U.S. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH

REVIEW COMMISSION

February 12, 2018
TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. AGENCY AND MISSION INFORMATION.................................................................... 1

A. Overview and Mission ........................................................................................................ 1

B. Vision.................................................................................................................................. 1

C. Values ................................................................................................................................. 2

II. STRATEGIC GOALS ........................................................................................................ 2

Strategic Goal #1 – Respect for the Rule of Law ..................................................................... 3

Strategic Goal #2 – Expanding Transparency and Openness................................................... 4

Strategic Goal #3 – Promoting Organizational Excellence ...................................................... 4

Strategic Goal #4 – Managing Agency Resources in a Manner that Instills Public Trust........ 4

III. STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES.............................................................................................. 5

A. Review Level ...................................................................................................................... 5

 ALJ Level............................................................................................................................ 5

C. Executive Director Level .................................................................................................... 6

IV. PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND TARGETS............................................................ 8

V. EXTERNAL FACTORS .................................................................................................. 12

A. OSHA Enforcement.......................................................................................................... 12

B. Review Commission Membership.................................................................................... 12

C. Nature of Cases at the Review Level................................................................................ 13

D. Nature of Cases at the ALJ Level ..................................................................................... 13

E. Legislative and Regulatory Changes ................................................................................ 13

F. Budget............................................................................................................................... 13

G. Additional Factors............................................................................................................. 13

VI. CONSULTATION PLANNING PROCESS.................................................................... 14

VII. PROGRAM EVALUATION............................................................................................ 14
1

I. AGENCY AND MISSION INFORMATION

A. Overview and Mission

The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (Review Commission) is an 

independent adjudicatory agency created by the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 

(the Act). The sole statutory mandate is to serve as an administrative court providing fair and 

expeditious resolution of disputes involving the Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA), employers charged with violations of federal safety and health 

standards, and employees and/or their representatives. The Review Commission was created 

by Congress as an agency completely independent of the Department of Labor (DOL) to 

ensure that OSHA’s enforcement actions are carried out in accordance with the law and that 

parties are accorded due process.

The Act and the Review Commission’s Rules of Procedure, provide two levels of 

adjudication when an employer timely contests an OSHA citation. The first level affords an 

employer and/or affected employee who files a timely notice of contest with an opportunity 

for a hearing before a Review Commission Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). The ALJ’s 

decision becomes a final order under the Act unless a member of the Review Commission 

exercises their discretion to direct the case for review. The second level involves the Review 

Commission’s review of an ALJ decision. The Review Commission has three members, 

appointed by the President and subject to Senate confirmation, who serve six-year terms. The 

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

are also regional offices in Atlanta and Denver, where additional Review Commission ALJs 

and staff are assigned. Both before its ALJs and the Review Commission members, the 

agency seeks to provide fair, impartial, and timely adjudication of cases concerning the 

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

B. Vision

The Review Commission strives to be:

1. An adjudicative body that is, and is recognized for being, objective, fair, prompt, 

professional, and respected.

2. An agency that creates a body of law through its decisions that define and clarify the 

rights and responsibilities of employers and employees under the Act.

3. A model federal agency with highly effective processes, a highly motivated, qualified 

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

administrative systems.

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

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

C. Values

The Review Commission serves as an administrative court at the hearing and appellate 

levels, and its core principles include:

1. Respect for the rule of law, including due process and fidelity to the agency’s mission.

2. Issuance of quality decisions at both levels of Review Commission adjudication.

3. Professionalism, collegiality, and mutual respect among Commissioners, ALJs, and 

staff.

4. The highest ethical standards and integrity in all the agency does.

5. Teamwork and collaboration, as befits a collegial adjudicatory body.

6. Consistent with due process requirements, openness, transparency, and stakeholder 

engagement.

7. Responsible stewardship of federal resources entrusted to the agency.

8. Investing in and valuing the agency’s human capital. 

II. STRATEGIC GOALS

The Review Commission’s strategic plan focuses on four goals:

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

Review-level cases;

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

to enhance the transparency of its operations; 

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

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

and developed; and

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

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

order to better accomplish the agency’s mission.

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

agency’s ability to meet its strategic goals. The agency will include its strategic goals and 

objectives and their associated measures in the annual performance plans as part of its 

performance budget. The Review Commission has established strategic objectives to assist it in 

achieving its strategic goals as summarized below:
3

Strategic Goal #1 – Respect for the 

Rule of Law

Promptly and fairly resolving cases, 

including reducing the average age of cases 

pending at the agency.

Strategic Objectives1

1. Resolve all priority cases at the Agency in 

a timely manner.2

2. Develop and implement case management 

practices that will minimize the average 

age of all pending Review-level cases.

3. Develop and implement case management 

practices that will minimize the average 

age of all pending ALJ-level cases.

4. Ensure that a significant proportion of both 

complex and non-complex cases at the ALJ 

level are resolved within one year to 20 

months from docketing.3

5. Reduce the average age of all Review-level 

cases to 20 months from direction for 

review.

4

6. Reduce the number of Review-level cases 

over two years in age.

 

1These objectives will not apply to cases that are stayed at the agency because criminal law investigations 

or prosecutions are being pursued. 

2Priority cases include Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 60(b) cases, Commission Rule (CR) 

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

cases – those with significant threshold issues, for instance – are not treated as priority cases because of 

the complexity of those issues. Also, where the parties have indicated intent to settle a priority case, the 

time frame will be tolled. 

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

parties; volume of documents, including transcripts; large number of witnesses (including expert 

witnesses in such fields as engineering, architecture, construction, soil, physics, epidemiology, pathology, 

neurology, and infectious diseases); length of the trial; large proposed penalties; number of alleged 

violations, items (including distinct and separate items), and affirmative defenses; technical, novel, 

difficult or new standards raised; type of cases, such as those involving toxins (such as asbestos and lead); 

or extensive pre-trial discovery, including large numbers of interrogatories, conferences, and motions.

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

Review Commission’s ability to meet these goals. See “Additional Factors” on page 12.
4

Strategic Goal #2 – Expanding 

Transparency and Openness

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.

Strategic Objectives

1. Ensure that the Review Commission’s 

website is user-friendly, accessible to people 

with disabilities, and serves as a useful 

repository for information about the agency 

and its adjudicatory activities.

2. Broaden the Review Commission’s outreach 

activities to the regulated community.

Strategic Goal #3 – Promoting 

Organizational Excellence

Encouraging a culture of professionalism, 

mutual respect, and organizational pride;

ensuring that staff members are adequately 

trained and developed.

Strategic Objectives

1. Recruit, invest in, and value all employees 

through professional development, 

workplace flexibilities, fair treatment, and 

recognition.

2. Ensure that employees are aware of the 

agency’s mission and how they contribute to 

its accomplishments.

3. Provide training opportunities to ALJs. In 

addition, provide training to all attorneys and 

support staff in order to enhance their 

capabilities on technical and legal issues, 

legal writing, ethics, and technology and case 

management.

Strategic Goal #4 – Managing Agency 

Resources in a Manner that Instills 

Public Trust

Providing responsible stewardship of 

resources to monitor, evaluate, and improve 

programs and processes in order to better 

accomplish the agency’s mission.

Strategic Objectives

1. Develop and present an annual budget and 

performance plan that clearly presents how 

the organization will accomplish 

government-wide management priorities, 

agency-wide goals, and organizational goals.

2. Improve technology infrastructure through 

efficiencies and investments (e.g., training, 

equipment, services) to support the effective 

use of broadband, cyber security, and energy 

efficiency.

3. Conduct all internal and external agency 

business in an ethical and timely manner.
5

III. STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES

The Review Commission’s strategies for achieving its public service goals are outlined below.

A. Review Level

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

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

management. 

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

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

they are disposed of within six months of designation. 

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

cases and issuance of decisions. 

 Identify and provide training opportunities to all agency attorneys and support staff 

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

legal writing, ethics, and technology and case management. 

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

Commission’s strategic and annual performance plans. 

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

processing. 

 ALJ Level 

 Expedite the assignment of cases to ALJs. 

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

cases. 

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

systems and reports. 

 Conduct early review and 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. 
6

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

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

processes equal to the very best in judicial arenas.

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

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

settlement discussions. 

At the ALJ level, this strategic plan includes separate, updated targets based on the 

complexity and type of the case (e.g., simplified, complex, settlement part, or conventional), 

to better reflect the Review Commission’s recent experience. The Government Performance 

and Results Act (GPRA) results at the ALJ level have been impacted by a marked increase in 

the number of citations being contested and the resulting number of contests being docketed. 

In FY 2009, OSHA issued new policy guidance regarding its expectation that the average 

penalty for a serious violation would increase from about $1,000 up to $3,000 to $4,000. The 

actual penalty adjustment went into effect at the start of FY 2011 and the numbers reported 

by OSHA demonstrated a doubling of assessed penalties for serious violations (from $1,053 

to $2,132). The impact of the rise in penalties resulted in an increase in the citation contest 

rate and in the workload for the Review Commission.

While recent data shows that the number of new cases may be stabilizing, the agency’s

inventory is growing as it is receiving more complex cases which require significantly more 

of the ALJ’s time. In the future, the agency is anticipating a larger influx of cases as a result 

of the Bipartisan Budget Act, which was signed into effect on November 2, 2015. Section 

701 of the Bipartisan Budget Act required OSHA to increase penalty amounts initially by 78 

percent with annual adjustments based on the consumer price index. In FY 2015 the Review 

Commission docketed 2,164 contests with an inventory of 1,099 cases, and in FY 2016 

docketed 2,183 contests with an inventory that grew to 1,109 cases. With the penalty rate 

rising, the agency is anticipating a significant increase in contests due to the new penalty 

structure, which may also result in an increased inventory.

C. Executive Director Level 

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

the organization will accomplish government-wide management priorities, agencywide goals, and organizational goals.

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

decisions, including education and outreach for Limited English Proficiency (LEP)

individuals and posting procedural decisions and non-dispositive orders on the

Review Commission’s website.

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

encourages diversity and workplace policies and programs that enable employees to 

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

Women’s Program, Hispanic Employment Program), telework policies, family-
7

friendly policies, and wellness programs.

4. Enhance employee development and learning opportunities by devoting available 

budgetary resources to staff training.

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

diverse workforce.

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

create a more stable operating environment by eliminating duplication, investing in 

standardized platforms, realizing cloud first opportunities, and minimizing storage 

and application sprawl and locally housed servers.

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

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

8. Maintain an information security and privacy management program through 

acceptance and deployment of appropriate federally mandated guidelines and 

enforcing active policies. Ensure annual FISMA audits are performed and consider 

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

the external independent audit.
8

IV. PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND TARGETS

The Review Commission will formulate performance measures for its strategic objectives. The 

performance measures will be identified in the annual performance budget. They will be used to 

determine the achievement of the strategic goals and objectives. These measures will be 

assessed using concrete and clearly observable outcomes based on the Review Commission’s 

annual performance plan.

The table below illustrates the relationships between the strategic objectives in the strategic plan 

and the potential performance measures currently being considered for inclusion in the Review

Commission’s performance plan.

STRATEGIC 

OBJECTIVES

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES FY 2022 TARGETS

Strategic Goal # 1 – Respect for the Rule of Law

1. Resolve all priority cases 

at the Agency in a timely 

manner.

Percent of priority cases 

disposed of within 6 months.

Dispose of 100 percent of all 

priority cases within 6 months 

of designation.

2. Develop and implement 

case management practices 

that will minimize the 

average age of all pending 

Review-level cases.

Whether new case management 

practices have been developed 

and implemented.

Full implementation of new case 

management practices.

3. Develop and implement 

case management practices 

that will minimize the 

average age of all pending 

ALJ-level cases.

Whether new case management 

practices have been developed 

and implemented.

Full implementation of new case 

management practices.

4. 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.5

- Percent of simplified cases 

disposed of within one year at 

the ALJ level.

- Percent of non-complex 

conventional cases disposed of 

within 17 months.

- Dispose of 95 percent of 

simplified cases within one year.

- Dispose of 90 percent of 

conventional cases within 17 

months.

 

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

Office of the Executive Secretary, judges are not assigned cases until initial pleadings have been filed. 

This assignment generally occurs approximately 60 days after the case has been docketed due to the 

parties’ frequent requests for extensions of time for filing initial pleadings.
9

STRATEGIC 

OBJECTIVES

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES FY 2022 TARGETS

- Percent of settlement part 

cases disposed of within 19 

months.

- Percent of complex cases 

disposed of within 20 months 

at the ALJ level.

- Dispose of 95 percent of 

settlement part cases within 19 

months.

- Dispose of 95 percent of 

complex cases within 20 

months.

5. Reduce the average age 

of all pending Review-level 

cases to 20 months from 

direction for review.

Average age of all pending 

Review-level cases.

Average age of all pending 

Review-level cases reduced to 

20 months by 2022.6

6. Reduce the number of 

Review-level cases over two 

years in age.

Percent reduction in the 

number of Review-level cases 

over two years in age. 

Reduce the share of Reviewlevel cases over two years in age 

as follows:

- FY 2018: No greater than 40% 

of all cases

- FY 2019: No greater than 33% 

of all cases

- FY 2020: No greater than 25% 

of all cases

- FY 2021: No greater than 20% 

of all cases7

Strategic Goal # 2 – Expanding Transparency and Openness

1. Ensure that the Review 

Commission’s website is 

user-friendly, accessible to 

people with disabilities, and 

serves as a useful repository 

for information about the 

agency and its adjudicatory 

activities.

Timeliness of postings to 

agency website.

All material to be posted no later 

than 5 days after issuance.

 

6 For instance, for FY 2018, the target goal now calculates the average age of a Review-level case based 

on: (1) cases that are docketed at the review level and decided during the time frame of October 1, 2017 

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

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

through September 30, 2018, with the final percentage measured as of the end of the FY. 
10

STRATEGIC 

OBJECTIVES

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES FY 2022 TARGETS

2. Broaden the Review 

Commission’s outreach 

activities to the regulated 

community.

-Participation in professional 

conferences and meetings and 

strategic engagement with the 

regulated community.

-Creation of electronic 

subscription service.

-Increased participation in at 

least two activities or meetings 

that promote strategic 

engagement to disseminate 

information including trends and 

services (e.g., LEP) provided by 

the agency.

-Use of alert service to engage 

the public.

Strategic Goal # 3 – Promoting Organizational Excellence

1. Recruit, invest in, and 

value all employees through 

professional development, 

workplace flexibilities, fair 

treatment, and recognition.

-Recruit, develop, and retain a 

highly motivated, talented, and 

diverse workforce to 

accomplish its mission.

-Identify areas in which the 

agency can enhance diversity 

and talent through annual 

analysis of the MD-7158

guidance.

Ensure that the agency’s 

performance management 

system(s) are aligned with its 

goals and objectives. Enhance 

employee development and 

learning opportunities by 

making budgetary resources 

available for staff training. 

Annually review and/or update 

agency directives pertaining to 

workplace flexibilities (e.g., 

hours of work, telework).

-Attract qualified and diverse 

candidates, including veterans 

and persons with disabilities.

2. Ensure that employees are 

aware of the agency’s 

mission and how they 

contribute to its 

accomplishments.

Communicate significant 

organizational 

accomplishments with staff.

Enhance the agency’s 

orientation program for new 

employees. Ensure that each 

employee is provided with an 

annual performance plan that 

outlines management’s goals 

and expectations.

3. Provide training 

opportunities to (1) ALJs

and (2) all attorneys and 

support staff, in order to 

Increased attendance and 

participation in training 

opportunities, internal and/or 

external, for ALJs and all 

Attendance and participation by

ALJs and attorneys and support 

staff, at no less than one training 

opportunity annually, internal 

 

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

Federal Agencies
11

STRATEGIC 

OBJECTIVES

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES FY 2022 TARGETS

enhance their capabilities on 

technical and legal issues, 

legal writing, ethics, and 

technology and case 

management.

attorneys and support staff. and/or external, depending on 

budget constraints.

Strategic Goal #4 – Managing Agency Resources in a Manner that Instills Public Trust

1. Develop and present an 

annual budget and 

performance plan that 

clearly presents how the 

organization will accomplish 

government-wide 

management priorities, 

agency-wide goals, and 

organizational goals.

System that links resources to 

specific activities that support 

measurable programmatic 

outcomes and objectives.

Implementation of a 

measurement system to assess 

and report on progress of 

financial management 

improvements and budget 

integration management 

reforms.

2. Improve technology 

infrastructure through 

efficiencies and investments 

(e.g., training, equipment, 

services) to support the 

effective use of broadband, 

cyber security, and energy 

efficiency.

- Streamline operations and 

infrastructure to eliminate 

duplication; minimize servers, 

storage and application sprawl.

- Maintain standardized 

platforms, including hardware 

and software.

- Improve network 

communications to ensure 

customers can access necessary 

information without delay.

- Reduce physical servers 

through virtualization.

- Reduce the number of 

operating systems in use.

- Increase bandwidth for 

migration to cloud efficiencies.

3. Conduct all internal and 

external agency business in 

an ethical and timely 

manner.

Promote an ethical culture 

within the Review Commission 

through leadership, awareness, 

resources, and oversight.

Increase employee awareness of 

ethics responsibilities by 

conducting agency-wide 

training. Respond to 75 percent 

of ethics inquiries within two 

weeks of receipt.
12

V. EXTERNAL FACTORS 

Various factors can affect each strategic goal, objective, and performance measure contained in 

the Review Commission’s strategic plan. These factors include OSHA enforcement, Review 

Commission membership, the nature of cases at the Commission and ALJ levels, the potential 

effect of legislative and regulatory changes, and budget.

A. OSHA Enforcement

The factors which most influence the agency’s workload, and hence its strategies, are: the 

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

inspections, and the number and characterization of violations and total penalties proposed 

by OSHA in each citation, all of which have historically been associated with increases in the 

contest rate and total number of contested citations. There has been an increase in recent 

years in both the level of proposed penalties and the contest rate. This has translated into an 

increase in both the total number of contested cases and the number of complex cases, which 

typically have longer and more costly trials. Consequently, as discussed previously with 

respect to the ALJ caseload increase, the overall workload has increased both at the ALJ and 

Review levels.

B. Review Commission Membership

Achieving the goals depends on having a quorum, as well as the number of sitting 

Commissioners, as Review Commission member vacancies directly affect the agency’s 

performance at the Commission’s Review Level. The Act requires the affirmative votes of 

two Commissioners to decide a pending case. During periods when the Review Commission 

lacks the statutory quorum of two Commissioners, no cases can be decided, although one 

Commissioner can direct a case for review. Moreover, with only two Commissioners it can 

be more difficult to reach an agreement sufficient to dispose of a pending case as both must 

agree on all of the issues in the matter. During the five-year period starting with FY 2013

and continuing into FY 2017, the Review Commission has been without a third 

Commissioner 71 percent of the time.

9 With fewer than three members, deadlocks on votes 

may result (i.e., impasses), action on important issues may be postponed, and action on 

pending cases may be delayed. In addition, a large and/or complex case has a greater 

likelihood of impasse with only two Commissioners. Furthermore, individual 

Commissioners may be recused from specific cases, with the result that action on this case is 

impossible with only two Commissioners.

This strategic plan assumes that all three Commissioner positions will be filled. With a full 

complement of Commissioners on board, the Review Commission is optimistic that it can 

meet its high goals set forth for Review-level decision-making. To the extent that the agency 

 

9 There have been significant periods of time during which the Review Commission operated without a 

full Commission from FY 2013 through FY 2017 (as of August 28, 2017). For example, from October 1, 

2012 through April 1, 2014, which is 547 days, the Commission operated without a third Commissioner. 

A subsequent vacancy of 817 days has existed at the Commission from April 28, 2015 through August 

28, 2017. 
13

operates with less than a full complement of Commissioners, achieving the goals in this 

strategic plan will be more difficult.

C. Nature of Cases at the Review Level

The Review Commission’s goal in managing case production is to manage cases so as to 

minimize the average age of all pending cases as well as the average age of the oldest cases. 

However, the increasing complexity of the cases at the trial level may result in a higher 

percentage of cases being petitioned for review.

D. Nature of Cases at the ALJ Level

There are also a variety of factors that could affect the Review Commission’s ability to meet 

its goal at the ALJ level. These include: (1) the magnitude and nature of the cases received, 

(2) the success of Simplified Proceedings and Mandatory Settlement procedures in reducing 

the length, complexity or number of hearings needed, and (3) the number, length, and 

complexity of hearings held. The impact of the 2016 statutory penalty increase from a 

maximum of $7,000 per violation for serious and non-serious violations to $12,471; and the 

increase from a maximum of $70,000 per violation for willful and repeat violations to 

$124,709, are being closely monitored. There are also recent indications that the employer 

contest rate (percentage of OSHA investigative findings being challenged by the regulated 

community), has significantly increased in recent months. The impact of these changes can 

significantly affect case numbers, caseload management, as well as the progression of cases 

through trial at the ALJ level. The impact of these changes and trends will continue to be 

closely monitored.

E. Legislative and Regulatory Changes

Regulatory changes by OSHA or statutory changes in the Act could potentially affect the 

Review Commission’s ability to meet the goals of this plan.

F. Budget

The agency’s goals and measures assume full funding of the Review Commission’s budget

as submitted by the President to Congress. As a labor-intensive agency, over 90 percent of 

the agency’s budget is dedicated to fixed costs, including about 74 percent for salaries and 

benefits. If less than the full funding requested is authorized, the agency’s ability to produce 

the results and benefits set forth in this plan will be limited.

G. Additional Factors

Additional factors may affect the Review Commission’s ability to meet its strategic plan 

goals such as the ability to recruit and retain qualified personnel for this specialized area of 

federal safety and health law.
14

VI. CONSULTATION PLANNING PROCESS

In developing this plan, the agency relied on an analysis of case processing procedures, case 

processing statistics from its case tracking system, the FY 2013 through FY 2016 performance 

report, and the agency’s internal progress reports for the FY 2015 and FY 2016 performance 

plan. The agency also reviewed plans of other federal adjudicative agencies during the drafting 

stage of this plan.

The Review Commission will submit copies of the updated plan to Congressional committees, 

post the plan on its website, and distribute the plan to the trade press, trade associations, labor 

unions, the OSHA Bar, and the DOL.

VII. PROGRAM EVALUATION

Over the next several years, the Review Commission plans to conduct evaluations and continue 

ongoing evaluations that will provide information the agency can use to improve its operations, 

processes, and procedures. The program evaluations required under GPRA will be included in 

each of the annual performance budgets. The agency’s evaluation schedule is noted below:

• Evaluate/monitor electronic filing of legal documents. 

• Evaluate the security of information technology systems and security management 

measures through the annual Federal Information Security Modernization Act (FISMA)

Audit. 

• Evaluate agency procedures governing budget and finance, procurement, human 

resources, and time and attendance as part of the Administrative Oversight Audit. 

• Coordinate and schedule audit of the agency’s Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO)

program (e.g., reporting, complaint processing, and education and outreach).