The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

OSHRC

FISCAL YEAR 2016

PERFORMANCE BUDGET AND JUSTIFICATION

February 2015
Table of Contents

Fiscal Year 2016 Performance Budget Justification

I. Introduction – Mission, Vision, and Strategic Goals

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

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

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

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

II. Budget Request Summary

Summary.................................................................................................................3

E-Filing Initiative....................................................................................................4

Language Access ....................................................................................................5

III. Performance Budget Justification by Organizational Unit

Administrative Law Judge Function.......................................................................8

Commission Function ...........................................................................................18

Office of the Executive Director Function ...........................................................25

IV. Budget by Object Classification Category

Object Classification Table...................................................................................36

Object Classification Detail..................................................................................37

V. Other Tables

Appropriation History...........................................................................................41

Authorized Full Time Positions by Function........................................................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, DC. 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.

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

qualified and diverse workforce, and modern information management, 

communications, and administrative systems.
2

 An agency that values teamwork, develops its employees, and 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 $13,212,000

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

2016. The funding level 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 amount supports the goal in the Review Commission’s Strategic Plan 

to improve service to the public, and the continued implementation of an e-filing initiative, 

discussed below.

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

cases handled by Administrative Law Judges. The increased complexity of the caseload is a 

trend attributed to two factors. The first factor is the result of OSHA’s focus on encouraging 

more resource and time-intensive inspections. The second factor is a result of the Department of 

Labor, Office of the Solicitor’s decision to leverage litigation resources and focus away from 

high volume and in favor of high-impact strategic cases. The increase in complexity of our cases 

is a challenge for the Review Commission because processing such cases requires 

Administrative Law Judges to invest a greater amount of time in handling the matters, and places 

an increased demand on the limited FTE assigned to handle the volume of cases. In addition to 

the increased complexity of our cases, the level of new cases exceeds our FY 2008 levels and the 

end of year inventory remains higher than previous years. Thus, in order to accomplish our 

mission of adjudicating OSHA-issued workplace safety citations at an acceptable pace, while 

avoiding the severe case backlog experienced by the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review 

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

of $13,212,000. This funding level supports 66 FTEs, providing for three additional FTE 

positions to assist 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. 

Our FY 2016 costs include:

 $ 9,938,000 to support direct payroll and related costs for 66 FTE positions. These costs 

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

FTE will be used to handle the increased and more complex case load which has 

developed over the past several fiscal years, especially at the ALJ level.

 $1,481,537 for office space rent.

 $442,000 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).

 $388,000 to continue OSHRC’s e-filing initiative.
4

 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 in the process of securing information technology (IT) infrastructure 

upgrades through the established Networx contract to support our 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.

This 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.

This initiative began in August 2013, when the Review Commission held a Pre-solicitation 

Conference to encourage industry participation and involvement during the development of an efiling 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 development and testing with limited licensing has provided an opportunity to encourage 

internal user participation during the design. This methodology is expected to facilitate a smooth 

roll-out of the completed system when full licensing is available. 

The Review Commission’s baseline infrastructure upgrade to support cloud computing and efiling is expected to be completed in FY 2015. The upgrade will facilitate the process of testing 

the functional aspects of our newly developed e-filing system in an effort to ensure that all users 

and stakeholders requirements have been addressed prior to finalizing the system. The e-filing 

system has advanced to a state that allows users to begin fully testing and evaluating its design 

and processes. The Review Commission users will utilize test data in order to populate the 

system to verify that all data is accumulated properly for reporting and statistical sampling.

During this test phase, the Review Commission will solicit stakeholder comments and tests of 

the electronic interface to ensure suitability of design. 
5

The Review Commission’s FY 2016 budget includes $388,000 to support the e-filing initiative.

This amount includes 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. It also provides for additional professional customization after initial roll out to 

address user needs.

Language Access

On February 17, 2011, the United States 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 13166 (“AG Memo”). The AG Memo 

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

implementation of Executive Order 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 nonEnglish 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 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 May 2014, responsibility for the language access program was transferred to the 

Office of the Chief Administrative Law Judge. A draft updated plan was developed and 

circulated to all administrative law judges and key Commission staff members for review and 

feedback. The Commission implemented the revised and updated plan in August, 2014. A copy 

of the current plan has been forwarded to the Department of Justice for review and approval by 

its plan review team.

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

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

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

law. To accomplish this very important goal, the FY 2016 budget provides $20,000 to cover 

services for translation of documents and interpreters for individuals with limited English 

proficiency.
6

FY 2016

Appropriations Language

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES 

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

$13,212,000.
III. PERFORMANCE

BUDGET

JUSTIFICATION BY

ORGANIZATIONAL

UNIT
7

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 the Executive Director function.

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

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

ALJs and Commissioners stems principally from the nature of their functions so that 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 as well as the Agency’s strategic planning efforts. 

Funding and staffing by function is as follows:

FUNDING (IN MILLIONS) AND FTE BY FUNCTION

FY2015 Enacted FY2016 Request

$ FTE $ FTE

Administrative Law Judge 4.9 24 5.7 28

Commission 5.1 25 5.7 29

Executive Director 1.6 8 1.8 9

 Total 11.6 57 13.2 66

 
8

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. This 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 Office of the 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 36,163 inspections in FY 2014, and estimates that it will complete 37,485 in 

FY 2015, and 37,785 inspections in FY 2016. 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 

2008, the Review Commission docketed 1,962 contests. In FY 2009, the Review Commission 

docketed 2,058 contests and, then, 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 
9

increase in our caseload. While recent data suggests that our caseload increase may be 

stabilizing, both our case intake and inventory continue to be above FY 2008 levels and we 

continue to have an inventory of challenging complex cases. Furthermore, the number of new 

cases received in FY 2014 was likely depressed as a result of the government shutdown at the 

beginning of the fiscal year.

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 workplace violence, heat stress, lockout/tag-out, confined spaces, health care hazards, asbestos, process safety, and construction 

industry hazards, etc.). Over the past few years, the Review Commission has noted an increase 

in the complexity of cases handled by Administrative Law Judges that are characterized by one 

or more of the following elements:

 Complex questions arising from intricacies of the 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 workplace violence, heat 

stress, asbestos, ergonomics, and process safety management and/or confined 

spaces

The increased complexity of the caseload is a trend attributed to two factors: (1) OSHA’s focus 

on encouraging more resource and time-intensive inspections; and (2) the Department of Labor, 

Office of the Solicitor’s decision to leverage litigation resources and focus away from high 

volume and in favor of high-impact strategic cases. The increase in complexity of cases is a 

challenge for the Review Commission because processing such cases requires Administrative 

Law Judges to invest a greater amount of time in handling the matters, and places an increased 

demand on the limited FTE assigned to handle the volume of cases.

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 
10

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 

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 2014, approximately 35 percent of new cases were assigned to Simplified Proceedings. 

The Review Commission projects that we will assign approximately 46 percent of new cases to 

the Simplified Proceedings process in FY 2015 and 46 percent in FY 2016.
11

Simplified Proceedings Case Activity

FY 2011 through FY 2016

Anticipated Administrative Law Judge Workload for FY 2016

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.

FY 2011

Actual

FY 2012

Actual

FY 2013

Actual

FY 2014

Actual

FY 2015

Estimate

FY 2016

Estimate

New Cases 3,175 2,696 2,215 2,017 2,400 2,500

Cases 

assigned to

Simplified 

Proceedings

1,783 1,571 919 708 1,100 1,150
12

The following table provides actual Administrative Law Judge workloads for fiscal years 2011

through 2014, and estimated workloads for fiscal years 2015 and 2016.

FY 2011

Actual

FY 2012

Actual

FY 2013

Actual

FY2014

Actual

FY 2015

Estimate

FY 2016

Estimate

OSHA 

Inspections*: 40,648 40,961 39,228 36,163 37,485 37,785

Administrative Law Judge Workload:

A. Case Inventory,

Start of Year 983 1,345 1,154 909 888 833

B. New Cases 3,175 2,696 2,215 2,017 2,400 2,500

C. Total Caseload 4,158 4,041 3,369 2,926 3,288 3,333

D. Disposals**

(1) With 

Hearing 111 95 68 50 75 75

(2) Mandatory 

Settlement 

Conferences

81 66 80 85

(3) Without 

Hearing 2,702 2,792 2,311 1,922 2,300 2,400

E. Total

 Dispositions 2,813 2,887 2,460 2,038 2,455 2,560

Total Case 

Inventory, 

End of Year 1,345 1,154 909 888 833 773

*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.
13

Staffing

The Office of the Chief Administrative Law Judge requires 28 FTE positions in FY 2016 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 GPRA goals at 

the Administrative Law Judge level. 

The Chief Administrative Law Judge:

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

and assigns each to an Administrative Law Judge; 

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

ensure that performance goals are met;

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

appropriate training to perform their responsibilities; and

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

OSHRC’s procedures are as efficient as possible.

FUNDING (IN MILLIONS) AND FTE

FY 2015 Enacted FY 2016 Request

$ FTE $ FTE

Administrative Law 

Judge Function 4.9 24 5.7 28
14

Strategic Plan and Outcome Goals

The Review Commission’s 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 

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
15

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 2012

through 2016:

Outcome Goals Performance

Measures

FY

2012

Actual

(Target)

FY

2013 

Actual

(Target)

FY

2014

Actual

(Target)

FY 2015

(Target)

FY 2016

(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.

96%

Target not 

met

(98%)

95.3%

Target not 

met

(98%)

97%

Target met

(95%)

New Goal 

developed for 

FY 2015

New Goal 

developed for 

FY 2016

Ensure that a 

significant proportion 

of complex cases at 

the ALJ level are 

resolved in less than 

one year.

Percent within 

one year. 

87%

Target not 

met

(95%)

85.6%

Target not 

met

(95%)

80%

Target not 

met

(89%)

New Goal 

developed for 

FY 2015

New Goal 

developed for 

FY 2016

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 

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.

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 

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)

-Dispose of 

95% of 

simplified 

cases within 

one year.

-Dispose of 

90% of 

conventional

cases within 

17 months.

-Dispose of 

98% of 

settlement 

part cases 

within 19 

months.

-Dispose of 

95% of 

complex cases 

within 20 

months.

(FY 2015 will 

be the 

baseline year 

for this 

measure)
16

Outcome Goals Performance

Measures

FY

2012

Actual

(Target)

FY

2013 

Actual

(Target)

FY

2014

Actual

(Target)

FY 2015

(Target)

FY 2016

(Target)

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

Pro rata 

share of the 

Agency’s 

training 

resources 

was devoted.

Target met

(Pro rata 

share of the 

Agency’s 

training 

resources)

An 

appropriate 

allocation of 

time and 

resources 

reflective of 

the number of 

ALJs

Continue to 

designate a 

pro rata share 

of the 

Agency’s 

training 

resources

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

11 key

decisions 

and orders 

published

Target not 

met

(15 key 

decisions 

and orders 

published)

20 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 Review Commission is currently evaluating the factors that impact the timeframe by which 

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

the current outcome goal is a fair standard by which resolution should be measured. In FY 2014, 

several factors adversely impacted CALJ’s ability to meet the targeted outcome goal. First, the 

office was significantly understaffed. While vacancies in the number of administrative law 

judges were resolved for the first time in several years, the absence of adequate legal support 

persisted in FY 2014 and into FY 2015. Existing legal staff, which included four attorneys and 

nine legal assistants, proved inadequate to meet the administrative and legal writing needs of the 

full complement of ALJs. The shortage of administrative and legal support resulted in 

significant delays in issuing decisions and resolving cases. Absent additional support (e.g., legal 

research and writing), the downturn in performance at the ALJ level with respect to the 
17

disposition of complex cases may continue. The funding requested for FY 2016 assumes three

additional positions to provide legal support to OCALJ. 

Next, the significant increase in our caseload and the complexity of the cases increased the time 

required to resolve cases at the ALJ level. Factors leading to the increased complexity of cases 

include OSHA’s focus on encouraging more resource and time-intensive inspections, as well as 

the Department of Labor, Office of the Solicitor’s decision to leverage litigation resources and 

focus away from high volume and in favor of high-impact strategic cases. The increase in 

complexity of cases is a challenge for the Review Commission because processing such cases 

requires Administrative Law Judges to invest a greater amount of time in handling the matters, 

and places an increased demand on the limited FTE assigned to handle the volume of cases.

Finally, the government shutdown impacted the time for resolving cases at the ALJ level. All 

staff in the Office of the Chief Administrative Law Judge, including ALJs, were furloughed 

during the shutdown in FY 2014. The furlough period is significant with respect to the outcome 

goal of resolving complex cases in less than one year because ALJs were unable to work on 

resolving cases. Therefore, the time lost during the duration of the shutdown, in addition to the 

time required to resume operations immediately following the furlough, impacted the Review 

Commission’s ability to meet the target goal. 
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 Office of the Executive Secretary, which is responsible for the 

docketing of cases at both the ALJ and Commission levels. The Executive Secretary also 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 6 months of FY 2014. This was 

the result of one Commissioner’s term expiring in FY 2011. The third Commissioner was 

appointed in April of 2014. Notwithstanding the lack of a full complement of Commissioners

for half of the fiscal year, and the government shutdown which impacted the Agency’s ability to 

resolve cases, the Commission resolved 12 cases by the end of fiscal year 2014 and met all of its 

GPRA goal targets for FY 2014 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 2016

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 2014, the Commission had 36 cases pending on its docket at the beginning of the year. It 

received 11 new cases and resolved 12 cases by year-end. Thus, the Commission entered FY 

2015 with 35 cases pending review. For FY 2015, the Commission anticipates receiving 28 new 

cases and disposing of 27 cases, ending that year with an inventory of 36 cases.
20

Commission Case Activity

FY 2011

Actual

FY 2012

Actual

FY 2013

Actual

FY 2014

Actual

FY 2015

Estimate

FY 2016

Estimate

New Cases:

Cases Directed for

 Review: 24 14 24 11 24 24

Other New Cases:

 Interlocutory

 Appeals 6 2 0 0 2 2

 Remands 0 3 1 0 2 2

 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0

 Total Other New

 Cases: 6 5 1 0 4 4

Total New Cases: 30 19 25 11 28 28

Case Inventory from 

Prior Year: 31 35 31 36 35 36

Total Caseload: 61 54 56 47 63 64

Dispositions: 26 23 20 12 27 27

Case Inventory, 

End of Year: 35 31 36 35 36 37

Staffing

The Commission function requires 29 FTE in FY 2016. This includes 10 FTEs for the three 

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

FTEs for the Office of the Executive Secretary.
21

FUNDING (IN MILLIONS) AND FTE

FY 2015 Enacted FY 2016 Request

$ FTE $ FTE

Commission Function 5.1 25 5.7 29

Strategic Plan and Outcome Goals

The Review Commission’s 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 implementing the new case management practices adopted at the 

end of FY 2014: 

 Periodic docket review

 Conduct quarterly and semiannual case management docket reviews to 

identify opportunities to speed case processing 

o Quarterly Counsels’ meeting 

oSemiannual Commission docket review
22

 Strategic Plan implementation monitoring 

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

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

cases 

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

the periodic docket review meetings

 Efficient briefing practices

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

Notice

 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.

 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 sought input from the public in a Federal Register notice on whether it 

should develop an ADR program at the review level, and if so, how the program should 

operate. In response, the Commission received only two comments. The Commission is 

currently considering how best to proceed.

 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
23

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 2012 through 2016:

Outcome 

Goals

Performance 

Measures

FY 

2012

Actual

(Target)

FY 

2013

Actual

(Target)

FY

2014

Actual

(Target)

FY

2015

(Target)

FY 

2016

(Target)

Reduce the 

average age 

of open cases 

at the 

Commissionlevel. *

Average age of 

open cases.

18 months

Target met

(33 months 

or less)

21 months

Target met

(30 months 

or less)

26 months 

Target met

(27 months 

or less)

Replacement

Goal developed 

for FY 2015

Replacement

Goal developed 

for FY 2016

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 

Commissionlevel cases.

New goal 

developed 

to support 

FY 2014 –

2018 

Strategic 

Plan

New goal 

developed 

to support 

FY 2014 –

2018 

Strategic 

Plan

Case 

management 

practices 

developed. 

The average 

age of all 

pending 

Commissionlevel cases is 

26 months.

*Target met

Develop case 

management 

practices.

(27 months 

or less)

Implement case 

management 

practices.

(24 months or 

less)

Continue to 

implement case 

management 

practices

(23 months or 

less)
24

Outcome 

Goals

Performance 

Measures

FY 

2012

Actual

(Target)

FY 

2013

Actual

(Target)

FY

2014

Actual

(Target)

FY

2015

(Target)

FY 

2016

(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

Case 

management 

practices 

developed.

*Target met

(Develop 

case 

management 

practices)

Implement case 

management 

practices.

Reduce average 

age of the oldest 

15 percent of 

pending 

Commission 

level cases by 10

percent from FY 

2013 level.

*As of September 30, 2009, the average (mean) period of time for a case on the Review Commission’s docket was 

46 months. The Review Commission’s Strategic Plan for FY 2014 - 2018 anticipated reducing this average to 24 

months by the end of FY 2015.
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 the Executive Director Workload for FY 2016

During FY 2016, Office of the Executive Director staff will:

 Implement the Administration’s government-wide performance initiatives;

 Improve financial and administrative services and enhance integrity and 

efficiency of the Agency’s financial management and human resources 

programs;

 Provide greater online access to information generated by OSHRC to citizens 

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

initiatives;
26

 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 2015 and 2016, 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, 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 support the e-filing system. The selected vendor 

has been working with Review Commission personnel to provide a solution that would 

accommodate our unique requirements utilizing its commercial off-the-shelf Fed RAMP certified 

solution. We are also in the process of upgrading our infrastructure using vendors from the 

General Services Administration information technology schedule. This budget includes a 

request for additional funds to remediate any issues that are likely to arise after initial 

deployment of the e-filing system. The successful implementation and management of this efiling system will be demonstrative proof of the Agency’s commitment to using technology to 

improve accuracy and efficiency in its case management practices.
27

Staffing

The Office of the Executive Director requires 9 FTE in FY 2016. 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 2015 Enacted FY 2016 Request

$ FTE $ FTE

Executive Director 

Function

1.6 8 1.8 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:
28

Public Service Goal Outcome Goals

Expanding 

transparency and 

openness by 

providing for 

stakeholder 

engagement and 

ensuring that the 

Review Commission 

keeps interested 

parties and the 

public it serves 

informed of the 

agency’s work at all 

levels, consistent 

with due process 

requirements.

 Ensure that the Review Commission’s website is accessible 

to people with disabilities and serves as a useful repository 

for information about the agency and its adjudicatory

activities.

 Produce timely and accurate reports on the Review 

Commission’s activities, including all reports required by 

law.

 Enhance the agency’s FOIA processing system by 

developing internet-based capabilities.

 Broaden the Review Commission’s outreach activities with 

other Federal agencies and the affected public, including 

targeted education and outreach for individuals with limited 

English proficiency (LEP).

Responsible 

stewardship of 

Agency resources to 

enhance operations 

and efficiencies in 

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.
29

 Use existing and real property more effectively by 

implementing energy efficiency practices, space alignment 

efforts (e.g., sustainability) and expanding telework.

In accordance with Public Law 111-352, the 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 2012

through 2016:

Outcome 

Goals

Performance 

Measures

FY

2012

Actual

(Target)

FY

2013

Actual

(Target)

FY

2014

Actual

(Target)

FY

2015

(Target)

FY

2016

(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

All required 

material

posted to the 

website in 

less than 7 

days and 

usually within 

one day after 

issuance.

Target met

(All material 

posted no 

later than 7 

days after 

issuance)

All material 

posted no 

later than 7 

days after 

issuance

All material 

posted no 

later than 7 

days after 

issuance
30

Outcome 

Goals

Performance 

Measures

FY

2012

Actual

(Target)

FY

2013

Actual

(Target)

FY

2014

Actual

(Target)

FY

2015

(Target)

FY

2016

(Target)

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

All material 

submitted by 

required 

deadlines.

Target met

(100% of all 

material to be 

submitted by 

required 

deadlines)

100% of all 

material to be 

submitted by 

required 

deadlines

100% of all 

material to be 

submitted by 

required 

deadlines

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

Agency focus 

was to revise 

the draft 

language 

access plan 

and submit to 

DOJ for 

approval.

Target not 

met

(Agency to 

sponsor one

outreach and 

educational 

activity per 

year)

Fully 

implement a 

language 

access plan 

and post to 

the Agency’s 

website for 

public access

Review 

documents to 

be translated 

and posted on 

the Agency’s

website
31

Outcome 

Goals

Performance 

Measures

FY

2012

Actual

(Target)

FY

2013

Actual

(Target)

FY

2014

Actual

(Target)

FY

2015

(Target)

FY

2016

(Target)

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

Resources 

were 

identified for 

various 

programs to 

support the 

methodology 

to efficiently 

align the 

budget with 

program 

goals.

Target met

(Identify 

resources to 

support the 

methodology 

to efficiently 

align the 

budget with 

program 

goals)

Align budget 

with Agency 

program goals 

to efficiently 

accomplish 

mission (e.g., 

program, 

human 

capitol, 

procurement, 

IT 

infrastructure, 

and space and 

facilities)

Align budget 

with Agency 

program goals 

to efficiently 

accomplish 

mission (e.g., 

program, 

human 

capitol, 

procurement, 

IT 

infrastructure, 

and space and 

facilities)
32

Outcome 

Goals

Performance 

Measures

FY

2012

Actual

(Target)

FY

2013

Actual

(Target)

FY

2014

Actual

(Target)

FY

2015

(Target)

FY

2016

(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

.55 of basic 

payroll was 

devoted to 

staff training 

and 

development.

*Target met

(.55 percent 

of basic 

payroll 

devoted to 

staff training 

and 

development)

.65 percent of 

basic payroll 

devoted to 

staff training 

and 

development

.70 percent of 

basic payroll 

devoted to 

staff training 

and 

development

*The Review Commission devoted .55 percent of basic payroll to staff training and development. However, our 

ability to expense all funding for this purpose was severely impacted due to a nearly four month Continuing 

Resolution.
33

Outcome 

Goals

Performance 

Measures

FY

2012

Actual

(Target)

FY

2013

Actual

(Target)

FY

2014

Actual

(Target)

FY

2015

(Target)

FY

2016

(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**

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

Staff trained 

in learning 

solution 

designed to 

optimize 

organizational 

performance 

and identify 

KM gaps.

***Target 

partially met

(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

Evaluate the 

effectiveness 

of the Phased 

Retirement 

HR initiative. 

**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. 

***The training is an essential tool necessary to effectively execute the KM audit. In addition, the Review 

Commission began developing a policy to implement OPM’s Phased Retirement human resources initiative. The

initiative, designed to assist agencies with KM and continuity of operation as well as prepare the next generation of 

experts for success, was launched by OPM in August 2014. 
34

Outcome 

Goals

Performance 

Measures

FY

2012

Actual

(Target)

FY

2013

Actual

(Target)

FY

2014

Actual

(Target)

FY

2015

(Target)

FY

2016

(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

Evaluated 

expanding the 

existing IT 

infrastructure 

and began 

procuring 

equipment 

and services 

necessary to 

support the efiling 

initiative.

Target met

(Evaluate 

expanding the 

existing IT 

infrastructure 

to support efiling 

initiative)

Implement 

recommended 

IT 

infrastructure 

upgrades 

identified in 

evaluation

Continuing 

Monitoring to 

see if 

additional 

resources are 

required

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

New goal 

developed to 

support FY 

2014 – 2018 

Strategic 

Plan

New goal 

developed to 

support FY 

2014 – 2018 

Strategic Plan

Use of virtual 

machines and 

all equipment 

purchases 

meet EPA 

Energy 

Efficiency 

standards.

Target met

(Establish 

goal of 

acquiring a 

percentage of 

supplies and 

equipment 

from ecoIncrease the 

percentage of 

supplies and 

equipment 

procured from 

eco-friendly 

sources

Continued 

monitoring to 

ensure 

supplies and 

equipment are

procured from 

eco-friendly 

sources
35

Outcome 

Goals

Performance 

Measures

FY

2012

Actual

(Target)

FY

2013

Actual

(Target)

FY

2014

Actual

(Target)

FY

2015

(Target)

FY

2016

(Target)

friendly 

sources)

-Disposed of 

equipment 

through 

certified 

recyclers.

Target met

(Dispose of 

equipment in 

an environmentally 

friendly 

manner)

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

Developed an 

electronic 

request form 

used for 

processing 

and 

expediting 

FOIA 

requests.

Target met

(Assessment 

of tools and 

resources 

necessary for 

processing 

and 

expediting 

FOIA 

requests 

electronically)

Develop tools 

to be used for 

processing 

and 

expediting 

FOIA 

requests 

electronically

Evaluate and 

monitor use 

of online 

FOIA request 

form; explore 

options for 

online 

tracking 

capability
IV. BUDGET BY OBJECT

CLASSIFICATION

CATEGORY
36

Budget by Object Classification (BOC) Category

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

$13,212,000 for FY 2016 to continue our mission of adjudicating OSHA-issued workplace safety 

citations. The amount supports 66 FTE positions necessary for the efficient adjudication of 

increasingly complex cases as well as funding for other costs. 

The proposed budget for FY 2016 by object classification category is shown in the table below, 

along with the FY 2015 enacted budget. A narrative explanation of the amount budgeted for each 

object classification follows the table.

Object Classification Table

Fiscal Years 2015 and 2016

(Dollars in Thousands)

 Change

 FY 2015 Enacted –

 FY 2016 Request

Budget Object 

Class

FY 2015

Enacted

FY 2016

Request $ %

11.0 Personnel 

Compensation $6,788 $7,790 +1,002 +14.76

12.0 Personnel Benefits 1,898 2,148 +250 +13.17

Subtotal Personal 

Services 8,686 9,938 +1,252 +14.41

21.0 Travel 175 185 +10 +5.71

22.0 Transportation of 

Things 7 10 +3 +43

23.1 Space Rental 

Payments (GSA) 1,517 1,482 -35 -2.36

23.3 Communications, 

Utilities and Misc. 109 343 +234 +215

24.0 Printing and 

Reproduction 17 17 0 0

25.0 Other Services 806 972 +166 +20.6

26.0 Supplies and 

Materials 42 43 +1 +2.38

31.0 Equipment 280 222 -58 -20.71

Grand Total 11,639 13,212 +1,573 +13.51
37

Budget Object Classification Detail

11.0 Personnel Compensation

Change FY 2015 Enacted – FY 2016 Request

FY 2015 Enacted FY 2016 Request Amount Percent Change

6,788,000 7,790,000 +1,002,000 +14.76

The Review Commission requests $7,790,000 to fund direct payroll costs in FY 2016. This 

includes funding for a pay increase that is anticipated in January 2016. 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.

12.0 Personnel Benefits

Change FY 2015 Enacted – FY 2016 Request

FY 2015 Enacted FY 2016 Request Amount Percent Change

1,898,000 2,148,000 +250,000 +13.17

The Review Commission requests $2,148,000 to fund the payroll-related costs of employee 

benefits in FY 2016. 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 2015 Enacted – FY 2016 Request

FY 2015 Enacted FY 2016 Request Amount Percent Change

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

The requested amount for travel in FY 2016 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. These hearings are 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 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. 
38

22.0 Transportation of Things

Change FY 2015 Enacted – FY 2016 Request

FY 2015 Enacted FY 2016 Request Amount Percent Change

7,000 10,000 +3,000 +43

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 2015 Enacted – FY 2016 Request

FY 2015 Enacted FY 2016 Request Amount Percent Change

1,517,000 1,482,000 -35,000 -2.36

The request includes $1,482,000 for office space rental for the National and Regional Offices. 

These projected rent costs are based on FY 2016 estimates provided by the General Services 

Administration (GSA) to the Review Commission. 

23.3 Communications, Utilities and Miscellaneous Charges

Change FY 2015 Enacted – FY 2016 Request

FY 2015 Enacted FY 2016 Request Amount Percent Change

109,000 343,000 +234,000 +215

The Review Commission requests $343,000 for communication costs in FY 2016. 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 of this, our telecommunication costs have increased 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 $323,000. 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 2015 Enacted – FY 2016 Request

FY 2015 Enacted FY 2016 Request Amount Percent Change

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

The requested amount for printing in FY 2016 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 
39

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

$10,000 in fiscal year 2016. 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 2015 Enacted – FY 2016 Request

FY 2015 Enacted FY 2016 Request Amount Percent Change

806,000 972,000 +166,000 +20.6

The requested amount for other services in FY 2016 is $972,000. 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 $442,000 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, 

$279,000 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 budget impactful services which 

support both the core mission of the agency and additional mandated functions. These include: 

program optimization, security and post development support for the e-filing initiative/system 

($113,000); court reporting ($100,000); law library operations ($80,000); on-line legal research 

($43,000); contractual services for both the Federal Information Security Management Act 

(FISMA) audit ($29,000) and financial statements audit ($29,000); services for translation of 

documents and interpreters for individuals with limited English proficiency ($20,000); and 

additional variable outlays related to the ongoing training of employees.
40

26.0 Supplies and Materials

Change FY 2015 Enacted – FY 2016 Request

FY 2015 Enacted FY 2016 Request Amount Percent Change

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

The requested amount for supplies and materials in FY 2016 is $43,000. This amount includes 

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

31.0 Equipment

Change FY 2015 Enacted – FY 2016 Request

FY 2015 Enacted FY 2016 Request Amount Percent Change

280,000 222,000 -58,000 -20.71

The requested amount for equipment in FY 2016 is $222,000. 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 additional licensing and hosting costs are 

required to maintain the system. We estimate that the annual costs will be $100,000. 

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
41

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 $8,081,0001

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2013 $11,965,000 $11,667,000 $11,667,000 $11,666,90813

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

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

2016 $13,212,000 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

13 Reduced to $11,056,659 by P.L. 113-6 and Sequestration Order issued March 1, 2013
42

Authorized Full Time Positions

By Function

FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016

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 0 1

GS-10 1 1 1

GS-9 1 2 2

GS-8 5 4 5

Sub-total 25 24 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 5 6

GS-13 2 3 3

GS-12 2 1 1

GS-11 5 3 4

GS-10 0 0 0

GS-9 0 1 1

GS-8 1 1 1

GS-7 2 1 2

Sub-total 28 25 29

Office of the Executive Director:

ES-00 1 1 1

GS-15 3 3 3 

GS-14 0 0 0 

GS-13 0 0 0

GS-12 3 3 3

GS-11 0 0 0

GS-7 1 1 1

GS-6 1 0 0

GS-5 0 0 1

Sub-total 9 8 9

Total full-time positions: 62 57 66