2015

Actual

FY 2016

Actual

FY 2017

Actual

FY 2018

Estimate

FY 2019

Estimate

OSHA Inspections2: 36,163 35,817 31,948 32, 369 30,000 30,840

Administrative Law Judge Workload:

A. Case Inventory,

Start of Year 909 888 1,099 1,109 1,129 1,219

B. New Cases 2,017 2,164 2,183 2,168 2,300 2,350

C. Total Caseload 2,926 3,052 3,282 3,277 3,429 3,569

D. Disposals

(1) With 

Hearing 50 61 42 44 40 45

(2) Mandatory 

Settlement 

Conferences

66 56 86 85 70 70

(3) Without 

Hearing 1,922 1,836 2,045 2,019 2,100 2,150

E. Total

 Dispositions 2,038 1,953 2,173 2,148 2,210 2,265

Total Case 

Inventory, 

End of Year 888 1,099 1,109 1,129 1,219 1,304

 

2 Provided by OSHA.
11

Staffing

The OCALJ requires 26 FTE positions in FY 2019 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 goals at the 

Administrative Law Judge level. 

The Chief Administrative Law Judge:

• Reviews and screens all docketed cases, determines their level of complexity,

and assigns each case 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 2018 CR FY 2019 Request

$ FTE $ FTE

Administrative Law 

Judge Function 5.4 26 5.3 26

Strategic Plan and Outcome Goals

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 the period FY 2018 through FY 2022. The revised plan focuses on four goals 

of (1) Promptly and fairly resolving the cases before it, including reducing the average age of 

Review-level cases; (2) Enhancing transparency of its operations; (3) Promoting organizational 

excellence; and (4) Managing agency resources in a manner that instills public trust. It also 

identifies innovative and comprehensive strategies to achieve strategic goals and objectives. The 
12

Review Commission’s Strategic Plan for FY 2018 – 2022 includes the following goals and 

outcomes related to this function:

Public Service Goal Outcome Goals

Promptly and fairly 

resolving cases, including 

reducing the average age 

of cases pending at the 

agency.

• Develop and implement case management practices that will minimize 

the average age of all pending ALJ-level cases.

• Ensure that a significant proportion of both complex and non-complex 

cases at the ALJ level are resolved within one year to 20 months from 

docketing.3

• Provide training opportunities to (1) ALJs and (2) all attorneys and 

support staff, in order to enhance their capabilities on technical and 

legal issues, legal writing, ethics, and technology and case 

management.

OCALJ will advance this strategic goal through the following strategies:

 Expedite the assignment of cases to ALJs.

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

 Closely monitor case performance and improve case management information systems 

and reports. 

 Conduct early review and screen potentially complex cases to expedite the disposition of 

such cases. 

 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, including a review of recommendations resulting from the evaluation of 

the Mandatory Settlement Part. 

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.

 Continue to use a team of judges to handle, on a rotational basis, extremely complex 

 

3 Complex cases have one or more of the following characteristics: intricacies of the law; number of parties; volume 

of documents, including transcripts; large number of witnesses (including expert witnesses in such fields as 

engineering, architecture, construction, soil, physics, epidemiology, pathology, neurology, and infectious diseases); 

length of the trial; large proposed penalties; number of alleged violations, items (including distinct and separate 

items), and affirmative defenses; technical, novel, difficult or new standards raised; type of cases, such as those 

involving toxins (such as asbestos and lead); or extensive pre-trial discovery, including large numbers of 

interrogatories, conferences, and motions.
13

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

settlement discussions.

The following are the performance goals for the OCALJ for fiscal years 2015 through 2019:

Outcome 

Goals

Performance

Measures

FY

2015

Actual

(Target)

FY

2016

Actual

(Target)

FY

2017

Actual

(Target)

FY

2018

(Target)

FY 

2019

(Target)

Develop and 

implement 

case 

management 

practices that 

will 

minimize the 

average age 

of all 

pending ALJlevel cases.

Whether new 

case 

management 

practices have 

been developed 

and 

implemented.

New goal 

developed to 

support the FY 

2018 – FY 

2022 Strategic 

Plan.

New goal 

developed to 

support the FY 

2018 – FY 

2022 Strategic 

Plan.

New goal 

developed to 

support the 

FY 2018 – FY 

2022 Strategic 

Plan.

75% of all 

pleadings 

received in 

our electronic 

filing system 

would have 

been initiated 

electronically.

100% of all 

pleadings 

received in 

our electronic 

filing system 

would have 

been initiated 

electronically.

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.

4

-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.

-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.

95%

Target met

-Dispose of 

90% of 

conventional

cases within 

17 months.

88%

Target not 

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 

95% 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 

95% of 

settlement 

part cases 

within 19 

months.

 

4 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.
14

Outcome 

Goals

Performance

Measures

FY

2015

Actual

(Target)

FY

2016

Actual

(Target)

FY

2017

Actual

(Target)

FY

2018

(Target)

FY 

2019

(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

93%

Target not 

met

-Dispose of 

95% of 

complex cases 

within 20 

months.

86%

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

(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)

Pro rata share 

of the 

agency’s 

training 

resources was 

devoted.

Target met

(Continue to 

designate a 

pro rata share 

of the 

agency’s 

training 

resources)

New goal 

developed to 

support the FY 

2018 – FY 

2022 Strategic 

Plan.

New goal 

developed to 

support the 

FY 2018 – FY 

2022 Strategic 

Plan.

Provide 

training 

opportunities 

to (1) ALJs 

and (2) all 

attorneys and 

support staff, 

in order to 

enhance their 

capabilities on 

technical and 

legal issues, 

legal writing, 

Increased 

attendance and 

participation in 

training 

opportunities, 

internal and/or 

external, for 

ALJs and all 

attorneys and 

support staff.

New goal 

developed to 

support the FY 

2018 – FY 

2022 Strategic 

Plan.

New goal 

developed to 

support the FY 

2018 – FY 

2022 Strategic 

Plan.

New goal 

developed to 

support the 

FY 2018 – FY 

2022 Strategic 

Plan.

Attendance 

and 

participation 

by ALJs and 

attorneys and 

support staff, 

at no less than 

one training 

opportunity 

annually, 

internally

and/or 

externally.

Attendance 

and 

participation 

in at least one 

training 

opportunity 

devoted to 

management 

of electronic 

documents 

prior to and 

during 

hearings (i.e., 
15

Outcome 

Goals

Performance

Measures

FY

2015

Actual

(Target)

FY

2016

Actual

(Target)

FY

2017

Actual

(Target)

FY

2018

(Target)

FY 

2019

(Target)

ethics, and 

technology 

and case 

management.

e-filing, 

electronic 

discovery, or 

electronic 

exhibits).

Publish 

significant 

procedural 

decisions and 

nondispositive 

orders 

separately 

from other 

decisions.

Key decisions 

and orders 

published within 

4 months of the 

order.

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)

15 key 

decisions and 

orders 

published.

Target not 

met

(20 key 

decisions and 

orders 

published)

New goal 

developed to 

support the 

FY 2018 – FY

2022 Strategic 

Plan.

New goal 

developed to 

support the 

FY 2018 – FY 

2022 Strategic 

Plan.

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 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.
16

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.

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. The counsel also 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 Office of the Executive 

Secretary, who is responsible for the docketing of cases at both the ALJ and Commission levels. 

The Executive Secretary 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) 

and the novelty of the issues presented for review.
17

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 without a full complement of Commissioners for nine months in FY 

2017. This was the result of one Commissioner’s term expiring in April of 2015 without the 

confirmation of a new Commissioner until August 2017. In addition, another Commissioner’s 

term expired in April of 2017 and was confirmed in August 2017 as well. Notwithstanding the 

lack of a full complement of Commissioners for the fiscal year, the Commission resolved 14

cases and met one of its GPRA goal targets at the Commission level during FY 2017.

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 2019

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 go to hearings before 

the Review Commission’s ALJs are increasingly 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 2017, the Commission had 29 cases pending on its docket at the beginning of the year. It 

received 13 new cases and resolved 14 cases by year-end. Thus, the Commission entered FY 

2018 with 28 cases pending review. During FY 2018, the Commission estimates receiving 26

new cases and resolving 28 cases, ending FY 2018 with 26 cases pending review. For FY 2019, 

the Commission anticipates receiving 26 new cases, and disposing of 27 cases, ending that year 

with an inventory of 25 cases.
18

Commission Case Activity

FY 2014

Actual

FY 2015

Actual

FY 2016

Actual

FY 2017

Actual

FY 2018

Estimate

FY 2019

Estimate

New Cases:

Cases Directed 

for Review: 11 13 14 12 24 24

Other New 

Cases:

Interlocutory 

Appeals:

0 0 0 0 1 1

Remands: 0 1 1 0 1 1

Other: 0 0 0 1 0 0

Total Other 

New Cases:

0 0 1 1 2 2

Total New Cases: 11 14 15 13 26 26

Case Inventory 

from Prior Year: 36 35 33 29 28 26

Total Caseload: 47 49 48 42 54 52

Dispositions: 12 16 19 14 28 27

Case Inventory, 

End of Year: 35 33 29 28 26 25

Staffing

The Commission function requires 28 FTE positions in FY 2019. 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 2018 CR FY 2019 Request

Commission 

Function

$ FTE $ FTE

5.9 28 5.7 28

Strategic Plan and Outcome Goals

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 the period FY 2018 through FY 2022. The revised plan focuses on four goals 

of: (1) Promptly and fairly resolving the cases before it, including reducing the average age of 
19

Review-level cases; (2) Enhancing transparency of its operations; (3) Promoting organizational 

excellence; and (4) Managing agency resources in a manner that instills public trust. It also 

identifies innovative and comprehensive strategies to achieve the strategic goals and objectives. 

The Review Commission’s Strategic Plan for FY 2018–2022 includes the following goals and 

outcomes related to this function:

Public Service Goal Outcome Goals

5

Promptly and fairly 

resolving cases, including 

reducing the average age of 

cases pending at the 

agency.

• Resolve all priority cases at the Agency in a timely manner.

6

• Develop and implement case management practices that will 

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

• Reduce the average age of all pending Review-level cases to 

20 months from direction for review.

7

• Reduce the number of Review-level cases over two years in 

age. 

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

 Focus on reducing the average age of the oldest pending cases and of all pending 

cases, with immediate aim of developing and implementing improvements in case 

management. 

 Expedite the disposition of priority cases that are designated as requiring rapid action 

(e.g., court remands, interlocutory reviews, and certain Rule 60(b) cases), such that 

they are disposed of within six months of designation. 

 Expand knowledge management and research tools to accelerate the preparation of 

cases and issuance of decisions. 

 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. 

 Use individual performance standards that support priorities in the Review 

Commission’s strategic and annual performance plans. 

 

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

or prosecutions are being pursued.

6 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, for instance – 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 timeframe will be tolled. 

7 External factors, such as lack of a quorum or recusal of a Commissioner, may adversely affect the Review 

Commission’s ability to meet these goals.
20

 Implement appropriate changes to the agency’s procedures to expedite case 

processing. 

The following are the performance goals for the Commission for FY 2015 - 2019:

Outcome 

Goals

Performance 

Measures

FY

2015

Actual

(Target)

FY

2016

Actual

(Target)

FY

2017

Actual

(Target)

FY

2018

(Target)

FY 

2019

(Target)

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%)

New goal 

developed to 

support the 

FY 2018 – FY 

2022 Strategic 

Plan.

New goal 

developed to 

support the FY 

2018 – FY 

2022 Strategic 

Plan.

Resolve all 

priority cases 

at the Agency 

in a timely 

manner.

Percent of 

priority cases 

disposed of 

within 6 

months.

New goal 

developed to 

support the 

FY 2018 – FY 

2022 Strategic 

Plan.

New goal 

developed to 

support the 

FY 2018 – FY 

2022 Strategic 

Plan.

New goal 

developed to 

support the 

FY 2018 – FY 

2022 Strategic 

Plan.

100% 100%

Develop and 

implement 

case 

management 

practices that 

will minimize 

the average 

age of all 

pending 

Commissionlevel cases.

Average age of 

all pending 

Commissionlevel cases.

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) 

Implemented

case 

management 

practices. The 

estimated 

average age of 

all pending 

Commissionlevel cases is 

28 months.

Target not 

met

(Continue to 

implement 

case 

management 

practices.

22 months or 

less)8

New goal 

developed to 

support the 

FY 2018 – FY 

2022 Strategic 

Plan.

New goal 

developed to 

support the 

FY 2018 – FY 

2022 Strategic 

Plan.

 

8 The Commission operated without a full complement of Commissioners for nine months in FY 2017. The lack of 

a quorum affected the Review Commission’s ability to meet two of its goals.
21

Outcome 

Goals

Performance 

Measures

FY

2015

Actual

(Target)

FY

2016

Actual

(Target)

FY

2017

Actual

(Target)

FY

2018

(Target)

FY 

2019

(Target)

Develop and 

implement 

case 

management 

practices that 

will minimize 

the average 

age of all 

pending 

Review-level 

cases.

Whether case 

management 

practices have 

been developed 

and 

implemented.

New goal 

developed to 

support the 

FY 2018 – FY 

2022 Strategic 

Plan.

New goal 

developed to

support the 

FY 2018 – FY 

2022 Strategic 

Plan.

New goal 

developed to 

support the 

FY 2018 – FY 

2022 Strategic 

Plan.

Assess 

whether new 

case 

management 

practices 

should be 

developed and 

implemented.

Develop new 

case 

management 

practices.

Reduce the 

average age 

of all pending 

Review-level 

cases to 20 

months from

direction for 

review.

Average age of 

all pending 

Review-level 

cases.

New goal 

developed to 

support the FY 

2018 – FY 

2022 Strategic 

Plan.

New goal 

developed to 

support the FY 

2018 – FY 

2022 Strategic 

Plan.

New goal 

developed to 

support the FY 

2018 – FY 

2022 Strategic 

Plan.

Average age 

of all Reviewlevel cases

reduced to 26

months.

9

Average age 

of all Reviewlevel cases 

reduced to 24

months.

Reduce the 

number of 

Review-level 

cases over 

two years in 

age.

Percent 

reduction in the 

number of 

Review-level 

cases over two 

years in age.

New goal 

developed to 

support the FY 

2018 – FY 

2022 Strategic 

Plan.

New goal 

developed to 

support the FY 

2018 – FY 

2022 Strategic 

Plan.

New goal 

developed to 

support the FY 

2018 – FY 

2022 Strategic 

Plan.

Reduce the 

share of 

Review-level 

cases over two 

years in age as 

follows: No 

greater than 

40% of all 

cases10

Reduce the 

share of 

Review-level 

cases over two 

years in age as 

follows: No 

greater than 

33% of all 

cases

 

9 For instance, for FY 2018, the target goal now calculates the average age of a Review-level case based on: (1) 

cases that are docketed at the review level and decided during the time frame of October 1, 2017 through September

30, 2018; and (2) the age of all cases pending on September 30, 2018.

10 For instance, for FY 2018, the target goal now takes into account case production from October 1, 2017 through 

September 30, 2018, with the final percentage measured as of the end of the FY.
22

Outcome 

Goals

Performance 

Measures

FY

2015

Actual

(Target)

FY

2016

Actual

(Target)

FY

2017

Actual

(Target)

FY

2018

(Target)

FY 

2019

(Target)

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 were 

fully 

implemented.

Target met

(Implement 

case 

management 

practices)

Case 

management 

practices were 

fully 

implemented.

Target met

(Implement 

case 

management 

practices)

Average age 

of the oldest 

15 percent of 

pending 

Commission 

level cases 

increased by 4

percent from 

FY 2014 level.

Target not 

met

(Reduce 

average age of 

the oldest 15 

percent of 

pending 

Commission 

level cases by 

10 percent 

from FY 2014 

level)

New goal 

developed to 

support the FY 

2018 – FY 

2022 Strategic 

Plan.

New goal 

developed to 

support the FY 

2018 – FY 

2022 Strategic 

Plan.

 
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 2019

During FY 2019, OEXD 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 FY 2015 and FY 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. In FY 2017 we continued to enhance and customize the e-filing system to 

better support the user community. In FY 2018 and FY 2019 we will continue these efforts.

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 positions in FY 2019. 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 2018 CR FY 2019 Request

$ FTE $ FTE

Executive Director 

Function 1.8 8 1.6 8
25

Strategic Plan and Outcome Goals

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 

2018 through 2022. The revised plan focuses on four goals of: (1) Promptly and fairly resolving 

the cases before it, including reducing the average age of Review-level cases; (2) Enhancing

transparency of its operations; (3) Promoting organizational excellence; and (4) Managing 

agency resources in a manner that instills public trust. It also identifies innovative and 

comprehensive strategies to achieve the strategic goals and objectives. 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 userfriendly, accessible to people with disabilities, and serves 

as a useful repository for information about the agency 

and its adjudicatory activities.

• Broaden the Review Commission’s outreach activities to 

the regulated community.

Encouraging a culture of 

professionalism, mutual 

respect, and 

organizational pride; 

ensuring that staff 

members are adequately 

trained and developed.

• Recruit, invest in, and value all employees through 

professional development, workplace flexibilities, fair 

treatment, and recognition.

• Ensure that employees are aware of the agency’s mission 

and how they contribute to its accomplishments.

Providing responsible 

stewardship of resources 

to monitor, evaluate, and 

improve programs and 

processes in order to 

better accomplish the 

agency’s mission.

• Develop and present an annual budget and performance 

plan that clearly presents how the organization will 

accomplish government-wide management priorities, 

agency-wide goals, and organizational goals.

• Improve technology infrastructure through efficiencies 

and investments (e.g., training, equipment, services) to 

support the effective use of broadband, cyber security, and 

energy efficiency.

• Conduct all internal and external agency business in an 

ethical and timely manner.
26

The OEXD will advance its strategic goals through the following strategies:

 Develop and present an annual budget and performance plan that clearly presents how the 

organization will accomplish government-wide management priorities, agency-wide 

goals, and organizational goals.

 Provide greater public access to Review Commission activities, information, and 

decisions, including education and outreach for LEP individuals and posting procedural 

decisions and non-dispositive orders on the Review Commission’s website.

3. Create a culture that incorporates core values and provides a work environment that 

encourages diversity and workplace policies and programs that enable employees to 

excel, including special emphasis programs (e.g., People with Disabilities, Federal 

Women’s Program, Hispanic Employment Program), telework policies, family-friendly 

policies, and wellness programs.

4. Enhance employee development and learning opportunities by devoting available 

budgetary resources to staff training.

5. Develop and implement recruitment strategies to ensure a highly qualified and diverse 

workforce.

6. Streamline IT operations, simplify day-to-day management and maintenance, and create a 

more stable operating environment by eliminating duplication, investing in standardized 

platforms, realizing cloud first opportunities, and minimizing storage and application 

sprawl and locally housed servers.

7. Improve network/communications performance to ensure commission personnel have 

seamless access to systems necessary to perform their work in a timely fashion.

8. Maintain an information security and privacy management program through acceptance 

and deployment of appropriate federally mandated guidelines and enforcing active 

policies. Ensure annual FISMA audits are performed and consider having an external 

Inspector General (IG) (OSHRC does not have an IG) supplement the external 

independent audit.
27

The following are the performance goals for the Office of the Executive Director for FY 2015 -

2019:

Outcome 

Goals

Performance 

Measures

FY

2015

Actual

(Target)

FY

2016

Actual

(Target)

FY

2017

Actual

(Target)

FY

2018

(Target)

FY

2019

(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 was 

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 6 days 

after issuance.

All material posted 

no later than 5

days after 

issuance.

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.

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 

Commission 

documents 

were 

reviewed, 

translated, 

and posted 

on the 

agency’s 

website.

Target met

(Review 

documents to 

be translated 

and posted 

on the 

agency’s 

website)

New goal 

developed to 

support the FY 

2018 – FY 

2022 Strategic 

Plan.

New goal 

developed to 

support the FY 

2018 – FY 2022 

Strategic Plan.
28

Outcome 

Goals

Performance 

Measures

FY

2015

Actual

(Target)

FY

2016

Actual

(Target)

FY

2017

Actual

(Target)

FY

2018

(Target)

FY

2019

(Target)

Broaden the 

Review 

Commission’s 

outreach 

activities to 

the regulated 

community.

-Participation in 

professional 

conferences and 

meetings and 

strategic 

engagement with 

the regulated 

community.

-Creation of 

electronic 

subscription 

service.

New goal 

developed to 

support the 

FY 2018 –

FY 2022 

Strategic 

Plan.

New goal 

developed to 

support the 

FY 2018 –

FY 2022 

Strategic 

Plan.

New goal 

developed to 

support the 

FY 2018 –

FY 2022 

Strategic 

Plan.

Increased 

participation in 

at least two 

activities or

meetings that 

promote 

strategic 

engagement to 

disseminate 

information 

including 

trends and 

services (e.g., 

LEP) provided 

by the agency.

-Use of alert 

service to 

engage the 

public.

Increased 

participation in at 

least two activities 

or meetings that 

promote strategic 

engagement to 

disseminate 

information 

including trends 

and services (e.g., 

LEP) provided by 

the agency.

-Monitor the use 

of alert service 

used to engage the 

public.

Recruit, invest 

in, and value 

all employees 

through 

professional 

development, 

workplace 

flexibilities, 

fair treatment, 

and 

recognition.

-Recruit, develop, 

and retain a 

highly motivated, 

talented, and 

diverse 

workforce to 

accomplish its 

mission.

-Identify areas in 

which the agency 

can enhance 

diversity and 

talent through 

annual analysis 

of the MD-71511

guidance.

New goal 

developed to 

support the 

FY 2018 –

FY 2022 

Strategic 

Plan.

New goal 

developed to 

support the 

FY 2018 –

FY 2022 

Strategic 

Plan.

New goal 

developed to 

support the 

FY 2018 –

FY 2022 

Strategic 

Plan.

-Attract 

qualified and 

diverse 

candidates, 

including 

veterans and 

persons with 

disabilities.

-Annually 

review and/or 

update agency 

directives 

pertaining to 

workplace 

flexibilities 

(e.g., hours of 

work, 

telework).

-Ensure that the 

agency’s 

performance 

management 

system(s) are 

aligned with its 

goals and 

objectives.

-Enhance 

employee 

development and 

learning 

opportunities by 

making budgetary 

resources available 

for staff training.

-Annually review 

and/or update 

agency directives 

pertaining to 

workplace 

flexibilities (e.g., 

hours of work, 

telework).

 

11 Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Management Directive 715 – Reporting Requirement for Federal 

Agencies
29

Outcome 

Goals

Performance 

Measures

FY

2015

Actual

(Target)

FY

2016

Actual

(Target)

FY

2017

Actual

(Target)

FY

2018

(Target)

FY

2019

(Target)

Ensure that 

employees are 

aware of the 

agency’s 

mission and 

how they 

contribute to 

its accomplishments.

Communicate 

significant 

organizational 

accomplishments 

with staff.

New goal 

developed to 

support the 

FY 2018 –

FY 2022 

Strategic 

Plan.

New goal 

developed to 

support the 

FY 2018 –

FY 2022 

Strategic 

Plan.

New goal 

developed to 

support the 

FY 2018 –

FY 2022 

Strategic 

Plan.

-Communicate 

significant 

organizational 

accomplishmen

ts with staff 

during allhands staff 

meetings and 

during 

supervisory/

employee 

meetings.

-Use results of 

the annual 

Federal 

Employee 

Viewpoint 

Survey to 

assess 

employees’ 

knowledge of 

how their work 

relates to the 

agency’s goals 

and priorities.

-Communicate 

significant 

organizational 

accomplishments 

with staff during 

all-hands staff 

meetings and 

during 

supervisory/

employee 

meetings.

-Use results of the 

annual Federal 

Employee 

Viewpoint Survey 

to assess managers 

and supervisor’s 

communication 

with employees 

about the agency’s 

goals and 

priorities.
30

Outcome 

Goals

Performance 

Measures

FY

2015

Actual

(Target)

FY

2016

Actual

(Target)

FY

2017

Actual

(Target)

FY

2018

(Target)

FY

2019

(Target)

Develop and 

present an 

annual budget 

and 

performance 

plan that 

clearly 

presents 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.

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)

Agency 

program 

goals are 

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).
31

Outcome 

Goals

Performance 

Measures

FY

2015

Actual

(Target)

FY

2016

Actual

(Target)

FY

2017

Actual

(Target)

FY

2018

(Target)

FY

2019

(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.

.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 

met

(.70 percent 

of basic 

payroll 

devoted to 

staff training 

and 

development)

.80 percent 

of basic 

payroll 

devoted to 

staff training 

and 

development.

Target met12

(.80 percent 

of basic 

payroll 

devoted to 

staff training 

and 

development)

New goal 

developed to 

support the FY 

2018 – FY 

2022 Strategic 

Plan.

New goal 

developed to 

support the FY 

2018 – FY 2022 

Strategic Plan.

 

12 The Review Commission devoted 0.80 percent of basic payroll to staff training and development this fiscal year. 

However, we were able to expend only 0.59 percent due to a nearly eight-month Continuing Resolution which 

postponed the timely allocation of training funds.
32

Outcome 

Goals

Performance 

Measures

FY

2015

Actual

(Target)

FY

2016

Actual

(Target)

FY

2017

Actual

(Target)

FY

2018

Actual

(Target)

FY

2019

(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.

13

-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.

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)

Reviewed 

agency 

policies, 

organizational 

charts, and

position 

descriptions to 

identify 

knowledge 

gap 

vulnerabilities.

Target met

(Evaluate and 

address KM

vulnerabilities 

to further 

enhance 

agency 

operations and 

programs)

New goal 

developed to 

support the FY 

2018 – FY 

2022 Strategic 

Plan.

New goal 

developed to 

support the FY 

2018 – FY 

2022 Strategic 

Plan.

 

13 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. 
33

Outcome 

Goals

Performance 

Measures

FY

2015

Actual

(Target)

FY

2016

Actual

(Target)

FY

2017

Actual

(Target)

FY

2018

(Target)

FY

2019

(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.

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)

-Migration of 

Mail (exchange) 

to FedRAMP

certified Office 

365.

-Moved locally 

administered 

share point 

(intranet) to 

Office 365.

-Instituted 

changes to efiling system to 

accommodate 

the user 

community.

-Encrypted and 

upgraded 

software on 

agency laptops.

-Started

deployment of 

two factor

authentication

using personal 

identity 

verification.

Target met

(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).

-Reduce 

physical 

servers

through 

virtualization.

-Reduce the 

number of 

operating 

systems in 

use.

-Increase 

bandwidth for 

migration to 

cloud 

efficiencies.
34

Outcome 

Goals

Performance 

Measures

FY

2015

Actual

(Target)

FY

2016

Actual

(Target)

FY

2017

Actual

(Target)

FY

2018

(Target)

FY

2019

(Target)

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. 

-Moved to a 

shared printing 

environment 

by using 

installed 

copiers as 

default printers 

moving away 

from desktop 

printers. 

-Expanded 

Citrix to 

accommodate 

additional 

telework staff.

Target met

(Increase the 

percentage of 

supplies and 

equipment 

procured from 

eco-friendly 

sources)

-Use of virtual 

machines and 

all equipment 

purchases meet 

EPA Energy 

Efficiency 

standards. 

-Expanded 

Citrix to 

accommodate 

additional 

telework staff. 

Target met 

(Increase the 

percentage of 

supplies and 

equipment 

procured from 

eco-friendly 

sources)

-Expanded the 

use of Virtual 

Machines.

-Moved

infrastructures 

to FedRAMP

providers.

Target met

(Continue 

monitoring to 

ensure supplies 

and equipment 

are procured 

from ecofriendly 

sources)

New goal 

developed to 

support the 

FY 2018 – FY 

2022 Strategic 

Plan.

New goal 

developed to 

support the 

FY 2018 –

FY 2022 

Strategic 

Plan.

Enhance the 

agency’s 

FOIA 

processing 

system by 

developing 

internet-based 

capabilities.

Development of 

an electronic 

form and/or 

request tracking 

capability.

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 

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 

Increased use of 

FOIA online 

form and 

dedicated FOIA 

email address 

expanded 

tracking 

capability and 

improved 

communication 

with requesters; 

eliminated need 

to implement 

online tracking 

system.

New goal 

developed to 

support the 

FY 2018 – FY 

2022 Strategic 

Plan.

New goal 

developed to 

support the 

FY 2018 –

FY 2022 

Strategic 

Plan.
35

Outcome 

Goals

Performance 

Measures

FY

2015

Actual

(Target)

FY

2016

Actual

(Target)

FY

2017

Actual

(Target)

FY

2018

(Target)

FY

2019

(Target)

processing and 

expediting 

FOIA requests 

electronically)

expediting 

FOIA requests 

electronically)

Target met

(Explore 

advanced 

options for 

online tracking 

capability)

Conduct all 

internal and 

external 

agency 

business in an 

ethical and 

timely 

manner.

Promote an 

ethical culture 

within the 

Review 

Commission 

through 

leadership, 

awareness, 

resources, and 

oversight.

New goal 

developed to 

support the FY 

2018 – FY 

2022 Strategic 

Plan.

New goal 

developed to 

support the FY 

2018 – FY 2022 

Strategic Plan.

New goal 

developed to 

support the FY 

2018 – FY 2022 

Strategic Plan.

-Provide inperson ethics 

training to all 

agency filers.

-Increase 

opportunities 

for outreach 

to all agency 

employees on 

ethics issues.

-Provide inperson ethics 

training to all 

agency filers.

-Develop a 

plan to 

decrease

response time 

to ethics 

inquiries.
V. BUDGET BY OBJECT

CLASSIFICATION

CATEGORY
37

Budget by Object Classification (BOC) Category

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

$12,615,000 for FY 2019 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 2019 by object classification category is shown in the table below, 

along with the FY 2018 Request and the FY 2017 actual amounts. A narrative explanation of the 

amount requested for each object classification follows the table.

Object Classification Table

Fiscal Years 2017, 2018 and 2019

(Dollars in Thousands)

 Change

 FY 2018 CR –

 FY 2019 Request

Budget Object 

Class

FY 2017

Actual

FY 2018

CR

FY 2019

Request $ %

11.0 Personnel 

Compensation 6,524 $7,770 $7,343 -427 -5.5

12.0 Personnel Benefits 1,950 2,153 1,970 -183 -8.5

Subtotal Personnel

Services 8,474 9,923 9,313 -610 -6.15

21.0 Travel 150 185 185 -0- -0-

22.0 Transportation of 

Things 13 10 10 -0- -0-

23.1 Space Rental 

Payments (GSA) 1,477 1,530 1,625 +95 +6.21

23.3 Communications, 

Utilities and Misc. 296 272 272 -0- -0-

24.0 Printing and 

Reproduction 20 17 17 -0- -0-

25.0 Other Services 1,900 914 909 -5 -0.55

26.0 Supplies and 

Materials 72 43 43 -0- -0-

31.0 Equipment 400 241 241 -0- -0-

Unobligated 

Balance 423 -0- -0- -0- -0-

Grand Total 13,225 13,135 12,615 -610 -4.61
38

Budget Object Classification Detail

11.0 Personnel Compensation

Change FY 2018 CR – FY 2019 Request

FY 2018 CR FY 2019 Request Amount Percent

7,770,000 7,343,000 -427,000 -5.5

The Review Commission requests $7,343,000 to fund direct payroll costs in FY 2019. 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 2018 CR – FY 2019 Request

FY 2018 CR FY 2019 Request Amount Percent

2,153,000 1,970,000 -183,000 -8.5

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

benefits in FY 2019. 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 2018 CR – FY 2019 Request

FY 2018 CR FY 2019 Request Amount Percent

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

The requested amount for travel in FY 2019 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 2018 CR – FY 2019 Request

FY 2018 CR FY 2019 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. 
39

23.1 Rental Payments to GSA

Change FY 2018 CR – FY 2019 Request

FY 2018 CR FY 2019 Request Amount Percent

1,530,000 1,625,000 +95,000 +6.21

The request includes $1,625,000 for office space rental for the National and Regional Offices. 

These projected rent costs are based on FY 2019 estimates provided by the General Services 

Administration (GSA) to the Review Commission. 

23.3 Communications, Utilities, and Miscellaneous Charges

Change FY 2018 CR – FY 2019 Request

FY 2018 CR FY 2019 Request Amount Percent

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

The Review Commission requests $272,000 for communication costs in FY 2019. 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 2018 CR – FY 2019 Request

FY 2018 CR FY 2019 Request Amount Percent

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

The requested amount for printing in FY 2019 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 2019. 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.
40

25.0 Other Services

Change FY 2018 CR – FY 2019 Request

FY 2018 CR FY 2019 Request Amount Percent

914,000 909,000 -5,000 -0.55

The requested amount for other services in FY 2019 is $909,000. 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 $481,646 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, $301,275 for financial and administrative services 

provided by the Bureau of the Fiscal Service (BFS), $63,590 for building security (estimated) 

provided by the Department of Homeland Security, and $40,000 for an evaluation of OSHRC’s 

security practices by an Inspector General. 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 ($90,000), 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 2018 CR – FY 2019 Request

FY 2018 CR FY 2019 Request Amount Percent

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

The requested amount for supplies and materials in FY 2019 is $43,000. This amount includes 

general office supplies ($22,000) and information technology supplies and software ($21,000). 
41

31.0 Equipment

Change FY 2018 CR – FY 2019 Request

FY 2018 CR FY 2019 Request Amount Percent

241,000 241,000 -0- -0-

The requested amount for equipment in FY 2019 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 

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
42

The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

Appropriation History

Fiscal 

Year

Request to 

Congress

House 

Allowance

Senate 

Allowance

Appropriation

1999 $8,050,000 $8,100,000 $8,100,000 $8,092,00014

2000 $8,500,000 $8,100,000 $8,500,000 $8,470,00015

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

2002 $8,964,000 $8,964,000 $8,964,000 $8,958,00016

2003 $9,577,000 $9,577,000 $9,577,000 $9,673,00017

2004 $10,115,000 $10,115,000 $9,610,000 $9,863,00018

2005 $10,516,000 $10,595,000 $10,595,000 $10,510,24019

2006 $10,510,000 $10,510,000 $10,510,000 $10,404,90020

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

2008 $10,696,000 $10,696,000 $10,696,000 $10,696,00021

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 $11,712,00022

2012 $12,773,000 $11,689,000 $11,689,000 $11,689,00023

2013 $11,965,000 $11,667,000 $11,667,000 $11,666,90824

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 $13,225,000

2018 $12,615,000 $12,875,000 $13,225,000

Note: a 2018 full-year appropriation was not enacted for 2018 at the time the Budget was prepared.

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

24 Reduced to $11,056,659 by P.L. 113-6 and Sequestration Order issued March 1, 2013
43

Authorized Full Time Positions By Function

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019

Actual Estimate Estimate

Administrative Law Judge:

AL-II 1 1 1

AL-III 11 11 11

GS-14 4 5 5

GS-13 1 0 0

GS-12 1 1 1

GS-11 0 0 0

GS-10 1 1 1

GS-9 1 2 2

GS-8 4 5 5

Sub-total 24 26 26

Commission:

Executive Level III 1 1 1

Executive Level IV 2 2 2

ES-00 2 2 2

GS-15 4 5 5

GS-14 5 6 6

GS-13 1 5 5

GS-12 4 1 1

GS-11 2 3 3

GS-9 1 2 2

GS-8 1 1 1

GS-7 0 0 0

Sub-total 23 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 4 4 4

GS-11 0 0 0

GS-9 0 0 0

GS-7 0 1 1

Sub-total 7 8 8

Total full-time positions: 54 62 62