The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

OSHRC

FISCAL YEAR 2015

PERFORMANCE BUDGET AND JUSTIFICATION

March 2014
Table of Contents

Fiscal Year 2015 Performance Budget Justification

I. Introduction – Mission, Vision, and Strategic Goals .............................................1

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

III. Performance Budget Justification by Organizational Unit..................................8

IV. Budget by Object Classification Category ........................................................37

V. Other Tables........................................................................................................42
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 all parties are 

treated consistent with due process when disputes arise with OSHA.

Our 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 or failure to abate such alleged violations. The first is a trial level, which 

affords an opportunity for a hearing before a Review Commission Administrative Law Judge

(ALJ or judge). The judge’s decision becomes final unless the decision is directed for review to 

the Commission. The second level is a discretionary appellate review of the judge’s decision by 

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

Senate confirmation. Both before its judges and the Commissioners, the Review Commission 

provides fair and impartial adjudication of cases concerning the safety and health of employees’ 

working conditions in the United States.

Our principal (National) office is located in Washington, D.C. OSHRC also has two regional 

offices: one in Atlanta, GA, and one in Denver, CO. The regional offices are staffed with 

Administrative Law Judges who travel, as necessary, to adjudicate cases in locales near where 

the alleged workplace violations took place.

Vision Statement

The Review Commission strives to be:

 A Judicial Body that is – and recognized for being – objective, fair, prompt, 

professional, and respected.

 An Agency that creates a body of law through its decisions that define and 

explain the rights and responsibilities of employers and employees under the 

Act.
2

 A model Federal agency with highly effective processes, a highly motivated, 

qualified and diverse workforce, and modern information management, 

communications, and administrative systems.

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

improve its performance, service, and value to the American people.

Strategic Goals

OSHRC has three overarching strategic goals: 

1) Respect for the rule of law by assuring fair, just, and expeditious adjudication of disputes 

brought before the Commission and its judges.

 

2) Expanding transparency and openness by providing for stakeholder engagement and 

ensuring that the Review Commission keeps interested parties and the public it serves 

informed of the agency’s work at all levels, consistent with due process requirements.

3) 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

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

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission requests an appropriation of $12,651,000

to fund essential agency programs and support 66 full-time equivalent (FTE) positions in FY 

2015.

In recent years the Review Commission’s actual FTE level was lower than the estimated FTE 

ceiling. As a result, we have decided to rebase our FTE level to reflect a more realistic estimate 

in FY 2014 and FY 2015. The funding requested for FY 2015 assumes the support for 66 FTEs.

This level assumes three additional FTE positions to support the ALJs in the Office of the Chief 

Administrative Law Judge and one additional FTE position, a supervisory attorney advisor, to 

support the Commission function.

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, and the continued development and future implementation of an 

e-filing initiative, discussed below.

Our case intake at the ALJ level increased about fifty percent between FY 2009 and FY 2011. 

Our FY 2012 case intake was 31 percent above that of FY 2009 and in FY 2013 it was

approximately 8 percent above that of FY 2009. At the same time, our end-of-year case 

inventory in FY 2012 was about 48 percent above that of FY 2009 and in FY 2013 was 17 

percent above that of FY 2009. While recent data suggests that the number of new cases may be 

stabilizing, both our case intake and inventory continue to be above FY 2009 levels and we 

continue to have an inventory of challenging complex cases. Thus, to continue our mission of 

adjudicating OSHA-issued workplace safety citations at an acceptable pace, and to avoid the 

type of severe case backlog that previously affected the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review 

Commission, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission requests an appropriation 

of $12,651,000. This amount will allow the Review Commission to fund essential agency 

programs assuming 66 FTE positions in FY 2015. It would also support the future development 

and implementation of an e-filing initiative, discussed below.

Our FY 2015 estimated costs include:

 $9,061,865 to support direct payroll and related costs for 66 FTE positions. These costs 

are approximately 72 percent of the Review Commission’s budget request. This level of 

FTE will be used to handle the increased case load which has developed over the past 

several fiscal years, especially at the ALJ level.

 $1,517,410 for office space rent.
4

 $463,000 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).

 $700,000 for OSHRC’s e-filing initiative.

 Funds to enable the Review Commission to complete its annual performance plan goals 

and targets and to implement government-wide and Review Commission specific 

transparency initiatives.

E-filing Initiative

The Review Commission is exploring information technology (IT) infrastructure upgrades to

support cloud-based initiatives including an electronic filing (e-filing) solution which would 

permit the electronic filing and service of litigation documents. The e-filing solution is intended 

to become an essential part of an Agency-wide initiative to promote transparency, support

technology improvements, and integrate business process automation to improve accuracy and 

efficiency in case management practices.

In the last decade, because of increased case loads and diminishing resources, courts and 

agencies with adjudicatory responsibilities have been forced to employ innovative strategies to 

make more efficient use of existing and emerging technologies. The increased interest in e-filing 

and paperless filing procedures - equivalent to the process implemented by the federal district 

courts in the 1990s - is one such example of how judicial bodies are integrating technology into 

operations to achieve greater efficiency in the judicial process.

In December 2012, senior management officials at the Review Commission assembled a 

cross-divisional work circle to explore the feasibility of introducing e-filing at the agency. Later, 

the e-filing initiative was designated an essential part of the Agency’s five-year Strategic Plan. 

After several months, an e-filing work circle developed a list of the necessary components 

required to effectively define our e-filing requirement. This fiscal year the work circle issued a 

recommendation encouraging the development and implementation of an integrated, publicly 

accessible web-based case management system that allows parties to file case documents, 

Administrative Law Judges to create and manage dockets, and Commissioners to conduct 

appellate reviews. 

The e-filing initiative directly supports the Review Commission’s strategic and annual 

performance plans which are focused on the attainment of three separate goals: 1) Respect for 

the rule of law by assuring fair, just, and expeditious adjudication of disputes brought before the 

Commission and its judges; 2) Expanding transparency and openness by providing for 

stakeholder engagement and ensuring that the Review Commission keeps interested parties and 

the public it serves informed of the agency’s work at all levels, consistent with due process 

requirements; and 3) Responsible stewardship of agency resources to enhance operations and 

efficiencies and information technology, financial management, human resources, and real 

property to accomplish the agency’s statutory mandate and other applicable law.
5

In August 2013, the Review Commission held a Pre-solicitation Conference to encourage 

industry participation and involvement during the development of an e-filing performance work 

statement. The Agency awarded a competitive contract in September 2013 for the preliminary 

stages of development, deployment and implementation of the e-filing system, using funds from 

an unexpected rent rebate. These FY 2013 funds were obligated to support the required 

exploratory stages connected with the implementation of e-filing. 

The Review Commission’s fiscal year 2015 budget request includes $700,000 to support the efiling initiative. The cost estimate includes both one-time expenses for hardware, infrastructure 

improvements and system deployment costs, as well as the costs for annual services to support 

and maintain both the upgraded infrastructure and the e-filing system and software. The 

estimated first-year cost to improve and expand the IT infrastructure to permit the full utilization 

of a cloud-based e-filing solution includes funding to support additional bandwidth, redundancy 

and managed trusted internet protocol service, and technical support services. A detailed 

description of the first-year expenses for deployment and implementation and recurring annual 

costs for the support of the e-filing system is provided below. 

 First-year costs for Deployment and Implementation of e-filing total $700,0001

 Annual costs for Support and Maintenance of e-filing is estimated at $328,0002

The e-filing initiative is consistent with the Agency’s technology improvements plan and is an 

important step in our effort to improve accuracy and efficiency in case management practices as 

outlined in our Strategic Plan. The additional funding requested in our FY 2015 budget to 

support the e-filing initiative makes the achievement of our Strategic Plan goals one step closer 

to being realized. 

Language Access

The Review Commission has made significant progress in the development of a language access 

program. The existing policy was revised in 2011 to more efficiently implement key actions 

required by Executive Order 13166 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In 2012, the

Language Access Working Group (LAWG), a cross-divisional work circle responsible for

developing and evaluating the Agency’s language access program, was established. 

In fiscal year 2014, the Review Commission will implement an improved data collection 

methodology in order to more effectively identify Agency programs and services for which 

limited English proficiency (LEP) individuals are likely to request language access services. 

Based on the improved data, the Agency will be better able to identify the resources necessary to 

support the language access program. Currently, the Review Commission provides interpreter

 

1 This first-year cost estimate is based on the following assumptions: (1) one-time cost of $22,000 for hardware and 

provisioning of circuits; (2) one-time cost of $450,000 for services and licenses to support deployment of the e-filing 

system which includes the maintenance of equipment necessary to support cloud computing, licenses, data migration 

from existing systems, and enhancements to satisfy federal record keeping, security, and privacy requirements; and 

(3) a recurring annual cost of $228,000 for infrastructure-related services to support the initial infrastructure 

investment, including annual infrastructure maintenance. 

2 Estimate is based on annual costs of $100,000 for licenses and hosting fees and $228,000 for infrastructure-related 

costs and maintenance.
6

and translator services to LEP individuals who are a party or witness in a case pending review 

before the Agency.

3

In addition, a number of Agency documents are available electronically in 

Spanish translation.

Based on recent Department of Justice guidance, the Review Commission is exploring the 

feasibility of expanding the agency activities for which language assistance is made available to 

include settlement procedures and Freedom of Information Act services. In the next few months, 

the LAWG will initiate an education and outreach program designed to inform LEP individuals 

of the availability of language access services provided by the Agency. Based on the expected

success of the education and outreach effort, the Agency anticipates an increase in the request for 

language access services. 

 

3 The scope of agency activities covered by the Language Access Plan currently includes ALJ hearings, the 

Commission’s review processs, and associated procedures. 
7

FY 2015

Appropriations Language

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES 

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

$12,651,000.
III. PERFORMANCE

BUDGET

JUSTIFICATION BY

ORGANIZATIONAL

UNIT
8

Performance Justification by Organizational Unit

The Review Commission has three main offices which function in concert to achieve the 

agency’s overarching mission: 

1. The Administrative Law Judge function;

2. The Commission function;

3. The Office of Executive Director function.

Each office has staff and resources assigned exclusively to it, but all three work collaboratively 

to meet or exceed the Review Commission’s strategic goals. This separation of staff between the

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

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

Executive Director function supports both the Administrative Law Judge and Commission

functions and the Agency’s strategic planning efforts. 

Funding and staffing by function is as follows:

FUNDING (IN MILLIONS) AND FTE BY FUNCTION

FY2014 Enacted FY2015 Request

$ FTE $ FTE

Administrative Law Judge 4.4 25 5.5 28

Commission 5.3 28 5.4 29

Executive Director 1.7 9 1.7 9

 Total 11.4 62 12.6 66

 
9

Administrative Law Judge Function

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

Our judges travel around the country to conduct formal hearings and related proceedings in a 

fair, just and expeditious manner. The function is directly related to the public service goal of 

fair, just and expeditious adjudication of disputes brought before the Commission and its ALJs. 

The Administrative Law Judges report through the Chief Judge to the Chairman. However, they 

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

to the Federal rules. In the absence of a specific Review Commission rule, the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure are followed. The Commission’s rules are constructed and administered to 

secure the just and timely determination of every contested case.

Proceedings before the Review Commission’s Administrative Law Judges

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

Administrative Law Judge follow an established procedure, and are designed to provide all 

parties with a fair hearing and swift adjudication of their case. To contest all or part of a 

citation, penalty, or abatement period, an employer must file a notice of contest with the 

Secretary of Labor within 15 working days from the receipt of the citation proposed by OSHA. 

The Secretary of Labor transmits the notice of contest and all relevant documents to the Review 

Commission’s Executive Secretary for filing and docketing. After the case is docketed, it is 

forwarded to the Office of the Chief Administrative Law Judge for assignment to an 

Administrative Law Judge. The case is generally assigned to an Administrative Law Judge in 

the Review Commission office closest to where the alleged violation occurred. Thereafter, the 

Administrative Law Judge has full responsibility for all pre-hearing and pre-trial procedures, and 

is charged with providing a fair and impartial hearing in an expeditious manner, and rendering a 

decision promptly.

Administrative Law Judge Operations

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

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

monitoring of its Simplified Proceedings and Mandatory Settlement programs. The 

Administrative Law Judge function 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 conducted 39,228 inspections in FY 2013 and estimates that it will complete 37,635

inspections in FY 2014 and 38,250 inspections in FY 2015. Of particular importance over the 

last several years from the Review Commission’s resource perspective has been an overall

increase in the number of citations being contested, and the resulting number of contests being 

docketed. In FY 2009, the Review Commission docketed 2,058 contests and 2,565 new contests 

were received in FY 2010. This represents an increase of approximately 25 percent in one fiscal 

year. In 2011 we received 3,175 new cases which is an increase of 50 percent over two years. 

Moreover, OSHA implemented a new administrative penalty policy as of the beginning of FY 

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

the contest rate increased from seven percent in FY 2009 to eleven percent in FY 2011 and FY 

2012, contributing to the increase in our caseload. While recent data suggests that our caseload 
10

increase may be stabilizing, our FY 2012 case intake was 31 percent above that of FY 2009 and 

the FY 2013 case intake was 7.63 percent above that of FY 2009. Both our case intake and 

inventory continue to be above the FY 2009 levels and we continue to have an inventory of 

challenging complex cases.

Moreover, in addition to the higher level of contests that resulted from OSHA’s new

administrative penalty policy, OSHA’s emphasis in more recent years has been on serious 

workplace hazards, and the consequent increase in proposed penalties has translated into more 

complicated cases and more costly trials (cases involving lock-out/tag-out, confined spaces, 

health care hazards, asbestos, lead poisoning, process safety, and construction industry hazards, 

etc.). These cases command a greater portion of the ALJs’ time.

The complexity of these cases is the result of the existence of one or a combination of the 

following:

 Intricacies of the law (complex questions of law) 

 Volume of documents, including transcripts

 Large number of witnesses (including expert witnesses in such fields as 

engineering, architecture, construction, soil, physics, epidemiology, pathology, 

neurology and infectious diseases) 

 Number of alleged violations, items, and affirmative defenses (including 

distinct and separate items)

 Technical, novel, difficult or new issues raised

 Various types of cases, such as those involving asbestos, lead poisoning, 

ergonomics, and process safety management and/or confined spaces

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

appropriate portion of its 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 experts at 

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

Agency’s dispute resolution 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 Commission has been reviewing specific suggestions for 

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

Commission provide “training and regular continuing legal education in mediation and dispute 
11

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 Strategic Plan, FY 2014 – FY 2018. 

Under Commission Rule 120, 29 C.F.R. § 2200.120, and where the parties consent, the Chief 

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

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

unencumbered by 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 a Review Commission 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 2013, approximately 41.5 percent of new cases were assigned to Simplified Proceedings. 

The Review Commission projects that we will assign approximately 57 percent of new cases to 

the Simplified Proceedings process in FY 2014 and 58 percent in FY 2015.

Simplified Proceedings Case Activity

FY 2010 through FY 2015

FY 2010

Actual

FY 2011

Actual

FY 2012

Actual

FY 2013

Actual

FY 2014

Estimate

FY 2015

Estimate

New Cases 2,565 3,175 2,696 2,215 2,400 2,500

Cases 

assigned to

Simplified 

Proceedings

1,327 1,783 1,571 919 1,375 1,450
12

Anticipated Administrative Law Judge Workload for FY 2015

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

cases; (2) the success of the Simplified Proceedings process; (3) the time, effort and complexity 

of cases assigned to the Mandatory Settlement process; and (4) the number of trials held, and 

their length and complexity.

The number of OSHA inspections and their focus 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.

The following table provides actual Administrative Law Judge workloads for fiscal years 2010

through 2013, and estimated workloads for fiscal years 2014 and 2015.

FY 2010

Actual

FY 2011

Actual

FY 2012

Actual

FY2013

Actual

FY 2014

Estimate

FY 2015

Estimate

OSHA 

Inspections*: 40,942 40,648 40,961 39,228 37,635 38,250

Administrative Law Judge Workload:

A. Case Inventory,

Start of Year 777 983 1,345 1,154 909 784

B. New Cases 2,565 3,175 2,696 2,215 2,400 2,500

C. Total Caseload 3,342 4,158 4,041 3,369 3,309 3,284

D. Disposals**

(1) With 

Hearing 107 111 95 68 75 75

(2) Mandatory 

Settlement 

Conferences

81 80 80

(3) Without 

Hearing 2,252 2,702 2,792 2,311 2,370 2,400
13

E. Total

 Dispositions 2,359 2,813 2,887 2,460 2,525 2,555

Total Case 

Inventory, 

End of Year 983 1,345 1,154 909 784 729

*Provided by OSHA

**In prior budget presentations, the category “With Hearing” included both adjudicatory hearings and mandatory 

settlement conference hearings. To improve transparency and accuracy, adjudicatory hearings and mandatory 

settlement conference hearings are now reported separately starting with FY 2013.

Staffing

The Office of the Chief Administrative Law Judge requires 28 FTE positions in FY 2015 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. This level assumes three additional FTE, two attorney-advisor positions and one 

support staff position. 

The Chief Administrative Law Judge manages the effort to meet the Agency’s GPRA goals at 

the Administrative Law Judge level. 

The Chief Administrative Law Judge:

 Reviews and screens all docketed cases, determines the level of complexity 

and assigns each to an Administrative Law Judge; 

 Exercises strong management and monitors the progress of cases in order to 

ensure that performance goals are met;

 Supervises judicial and administrative staff, and ensures that they receive 

appropriate training to perform their responsibilities; and

 Examines judicial case management practices of other entities to ensure that 

OSHRC’s procedures are as efficient as possible.
14

FUNDING (IN MILLIONS) AND FTE

FY 2014 Enacted FY 2015 Request

$ FTE $ FTE

Administrative Law 

Judge Function 4.4 25 5.5 28

Strategic Plan and Outcome Goals

The Review Commission’s draft Strategic Plan for 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.

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

following strategies:

 Expedite the assignment of cases to judges.

 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 screening of 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 
15

alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods, including a review of recommendations 

resulting from the evaluation of the Mandatory Settlement Part. 

 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 

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 the period FY 2014 through FY 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 Agency resources. It also identifies innovative and 

comprehensive strategies to achieve the strategic goals and objectives. The following are the 

performance goals for the Office of the Chief Administrative Law Judge for fiscal years 2011

through 2015:

Outcome Goals Performance

Measures

FY

2011

Actual

(Target)

FY

2012

Actual

(Target)

FY

2013 

Actual

(Target)

FY

2014

(Target)

FY 2015

(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.

98%

Target met

(98%)

96%

Target not 

met

(98%)

95.3%

Target not 

met

(98%)

(95%) New Goal 

developed for 

FY 2015

Ensure that a 

significant proportion 

of complex cases at 

the ALJ level are 

resolved in less than 

one year.

Percent within 

one year. 

84%

Target not 

met

(95%)

87%

Target not 

met

(95%)

85.6%

Target not 

met

(95%)

(89%) New Goal 

developed for 

FY 2015

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. *

-Percent of 

simplified 

cases -

disposed of 

within one 

year at ALJ 

level.

-Percent of 

New goal 

developed to 

support FY 

2014 – 2018 

Strategic 

Plan

New goal 

developed to 

support FY 

2014 – 2018 

Strategic Plan

New goal 

developed to 

support FY 

2014 – 2018 

Strategic 

Plan

New goal 

developed to 

support FY 

2014 – 2018 

Strategic 

Plan

-Dispose of 

95% of 

simplified 

cases within 

one year.

-Dispose of 

90% of 

conventional 
16

Outcome Goals Performance

Measures

FY

2011

Actual

(Target)

FY

2012

Actual

(Target)

FY

2013 

Actual

(Target)

FY

2014

(Target)

FY 2015

(Target)

conventional 

cases disposed 

of within 17 

months.

-Percent of 

settlement part 

cases disposed 

of within 19 

months.

-Percent of 

complex cases 

disposed of 

within 20 

months at ALJ 

level.

cases within 

17 months.

-Dispose of 

98% of 

settlement 

part cases 

within 19 

months.

-Dispose of 

95% of 

complex cases 

within 20 

months.

(FY 2015 will 

be the 

baseline year 

for this 

measure)

Improve training

opportunities for

Administrative Law

Judges.

Time and 

resources 

dedicated to 

judicial 

training with 

special 

emphasis on 

mediation and 

dispute 

resolution.

New goal 

developed to 

support FY 

2014 – 2018 

Strategic 

Plan

New goal 

developed to 

support FY 

2014 – 2018 

Strategic Plan

New goal 

developed to 

support FY 

2014 – 2018 

Strategic 

Plan

Pro rata 

share of the 

Agency’s 

training 

resources

An 

appropriate 

allocation of 

time and 

resources 

reflective of 

the number of 

ALJs.

Publish significant 

procedural decisions 

and non-dispositive 

orders separately 

from other decisions.

Key decisions 

and orders 

published within 

4 months of the 

order.

New goal

developed to 

support FY 

2014 – 2018 

Strategic 

Plan

New goal 

developed to 

support FY 

2014 – 2018 

Strategic Plan

New goal 

developed to 

support FY 

2014 – 2018 

Strategic 

Plan

15 key 

decisions and 

orders 

published

20 key 

decisions and 

orders 

published 

*Except for mandatory settlement cases, which are assigned by the Chief Judge upon receipt from the Executive 

Secretary’s Office, 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.

The Office of the Chief Administrative Law Judge was operating at less than full capacity due to 

vacancies which had occurred in the past three years, including two recent ALJ retirements over 

the summer of FY 2013. This, along with the significant increase in our caseload and its 
17

complexity, impacted the time for resolving cases. However, all of the judicial vacancies were 

expeditiously filled and, as of the end of FY 2013, we had a full complement of ALJs. 

Nevertheless, our end-of-the year case inventory was about 48 percent higher in FY 2012 than it 

was in FY 2009 and in FY 2013 it was approximately 17 percent above that of FY 2009. 

Furthermore, with a full complement of judges on board, our current legal support staff is 

stretched thinner, resulting in potential delays and chokepoints in issuing decisions. As a result, 

absent additional legal and writing support for our ALJs, the downturn in our performance 

indicators at the ALJ level may continue. This is of particular concern since, under the Act, a 

cited employer has no obligation to abate an alleged violation until the Review Commission has 

finished its adjudication of a case.
18

Commission Function

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

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

Act, following an initial decision by an Administrative Law Judge. This appellate level of 

review must be prompt, fair, and protective of the parties’ rights.

Proceedings before the Commission

The Commissioners adjudicate contested cases independently from the enforcement and rulemaking functions vested in OSHA. Disputed enforcement proceedings are tried initially before 

the Review Commission’s Administrative Law Judges. The Commission members may then 

review 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 Administrative Law Judges. Each Commission 

member has the discretionary authority to direct for review by the full Commission any case 

decided by any Judge. Absent such a direction for review, the decisions of the Administrative 

Law Judges become final by operation of law. Once a case is directed for review, the 

Commission members have authority to review all aspects of a case, including the Judge’s 

findings of fact, conclusions of law, penalty assessments and abatement orders.

Each Commissioner has a counsel who is responsible for providing assistance and advice on all 

pending matters, including the proper disposition of cases and motions, and whether cases are 

appropriate for Commission review. Each counsel also aids the Commissioner in researching 

and editing draft opinions submitted by the General Counsel after the Commission decides a 

case. 

The Office of the General Counsel (OGC) provides legal advice and assists the Review 

Commission in complying with the various laws, regulations and executive orders governing its 

operations. OGC has primary responsibility for preparing and presenting factual and legal 

analyses to assist Commission members in adjudicating appeals, and also provides legal advice 

on ethics, 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. 

Commission Operations

The Commissioners strive to minimize the time for deciding cases. Aided by improved case 

management technology, the Commission seeks to strengthen the internal processes by which a 

case is prepared for decision. Three external factors that have a major impact on the operations 

of the Commission are: the presence of a quorum, the size and complexity of cases, and the 
19

novelty of the issues presented for review.

The Commission consists of three Members appointed by the President. The Act requires a 

quorum of two Commissioners to take official action, 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 only two Commissioners during 9 months of FY 2013 and with 

only one Commissioner during 3 months of FY 2013. This was the result of one Commissioner’s 

term expiring in FY 2011 and another Commissioner’s term expiring in April 2013 (this 

Commissioner was reappointed in August of 2013). Notwithstanding the lack of a quorum for 

over 25 percent of the fiscal year, the Commission resolved 20 cases during fiscal year 2013 and 

met the GPRA goal targets for FY 2013 at the Commission level. 

Historically, the number of safety and health inspections carried out by OSHA each year, the 

nature of those inspections, and the rate at which employers choose to contest the citations issued 

and penalties proposed by OSHA all have an impact on the number of cases before the Review 

Commission. In addition, OSHA’s emphasis during recent years on more serious workplace 

hazards and the consequent increase in proposed penalties has translated into more complicated 

cases, and longer, more costly trials. Consequently, the complexity and size of the cases both at 

the Administrative Law Judge and at the Commission levels has increased significantly in recent 

years.

Anticipated Commission Workload for FY 2015

The Review Commission focuses on solid case production, including deciding and issuing 

decisions in older cases in an effort to reduce case inventory. However, the cases that are going 

to hearings before the Commission’s ALJs are becoming more complex (e.g., imposition of 

higher penalties and/or more complex technical issues), which may result in a higher percentage 

of cases being petitioned for review. 

In FY 2013, the Commission had 31 cases pending on its docket at the beginning of the year. It 

received 25 new cases and resolved 20 cases by year-end. Thus, the Commission entered FY 

2014 with 36 cases pending review. For FY 2014, the Commission anticipates receiving 28 new 

cases and disposing of 27 cases, ending that year with an inventory of 37 cases. As noted, the 

Commission currently has one vacancy.
20

Commission Case Activity

FY 2010 

Actual

FY 2011

Actual

FY 2012 

Actual

FY 2013 

Actual

FY 2014 

Estimate

FY 2015

Estimate

New Cases:

Cases Directed for

 Review: 24 24 14 24 24 24

Other New Cases:

 Interlocutory

 Appeals 0 6 2 0 2 2

 Remands 0 0 3 1 2 2

 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0

 Total Other New

 Cases: 0 6 5 1 4 4

Total New Cases: 24 30 19 25 28 28

Case Inventory from 

Prior Year: 22 31 35 31 36 37

Total Caseload: 46 61 54 56 64 65

Dispositions: 15 26 23 20 27 27

Case Inventory, 

End of Year: 31 35 31 36 37 38

Staffing

The Commission function requires 29 FTE in FY 2015. This includes 10 FTEs for the three 

Commissioners and their immediate staff, 14 FTEs for the Office of General Counsel and 5 FTEs 

for the Office of the Executive Secretary. This level includes one additional FTE, a supervisory 

attorney-advisor to support the Commission function.
21

FUNDING (IN MILLIONS) AND FTE

FY 2014 Enacted FY 2015 Request

$ FTE $ FTE

Commission Function 5.3 28 5.4 29

Strategic Plan and Outcome Goals

The Review Commission’s draft Strategic Plan for 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.*

 Further reduce the average age of the oldest pending Commission level 

cases. **

 Resolve all priority cases in a timely manner. ***

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

or prosecutions are being pursued.

**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. 

**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. 

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 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 Commission decisions.
22

 Assess whether to establish an ADR program at the Review Commission level. The 

Review Commission published a request for comment in the Federal Register on August 

22, 2013, to seek public comment on the potential development of an alternative dispute 

resolution (“ADR”) program at the Commission’s review level. An ADR program, 

known as the Settlement Part program, currently exists at the trial level, where a case is 

heard before an Administrative Law Judge. Following positive feedback from an Indiana 

University study on the Settlement Part program and interest expressed in an ADR 

program at the review level during a public meeting held on August 30, 2012, the Review 

Commission is seeking input from the public on whether it should develop an ADR 

program at the review level, and if so, how the program should operate.

 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 plans that support priorities in the Review Commission’s 

strategic and annual performance plans.

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

preparation and issuance.

 Implement appropriate changes to the Agency’s procedures to improve case processing at 

the Commission level. 

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 2014 through FY 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 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 fiscal years 2011 through 2015:
23

Outcome 

Goals

Performance 

Measures

FY

2011 

Actual

(Target)

FY 

2012

Actual

(Target)

FY 

2013

Actual

(Target)

FY

2014

(Target)

FY

2015

(Target)

Resolve the 

oldest cases 

on the Review 

Commission’s 

docket. 

All cases 

docketed at the 

Commission level 

prior to 2008 

resolved. 

80%

Target met 

(70% of 

oldest cases)

Completed 

by end of

FY 2011

Completed 

by end of

FY 2011

Completed 

by end of

FY 2011

Replacement

Goal developed 

for FY 2015

Reduce the 

average age 

of open cases 

at the 

Commissionlevel. *

Average age of 

open cases.

15 months

Target met

(36 months 

or 

less)

18 months

Target met

(33 months 

or less)

21 months

Target met

(30 months 

or less)

(27 months 

or less)

Replacement

Goal developed 

for FY 2015

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%)

Develop and 

implement 

case 

management 

practices that 

will minimize 

the average 

age of all 

pending 

Commissionlevel cases.

Average age of all 

pending 

Commission-level 

cases.

New goal 

developed to 

support FY 

2014 – 2018 

Strategic 

Plan

New goal 

developed 

to support 

FY 2014 –

2018 

Strategic 

Plan

New goal 

developed 

to support 

FY 2014 –

2018 

Strategic 

Plan

Develop

case 

management 

practices.

(27 months 

or less) 

Implement case 

management 

practices.

(24 months or 

less)
24

Outcome 

Goals

Performance 

Measures

FY

2011 

Actual

(Target)

FY 

2012

Actual

(Target)

FY 

2013

Actual

(Target)

FY

2014

(Target)

FY

2015

(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 

recommendations 

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

New goal 

developed to 

support FY 

2014 – 2018 

Strategic 

Plan

New goal 

developed 

to support 

FY 2014 –

2018 

Strategic 

Plan

New goal 

developed 

to support 

FY 2014 –

2018 

Strategic 

Plan

Develop 

case 

management 

practices.

Implement case 

management 

practices.

*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 2010- 2015 anticipated reducing this average to 24 

months by the end of FY 2015. 
25

Office of the Executive Director Function

The Office of the Executive Director provides administrative support services for the entire 

Review Commission to assure success in fulfilling its mission. 

Administrative Operations

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

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

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

the 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, and mail services, and 

travel assistance to agency employees;

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

training, reference materials, supplies and office space;

 Implementing case management and administrative systems through IT 

hardware and software;

 Developing and maintaining computer systems and information security 

enhancements; and

 Enhancing telecommunications and improving technology efficiency and 

effectiveness.

Anticipated Office of Executive Director Workload for FY 2015

During FY 2015, 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 
26

and other interested parties as a part of the Review Commission’s transparency 

initiatives;

 Provide faster and better public access to and dissemination of Review 

Commission information and decisions through the use of modern automated 

technology and techniques, including the Agency’s website;

 Improve computer information security based on an evaluation of the Review 

Commission’s computer security, compliance with the various security acts 

and the implementation of corrections or improvements in any weaknesses 

found as a result of evaluations;

 Execute the Continuity Of Operations Plan (COOP) including maintenance, 

testing, and (if needed) implementation of the COOP for Washington, DC and 

the regional offices in Denver and Atlanta; 

 Make use of best knowledge management practices to ensure that employees 

are better prepared to perform their work, and to provide for continuity and 

succession planning; and

 Review information technology programs to determine ways to achieve cost 

savings.

In FY 2014 and 2015, we plan to further improve the quality of our web-based transparency 

initiatives, including enhancing the OSHRC website to make more information available to 

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

undertaking other activities in support of the Review Commission’s mission. In FY 2013, we 

began exploring necessary enhancements to our existing information technology (IT) 

infrastructure that would support cloud-based initiatives including an electronic platform that 

would accommodate the filing and service of documents. The e-filing work circle, which is led 

by senior agency officials including the Chief Administrative Law Judge, Executive Director and 

Chief Information Officer, has concluded that the implementation of an automated system to file 

and access case information including litigation documents should be explored. Based on this 

recommendation, the Agency awarded a competitive contract in September 2013 for the 

preliminary stages of development, deployment and implementation of an e-filing system. This 

budget request includes the funding necessary to implement an e-filing system. The successful 

implementation of an e-filing system will be demonstrative proof of the Agency’s commitment 

to using technology to improve accuracy and efficiency in its case management practices. 

Staffing

The Office of the Executive Director requires 9 FTE in FY 2015. 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. 
27

FUNDING (IN MILLIONS) AND FTE

FY 2014 Enacted FY 2015 Request

$ FTE $ FTE

Executive Director 

Function

1.7 9 1.7 9

Strategic Plan and Outcome Goals

The Office of the Executive Director’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).
28

Responsible 

stewardship of 

Agency resources to 

enhance operations 

and efficiencies in 

information 

technology, 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 

government-wide 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 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, and 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.
29

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 2014 through FY 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 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 fiscal years 2011

through 2015:

Outcome 

Goals

Performance 

Measures

FY

2011

Actual

(Target)

FY

2012

Actual

(Target)

FY

2013

Actual

(Target)

FY

2014

(Target)

FY

2015

(Target)

Invest in human 

capital by 

increasing staff 

development and 

training 

opportunities and 

increasing 

employees’ 

capabilities and 

potential.

One percent of 

basic payroll 

devoted to staff 

training and 

development by 

FY 2015, and 

no fewer than 

24 hours 

training per 

staff member 

per year. 

.45%

Target 

partially 

met

(.45% of 

basic

payroll to 

training and 

10 hours)

.54%/62% of 

staff had 12 

hours of 

training

Target not 

met

(.55% of 

basic payroll 

to training 

and 12 hours)

.38%/67%

of 

employees 

received 12 

hours

Target not 

met

(.55 of 

basic 

payroll to 

training and 

12 hours)*

New Goal 

developed 

for FY 2015

New Goal 

developed for 

FY 2015

*The ability to fund training during FY 2013 was severely impacted by the six month continuing Resolution and by 

sequestration.
30

Outcome 

Goals

Performance 

Measures

FY

2011

Actual

(Target)

FY

2012

Actual

(Target)

FY

2013

Actual

(Target)

FY

2014

(Target)

FY

2015

(Target)

Examine and 

identify 

contracted 

positions 

appropriate 

for 

insourcing.

Percentage of 

positions 

identified 

appropriate for 

insourcing that 

are insourced

One position 

identified

Target Met

(Positions 

identified)

One position 

insourced

Target Met

(Insource 

position 

identified and 

identify 

additional 

positions to 

insource)

No positions 

identified for 

insourcing

(Insource any 

additional 

positions 

identified)

New Goal 

developed for 

FY 2015

New Goal 

developed for 

FY 2015

Use of 360 

degree 

employeesupervisor 

feedback 

mechanisms

All 

supervisors 

subject to 360 

degree 

feedback, and 

feedback is 

used to ensure 

that individual 

and 

organizational 

effectiveness 

goals are being 

met

Feedback 

Instrument 

developed

Target Met

(Appropriate 

feedback 

instrument 

developed) 

Feedback 

Instrument 

used to 

evaluate 

supervisors

Target Met

(Feedback 

mechanism 

used to 

evaluate all 

supervisors)

Feedback 

Instrument 

used to 

evaluate 

supervisors

Target Met

(Feedback 

mechanism 

used to 

evaluate all 

supervisors)

Discontinued

Goal 

Discontinued

Goal 
31

Outcome 

Goals

Performance 

Measures

FY

2011

Actual

(Target)

FY

2012

Actual

(Target)

FY

2013

Actual

(Target)

FY

2014

(Target)

FY

2015

(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 web 

site

New goal 

developed to 

support FY 

2014 – 2018 

Strategic Plan

New goal 

developed to 

support FY 

2014 – 2018 

Strategic Plan

New goal 

developed to 

support FY 

2014 – 2018 

Strategic Plan

All material 

posted no 

later than 7 

days after 

issuance

All material 

posted no 

later than 7 

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.

New goal 

developed to 

support FY 

2014 – 2018 

Strategic Plan

New goal 

developed to 

support FY 

2014 – 2018 

Strategic Plan

New goal 

developed to 

support FY 

2014 – 2018 

Strategic Plan

100% of all 

material to be 

submitted by 

required 

deadlines

100% of all 

material to be 

submitted by 

required 

deadlines
32

Outcome 

Goals

Performance 

Measures

FY

2011

Actual

(Target)

FY

2012

Actual

(Target)

FY

2013

Actual

(Target)

FY

2014

(Target)

FY

2015

(Target)

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)

Participation 

in professional 

conferences 

and meetings 

and strategic 

engagement 

with 

stakeholders

New goal 

developed to 

support FY 

2014 – 2018 

Strategic Plan

New goal 

developed to 

support FY 

2014 – 2018 

Strategic Plan

New goal 

developed to 

support FY 

2014 – 2018 

Strategic Plan

Agency to 

sponsor one

outreach and 

educational 

activity per 

year

Agency to 

sponsor two

outreach and 

educational 

activities in 

FY 2015 

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

New goal 

developed to 

support FY 

2014 – 2018 

Strategic Plan

New goal 

developed to 

support FY 

2014 – 2018 

Strategic Plan

New goal 

developed to 

support FY 

2014 – 2018 

Strategic Plan

Identify 

resources to 

support the 

methodology 

to efficiently 

align the 

budget with 

program goals

Align budget 

with Agency 

program goals 

to efficiently 

accomplish 

mission (e.g., 

program, 

human 

capitol, 

procurement, 

IT 

infrastructure, 

and space and 

facilities)
33

Outcome 

Goals

Performance 

Measures

FY

2011

Actual

(Target)

FY

2012

Actual

(Target)

FY

2013

Actual

(Target)

FY

2014

(Target)

FY

2015

(Target)

Implement a 

comprehensiv

e 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

New goal 

developed to 

support FY 

2014 – 2018 

Strategic Plan

New goal 

developed to 

support FY 

2014 – 2018 

Strategic Plan

New goal 

developed to 

support FY 

2014 – 2018 

Strategic Plan

.55 percent of 

basic payroll 

devoted to 

staff training 

and 

development

.65 percent of 

basic payroll 

devoted to 

staff training 

and 

development
34

Outcome 

Goals

Performance 

Measures

FY

2011

Actual

(Target)

FY

2012

Actual

(Target)

FY

2013

Actual

(Target)

FY

2014

(Target)

FY

2015

(Target)

Integrate 

knowledge 

management 

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**

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

New goal 

developed to 

support FY 

2014 – 2018 

Strategic Plan

New goal 

developed to 

support FY 

2014 – 2018 

Strategic Plan

New goal 

developed to 

support FY 

2014 – 2018 

Strategic Plan

Design the 

knowledge 

management 

audit to 

establish 

benchmarks 

to evaluate 

knowledge 

gaps in the 

essential 

Agency 

operations 

and programs

Use findings 

from 

evaluation 

knowledge 

management 

audit to 

identify and 

address 

knowledge 

gaps

**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. 
35

Outcome 

Goals

Performance 

Measures

FY

2011

Actual

(Target)

FY

2012

Actual

(Target)

FY

2013

Actual

(Target)

FY

2014

(Target)

FY

2015

(Target)

Improve 

technology 

infrastructure 

through 

efficiencies 

and 

investments 

(e.g., training, 

equipment, 

and 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/comm

unications to 

ensure 

customers can 

access 

necessary 

information 

without delay

New goal 

developed to 

support FY 

2014 – 2018 

Strategic Plan

New goal 

developed to 

support FY 

2014 – 2018 

Strategic Plan

New goal 

developed to 

support FY 

2014 – 2018 

Strategic Plan

Evaluate 

expanding the 

existing IT 

infrastructure 

to support efiling 

initiative

Implement 

recommended 

IT 

infrastructure 

upgrades 

identified in 

evaluation

Use existing 

real property 

more 

effectively by 

implementing 

energy 

efficiency by 

implementing 

energy 

practices, 

space 

alignment 

efforts (e.g., 

sustainability) 

and 

expanding 

Implement 

measures to 

reduce 

operating 

expenses when 

negotiating 

lease and 

develop a 

system to 

evaluate areas 

of 

consumption 

that impact 

sustainability

New goal 

developed to 

support FY 

2014 – 2018 

Strategic Plan

New goal 

developed to 

support FY 

2014 – 2018 

Strategic Plan

New goal 

developed to 

support FY 

2014 – 2018 

Strategic Plan

Establish goal 

of acquiring a 

percentage of 

supplies and 

equipment 

from ecofriendly 

sources

Dispose of 

equipment in 

an environmentally

friendly 

manner

Increase the 

percentage of 

supplies and 

equipment 

procured from 

eco-friendly 

sources
36

Outcome 

Goals

Performance 

Measures

FY

2011

Actual

(Target)

FY

2012

Actual

(Target)

FY

2013

Actual

(Target)

FY

2014

(Target)

FY

2015

(Target)

telework

Enhance the 

agency’s 

FOIA 

processing 

system by 

developing 

internet-based 

capabilities

Development 

of an 

electronic 

form and/or 

request 

tracking 

capability

New goal 

developed to 

support FY 

2014 – 2018 

Strategic Plan

New goal 

developed to 

support FY 

2014 – 2018 

Strategic Plan

New goal 

developed to 

support FY 

2014 – 2018 

Strategic Plan

Assessment of 

tools and 

resources 

necessary for 

processing 

and 

expediting 

FOIA 

requests 

electronically

Develop tools 

to be used for 

processing 

and 

expediting 

FOIA 

requests 

electronically
IV. BUDGET BY OBJECT

CLASSIFICATION

CATEGORY
37

Budget by Object Classification (BOC) Category

The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission requests an appropriation of 

$12,651,000 for FY 2015 to continue our mission of adjudicating OSHA-issued workplace safety 

citations. The requested amount assumes the support for 66 FTE positions as well as funding for

other costs. 

The proposed budget for FY 2015 by object classification category is shown in the table below, 

along with the FY 2014 enacted appropriation. A narrative explanation of the amount requested 

for each object classification follows the table.

Object Classification Table

Fiscal Years 2014 and 2015

(Dollars in Thousands)

 Change

 FY 2014 Enacted –

 FY 2015 Request

Budget Object 

Class

FY 2014 

Enacted

FY 2015

Request $ %

11.0 Personnel 

Compensation $6,876 $7,120 +244 +3.55

12.0 Personnel Benefits 1,898 1,942 +44 +2.42

Subtotal Personal 

Services 8,774 9,062 +288 +3.28

21.0 Travel 175 185 +10 +5.71

22.0 Transportation of 

Things 7 10 +3 +42.9

23.1 Space Rental 

Payments (GSA) 1,155 1,517 +362 +31.34

23.3 Communications, 

Utilities and Misc. 109 255 +146 +134

24.0 Printing and 

Reproduction 17 17 0 0

25.0 Other Services 1,010 880 -130 -12.87

26.0 Supplies and 

Materials 42 43 +1 +2.38

31.0 Equipment 122 682 +560 +459

Grand Total 11,411 12,651 +1,240 +10.87
38

Budget Object Classification Detail

11.0 Personnel Compensation

Change FY 2014 Enacted – FY 2015 Request

FY 2014 Enacted FY 2015 Request Amount Percent

6,876,000 7,120,000 +244,000 +3.55

The Review Commission requests $7,120,000 to fund direct payroll costs in FY 2015. This 

includes funding for a comparability pay increase that is anticipated in January 2015. This 

amount assumes the support for 66 FTE positions. 

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

superior, and who perform special acts or services. Consistent with the policy set forth in the 

Guidance on Awards for Fiscal Years 2011 and 2012, jointly issued by the Office of Personnel 

Management and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on June 20, 2011, OSHRC 

reduced its spending on performance awards for non-SES employees and for members of the 

Senior Executive Service (SES) in fiscal years 2011 and 2012. Until further guidance is 

received, OSHRC estimates there will be a reduced level of spending on awards in fiscal years 

2014 and 2015. 

12.0 Personnel Benefits

Change FY 2014 Enacted – FY 2015 Request

FY 2014 Enacted FY 2015 Request Amount Percent

1,898,000 1,942,000 +44,000 +2.42

The Review Commission requests $1,942,000 to fund the payroll-related costs of employee 

benefits in FY 2015. 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 2014 Enacted – FY 2015 Request

FY 2014 Enacted FY 2015 Request Amount Percent

175,000 185,000 +10,000 +5.71

The requested amount for travel in FY 2015 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. OMB Memorandum M-12-12 requires agencies to reduce travel expenses 

to a level at least 30 percent less than the amount spent on travel in FY 2010 in Fiscal Years 

2013 through 2016. However, due to the inherent relationship between OSHRC ALJ hearings 
39

and the health and safety inspection process, OSHRC’s ALJ travel expenses were excluded from 

the 30 percent reduction. 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 2014 Enacted – FY 2015 Request

FY 2014 Enacted FY 2015 Request Amount Percent

7,000 10,000 +3,000 +42.9

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

Commission offices and other locations. 

23.1 Rental Payments to GSA

Change FY 2014 Enacted – FY 2015 Request

FY 2014 Enacted FY 2015 Request Amount Percent

1,155,000 1,517,000 +362,000 +31.34

The request includes $1,517,410 for office space rental for the National and Regional Offices.

These projected rent costs are based on FY 2015 estimates provided by the General Services 

Administration (GSA) to the Review Commission. 

23.3 Communications, Utilities and Miscellaneous Charges

Change FY 2014 Enacted – FY 2015 Request

FY 2014 Enacted FY 2015 Request Amount Percent

109,000 255,000 +146,000 +134

The Review Commission requests $255,000 for communication costs in FY 2015. The Review 

Commission seeks to implement an e-filing system with a hosted internet-based interface that 

accommodates the electronic filing of litigation documents. As a result of this, our 

telecommunication costs will increase significantly beginning in FY 2015. 

Local phone service and telecommunication costs are projected to be $235,000. 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 2014 Enacted – FY 2015 Request

FY 2014 Enacted FY 2015 Request Amount Percent

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

The requested amount for printing in FY 2015 is $17,000. Printing costs consist mainly of the 
40

charges for publishing rules, proposed rules and other announcements in the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) and/or the Federal Register, and for purchasing copies of the CFR and other 

GPO publications. Together, these printing/publishing costs are expected to approximate 

$10,000 in fiscal year 2015. 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 2014 Enacted – FY 2015 Request

FY 2014 Enacted FY 2015 Request Amount Percent

1,010,000 880,000 -130,000 -12.87

The requested amount for other services in FY 2015 is $880,000. 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 $463,000 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 the National Archives and Records Administration 

(NARA). This area includes $14,000 for personnel and payroll services provided by NFC, 

$299,500 for financial and administrative services provided by the Bureau of the Fiscal Service

(BFS), $35,000 for the annual ALJ Assessment Fees and certification services provided by OPM, 

and $56,000 for building security (estimated) provided by the Department of Homeland Security. 

This category also includes funds needed for continuing maintenance of the Review 

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

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

as with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (Federal Occupational Health), the 

General Services Administration, 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 of the Review 

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

technology security ($29,000); 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 

($29,000), library operations ($80,000), training and other requirements to support the agency’s 

mission. 
41

26.0 Supplies and Materials

Change FY 2014 Enacted – FY 2015 Request

FY 2014 Enacted FY 2015 Request Amount Percent

42,000 43,000 +1,000 +2.38

The requested amount for supplies and materials in FY 2015 is $43,000. This amount includes 

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

31.0 Equipment

Change FY 2014 Enacted – FY 2015 Request

FY 2014 Enacted FY 2015 Request Amount Percent

122,000 682,000 +560,000 +459

The requested amount for equipment in FY 2015 is $682,000. The Review Commission seeks to 

implement an e-filing system with a hosted internet-based interface that accommodates the 

electronic filing of litigation documents. As a result, our information technology infrastructure 

will require upgrading. We estimate that these costs will be $560,000. 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 computer and other information technology 

requirements, and to enable us to comply with Government-wide mandates such as the Federal 

Information Security Management Act. Our information technology equipment includes personal 

computers, printers, a local area network, and associated peripherals. Finally, a small portion of 

this funding will be used to purchase any office furniture that may be needed.
V. OTHER TABLES
42

The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

Appropriation History

Fiscal Year Request to Congress House Allowance Senate Allowance Appropriation

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

1996 $8,127,000 $8,200,000 $8,100,000 $8,081,0004

1997 $7,753,000 $7,753,000 $7,753,000 $7,738,0005

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

1999 $8,050,000 $8,100,000 $8,100,000 $8,092,0006

2000 $8,500,000 $8,100,000 $8,500,000 $8,470,0007

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

2002 $8,964,000 $8,964,000 $8,964,000 $8,958,0008

2003 $9,577,000 $9,577,000 $9,577,000 $9,673,0009

2004 $10,115,000 $10,115,000 $9,610,000 $9,863,00010

2005 $10,516,000 $10,595,000 $10,595,000 $10,510,24011

2006 $10,510,000 $10,510,000 $10,510,000 $10,404,90012

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

2008 $10,696,000 $10,696,000 $10,696,000 $10,696,00013

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 $11,712,00014

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

15

2013 $11,965,000 $11,667,000 $11,667,000 $11,666,90816

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

16 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 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015

Actual Estimate Estimate

Administrative Law Judge:

AL-II 1 1 1

AL-III 11 11 11

GS-14 2 2 2

GS-13 1 1 3

GS-12 2 2 2

GS-11 1 1 2

GS-10 0 1 1

GS-9 2 1 1

GS-8 5 5 5

Sub-total 25 25 28

Commission:

Executive Level III 1 1 1

Executive Level IV 2 2 2

ES-00 2 2 2

GS-15 5 5 6

GS-14 6 6 6

GS-13 2 2 2

GS-12 3 2 2

GS-11 6 5 5

GS-10 1 0 0

GS-9 0 0 0

GS-8 0 2 2

GS-7 2 1 1

Sub-total 30 28 29

Office of the Executive Director:

ES-00 1 1 1

GS-15 2 3 3 

GS-14 1 0 0 

GS-13 1 0 0

GS-12 3 3 3

GS-11 0 0 0

GS-7 1 1 1

GS-6 0 0 0

GS-5 1 1 1

Sub-total 10 9 9

Total full-time positions: 65 62 66