The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission 

Strategic Plan, 2010 - 2015 

Executive Summary 

 Mission 

Adjudication of workplace safety and health disputes under the Occupational Safety and Health 

Act of 1970. 

 Vision

A judicial body that is recognized for being objective, fair, prompt, professional, and respected, 

and creates and explains a body of law through its decisions that define and explain the rights 

and responsibilities of employers and employees under the Act; 

 

 Values and Guiding Principles 

Serving as an administrative court at both the hearing and appellate levels, the Review 

Commission’s values and aspirations include: 

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

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

$ Professionalism, collegiality and mutual respect among Commissioners, administrative 

law judges and staff. 

$ The highest ethical standards and integrity in all we do. 

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

$ Openness, transparency and stakeholder engagement. 

$ Responsible stewardship of Federal resources entrusted to the agency. 

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

 

 Goals 

$ Strategic Goal # 1 – Respect for the rule of law by assuring fair, just, and expeditious 

adjudication of disputes brought before the Commission and its judges. 

$ Strategic Goal # 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. 

$ Strategic Goal # 3 - Responsible stewardship of the fiscal and human resources employed 

by the Review Commission in accordance with the agency’s statutory mandate and other 

applicable law. 
2

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

 Page 

I. Introduction......................................................................................................................... 3 

II. Background on the Review Commission............................................................................ 4 

III. Mission Statement............................................................................................................... 4 

IV. Vision Statement................................................................................................................. 4 

V. Values and Guiding Principles............................................................................................ 5 

VI. Strategic Goals.................................................................................................................... 5 

VII. Strategic Plan Link to Annual Performance Plans.............................................................. 8 

VIII. Strategies for Improving Public Service........................................................................... 11 

IX. External Risk Factors........................................................................................................ 13 

X. Consultation Planning Process.......................................................................................... 15 

XI. Program Evaluation .......................................................................................................... 16 
3

I. Introduction 

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

committed to ensuring that all parties who come before it - employers, employees, employee 

representatives, and the U.S. Department of Labor - receive fair and timely resolution of safety 

and health disputes in American work places. Consistent with the behavior of highly effective 

organizations, and the Administration’s commitment to ensure an open and accountable Federal 

Government, the Review Commission is reassessing the environment within which it operates to 

become a more responsive organization – both to the parties who appear before us, as well as to 

our own employees. 

This revised strategic plan is being issued one year after issuance of the Review Commission’s 

last strategic plan, which covered the period 2009 – 2014. Although normally, OMB Circular A11 contemplates issuance of a revised strategic plan every three years, the Review Commission’s 

leadership is revising the plan at this time as a recommitment to the agency’s fundamental 

mission, vision, values and goals. 

First, this revised strategic plan focuses on the importance of targeting the agency’s existing case 

backlog and reducing, in a realistic way, the average age of open Commission-level cases. 

Second, to the extent consistent with the agency’s statutory authority, the Review Commission is 

seeking to enhance the transparency of its operations. Third, the Review Commission is seeking 

to ensure that best practices in agency management are in place to ensure taxpayer dollars are 

wisely spent. Finally, this revised strategic plan addresses employee development indicators – 

specifically ensuring that staff are adequately trained and developed and that the agency takes 

advantage of the latest thinking in information sharing, e.g., adoption of knowledge management 

techniques. 

 

At the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) level, this strategic plan commits the Review 

Commission to focus on the development of new measures for assessing workload indices and 

the use of various strategies to expedite the handling of cases. Our primary goal in this area is to 

measure the ongoing efforts of our ALJs to resolve disputes without resort to formal hearings. 

Previous Review Commission strategic plans have focused on measuring the number of hearings 

held. However, experience indicates that the vast majority of contests at the Review 

Commission are resolved by ALJs not through formal hearings, but through a variety of other 

dispute resolution techniques. This helps to reduce costs while ensuring that parties have a full 

opportunity to reach settlement. 

This updated strategic plan has been developed in accordance with the Government Performance 

and Results Act (GPRA). The agency’s annual performance budget will set forth specific 

performance goals and measures including reporting of ALJ assisted settlement negotiation 

statistics after development of appropriate measures. 
4

II. Background on the Review Commission

The Review Commission is an independent, adjudicatory agency created by the Occupational 

Safety and Health Act of 1970 (Act), 29 U.S.C. §§ 651-678. Its sole statutory mandate is to 

serve as an administrative court providing just and expeditious resolution of disputes involving 

the U. S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the 

employers OSHA has 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. 

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

The first level provides an employer and/or affected employee who files a timely notice of 

contest with an opportunity for a hearing before a Review Commission ALJ. The ALJ’s decision 

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

his/her 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. Both 

before its ALJs and the Members of the Review Commission, the agency seeks to provide fair, 

impartial, and timely adjudication of the cases concerning the safety and health of employees 

working in the United States. 

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

are also two regional offices, one in Atlanta and one in Denver where additional Review 

Commission ALJs and staff are assigned.

III. Mission Statement 

The mission of the Review Commission is to provide an impartial forum for the just and prompt 

adjudication of workplace safety and health disputes involving the Department of Labor, 

employers, and employees and/or their representatives under the Occupational Safety and Health 

Act of 1970. 

IV. Vision Statement 

The Review Commission strives to be: 

$ A judicial body that is -- and is recognized for being -- objective, fair, prompt, 

professional, and respected; 

$ An agency that creates a body of law through its decisions that define and explain the 

rights and responsibilities of employers and employees under the Act. 
5 

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

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

administrative systems. 

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

performance, service, and value to the American people. 

V. Values and Guiding Principles 

The Review Commission is an independent Federal administrative agency that decides contests 

of OSHA-issued citations. As such, the agency functions as an administrative court and includes 

both hearing level and appellate review functions. Accordingly, the following values are 

characteristic of the Review Commission’s aspirations: 

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

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

$ Professionalism, collegiality and mutual respect among Commissioners, administrative 

law judges and staff. 

$ The highest ethical standards and integrity in all we do. 

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

$ Consistent with due process requirements, openness, transparency and stakeholder 

engagement. 

$ Responsible stewardship of Federal resources entrusted to the agency. 

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

VI. Strategic Goals 

The Review Commission’s strategic plan is 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 the fiscal and human 

resources employed by the Review Commission in accordance with the agency’s statutory 

mandate and other applicable law. 

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

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

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

performance budget. The Review Commission has established outcome goals to assist it in 

achieving its strategic goals as summarized below: 
6 

Strategic Goal # 1 – Respect for the 

Rule of Law

Respect for the rule of law by assuring fair, 

just, and expeditious adjudication of disputes 

brought before the Commission and its judges.

 Outcome Goals* 

1. Resolve the oldest cases on the Review 

Commission’s docket. ** 

2. Reduce the average age of open cases at 

the Commission-level. 

3. Resolve all priority cases in a timely 

manner. 

4. Ensure that a significant proportion of 

both complex *** and non-complex cases 

at the ALJ level are resolved in less than 

one year. 

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. 

Outcome Goals

1. Ensure that the Review Commission’s 

website is accurate, current and complete, 

and serves as a useful repository for 

information about the agency and its 

adjudicatory activities. 

2. Produce timely and accurate reports on 

the Review Commission’s activities, 

including all reports required by law. 

3. Update agency’s FOIA regulations and 

FOIA reference guide. 
7 

Strategic Goal # 3 – Responsible 

Stewardship of Fiscal and Human 

Resources 

Responsible stewardship of the fiscal and 

human resources employed by the Review 

Commission in accordance with the agency’s 

statutory mandate and other applicable law. 

Outcome Goals

1. Improve the Review Commission’s 

outreach activities with affected public and 

with other Federal agencies. 

2. Recruit and maintain a diverse and 

highly motivated staff with the skills to 

support the mission of the agency. 

3. Invest in human capital by increasing 

staff development and training 

opportunities and increasing employees’ 

capabilities and potential. 

4. Ensure that the agency’s performance 

management system enhances individual 

and organizational effectiveness. 

5. Improve case tracking through 

implementation of a new IT case 

management system. 

6. Develop metrics to measure ALJ effort 

devoted to non-hearing case resolution. 

7. Make use of best knowledge 

management (KM) practices to ensure that 

employees are better prepared to perform 

their work, and to provide for continuity 

and succession planning. 

8. Improve the quality of employee work 

life through enhanced use of IT, telework, 

wellness programs, etc. 

9. Examine opportunities for insourcing of 

work that has been outsourced to 

contractors. 

 

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

investigations or prosecutions are being pursued. 
8 

** The Commission intends to continue to expeditiously review 2008 and future cases and seeks to 

measure our overall progress in resolving cases at the Commission level by reducing the average age of 

open cases. 

 

*** 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; the large amounts of money involved; 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 air pollution, asbestos, and 

lead poisoning; or extensive pre-trial discovery, including large numbers of interrogatories, conferences, 

and motions. 

VII. Strategic Plan Link to Annual Performance Plans 

The Review Commission will formulate performance measures for its strategic goals and each of 

the related outcome performance goals. The performance measures will be identified in the 

annual performance budget. They will be used to determine the achievement of the general and 

outcome goals. These measures will be assessed using information in the Review Commission's 

case management/tracking system, and they will have concrete and clearly observable outcomes. 

The table below illustrates the relationships between the performance goals in the strategic plan 

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

Commission’s performance plan. 

STRATEGIC PLAN OUTCOME GOALS AND PERFORMANCE PLAN MEASURES 

OUTCOME GOALS* PERFORMANCE MEASURES

 

 FY 2015 TARGETS 

Strategic Goal # 1

Resolve the oldest cases on the 

Review Commission’s docket. ** 

- All cases docketed at Commission 

level prior to 2008 resolved. 

-Priority goal: to be achieved 

by end of FY 2011. 

Reduce the average age of open 

cases at the Commission-level. 

-Average age of open cases. -Average age of two years or 

less. 
9 

Resolve all priority cases in a 

timely manner. -Percent of priority cases disposed 

of within 6 months.*** 

-Dispose of 100% of all priority 

cases within 6 months of 

designation. 

Ensure that a significant proportion 

of both complex and non-complex 

cases at the ALJ level are resolved 

in less than one year.

-Percent of non-complex cases 

disposed of within one year at ALJ 

level. 

-Percent of complex cases disposed 

of within one year at ALJ level. 

-Dispose of 98% of noncomplex cases within one year. 

-Dispose of 95% of complex 

cases within a year. 

Strategic Goal # 2

Ensure that the Review 

Commission’s website is accurate, 

current and complete, and serves as 

a useful repository for information 

about the agency and its 

adjudicatory activities. 

-Timeliness of postings to agency 

web site. 

-All material to be posted no 

later than 7 days after issuance. 

Produce timely and accurate 

reports on the Review 

Commission’s activities, including 

all reports required by law. 

-Timeliness of submissions of 

required reports, e.g., financial 

statements, OMB and OPM 

reports, etc. 

-All material to be submitted by 

required deadlines. 

Update agency’s FOIA regulations 

and FOIA Reference Guide. -Issue revised regulations and 

Guide. 

-This is a priority goal to be 

completed by the end of FY 

2010. 

Strategic Goal # 3

Improve the Review Commission’s 

outreach activities with affected 

public and with other Federal 

agencies. 

-Participation in professional 

conferences and meetings. 

-A regular education program 

on Review Commission 

practices and procedures. 

Recruit and maintain a diverse and 

highly motivated staff with the 

skills necessary to support the 

mission of the agency. 

-Surveys of agency staff and skills 

assessments. 

-Ranking in top tiers of 

personnel survey(s). 

Invest in human capital by 

increasing staff development and 

training opportunities and 

increasing employees’ capabilities 

and potential. 

-Resources dedicated to staff 

training. 

- One percent of basic payroll 

devoted to staff training and 

development. 

Ensure that the agency’s 

performance management system 

enhances individual and 

organizational effectiveness. 

-Relationship of employee 

performance appraisals and awards 

to meeting agency performance 

goals. 

-All agency awards and 

appraisals to align with all 

annual performance goals, 

including recognition of 

teamwork. 
10 

Improve case tracking through 

implementation of a new case 

management system. 

-Installation and operation of new 

software. 

-All aspects of case tracking 

activities to be fully-integrated 

into case management system. 

Develop metrics to measure ALJ 

effort devoted to non-hearing case 

resolution. 

-Metrics developed. -Metrics used for reporting 

purposes. 

Make use of best knowledge 

management (KM) practices to 

ensure that employees are better 

prepared to perform their work, and 

to provide for continuity and 

succession planning. 

-Development of both formal and 

informal training programs for 

various aspects of agency’s 

operations. 

-Development of knowledge 

management products such as 

handbooks for new Commissioners 

and attorneys. 

-Development of KM 

information sharing collection – 

e.g., protocols & operating 

procedures for key functions. 

-Handbooks completed. 

Priority goal to be completed 

during FY 2010. 

Improve the quality of employee 

work life through enhanced use of 

IT, telework, wellness programs, 

etc. 

-Percentage of eligible employees 

using telework or alternative work 

schedules. 

-Participation by agency employees 

in wellness and other healthoriented programs. 

-Consistent with agency work 

requirements, 100% of all 

eligible agency employees who 

request telework and/or 

alternative work schedules are 

accommodated. 

Examine opportunities for 

insourcing of work that has been 

outsourced to contractors. 

- Number of positions insourced. - No work outsourced unless 

non-core function and justified 

by cost/benefit analysis.**** 

* 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 continue to expeditiously review 2008 and future cases and seeks to 

measure our overall progress in resolving cases at the Commission level by reducing the average age of 

open cases. 

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

defaults, court remands, and interlocutory reviews. However, where the parties have indicated an intent 

to settle a priority case, the time frame will be tolled. Furthermore, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) 

and Commission Rule 101(a) cases with significant threshold issues are excluded from the definition of 

priority case. 

**** This target does not apply to individuals performing contract work when the work was originally 

outsourced to such individuals prior to FY 2010. 
11 

VIII. Strategies for Improving Public Service 

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

A. REVIEW COMMISSION LEVEL 

C Focus on the disposition of older cases, with the immediate aim of eliminating the existing 

backlog and reducing the average age of cases on the docket. 

C 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. 

C Implement internal metrics to assist in the preparation of cases and issuance of 

Commission decisions. 

C Accelerate processing of cases through a variety of efforts, including early intervention of 

Commissioners’ counsels, computerization of changes to draft decisions and development 

of strategies to resolve cases when there are only two Commission members. 

C Seek and provide training opportunities to all agency attorneys and support staff on a 

variety of subjects, including technical and legal issues, legal writing, ethics and case 

management. 

C Develop new methods to shorten case preparation time. 

C Develop case processing measures for attorneys assigned to cases and ensure that 

individual performance plans support priorities in the Review Commission’s strategic and 

annual performance plans. 

B. ALJ LEVEL

C Expedite the assignment of cases to judges. 

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

C Closely monitor case performance, and improve case management information systems 

and reports. 
12 

C Analyze and develop measures to ensure that ALJ time spent on non-hearing case 

resolution matters is appropriately tracked and reported.. 

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

disposition of such cases. 

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

issues, legal writing, case management, and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) to help 

them develop services and processes equal to the very best in judicial arenas. 

C Create templates that report on the expanded alternative dispute resolution processes (i.e., 

Mandatory Settlement and Simplified Proceedings) to expedite case processing. 

C. COMMUNICATIONS

• Provide greater public access to Review Commission activities, particularly posting of 

ALJ decisions which are under Commission review. 

 

• Provide faster and better public access to, and dissemination of, Review Commission 

information and decisions. 

 

• Provide greater public access to information through the Review Commission’s website. 

 

• Explore and develop technology which will enable electronic transmission of information 

required by the Review Commission, and improve the quality and efficiency of filing 

documents with the Review Commission. 

• Continue to promote the use of electronic communications when dealing with litigants 

and other external resources (e.g., government agencies, vendor solicitations, FOIA 

requests). 

• Improve the Review Commission’s capability to obtain paperless interfaces and online 

access with government and non government systems. 
13 

D. ENHANCING AGENCY MANAGEMENT

• 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 telecommuting initiatives, family-friendly initiatives, and wellness 

programs. 

• Assess employees’ training needs to target and prioritize funding for training. 

• Develop new and improved knowledge management strategies, supported by appropriate 

training, to ensure that employees are knowledgeable about all aspects of the agency’s 

operations, including case processing and resolution, information technology 

management, personnel requirements, budget and finance requirements, and all other 

professional and administrative fields that apply to the Review Commission’s work. 

• Assess the effectiveness of internal communications, develop and disseminate revised 

Agency policy directives, prepare a list of specific changes that can be made to improve 

the effectiveness of communications among Review Commission employees, and 

between employees and managers, and implement necessary changes. 

• Continue to improve the agency use of IT resources, including on-line research 

capabilities and improved Review Commission library services. 

• Improve agency IT and telecommunications networks in order to ensure state-of-the-art 

technologies and practices are used. 

• Maintain an infrastructure of modern servers, personal computers, networks, operating 

systems, databases, telecommunications and other technology. 

• Continue to enhance the agency’s IT security program plan, and provide IT security 

awareness training. 

• Enhance case management/case tracking by developing systems that will support 

additional reporting and data communications capabilities, including tracking large or 

complex cases. 

IX. External Risk Factors 

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, the rate at which employers choose to contest the citations issued by OSHA, the 

number of violations alleged in each contested citation, and the total penalties proposed by 

OSHA in each contested citation. Achievement of the goals in this strategic plan also depend on 

a number of other external factors over which the Review Commission does not have control, 

specifically the maintenance of a quorum of two Commissioners, as well as a full three-member 

Commission, and the magnitude and nature of the cases received at the ALJ hearing level. 
14 

OSHA Enforcement

In recent years, OSHA has focused its enforcement and litigation strategies on more serious 

violations and hazards, which usually entail higher proposed penalties. OSHA has a policy that 

results in more follow-up inspections of companies that are alleged to have committed violations 

of the “highest severity.” While the overall number of inspections varies from year to year, the 

number of complex cases has been growing steadily. For the Review Commission, this means 

that it must be prepared to receive more large and/or complex cases, consistent with OSHA’s 

emphasis on allegedly willful, significant, and egregious violators. 

In addition, legislation is currently pending in Congress that would increase OSHA penalties 

amounts, as well as expand the rights of employees and their representatives to contest citations 

and object to proposed settlements. Should this legislation be enacted, it could have an impact 

on the work load of the Commission, particularly at the ALJ hearing level. 

Review Commission Membership 

Review Commission member vacancies directly affect the agency’s performance at the appellate 

level. The Act requires a quorum of two Commissioners and the affirmative vote of two 

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

quorum, no cases can be decided, although one Commissioner can direct a case for review. 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. Over the seven-year period 

starting with FY 2002 and continuing into FY 2009, the Review Commission has been without a 

third Commissioner for extended periods of time. With fewer than three members, deadlocks on 

votes may result (“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 individual cases (there are currently two such matters), with the result that action 

on these cases is impossible with only two Commissioners. The result of these external factors 

at the Review Commission level has contributed to the agency’s backlog of 10 pending cases 

that are more than two years old. 

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 

the high goals set forth for appellate level decision-making. To the extent that the agency 

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

plan will be more difficult. 

Nature of Cases at the Review Commission Level

The nature and complexity of cases at the Review Commission continues to have an impact on 

the agency’s ability to dispose of cases expeditiously. At the end of fiscal year 2009, there were 

10 cases before the Review Commission that were at least two years old, many of which have 
15 

lengthy records and are complex. While the remaining newer cases are not necessarily complex, 

some present legal issues that are both difficult and novel, as might be expected given that the 

body of law developed by the Review Commission is well into its fourth decade. The Review 

Commission made substantial efforts in prior fiscal years to issue decisions in these difficult 

cases, as well as in the lengthy and/or complex cases. While the total inventory of cases has 

been decreasing,1 the absence of a third Commissioner for extended periods of time, as noted 

above, has made it very difficult for the Review Commission to decide all pending cases and 

reduce its backlog of older cases. 

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 in reducing the length, complexity 

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

2005, the Review Commission revised its Rules of Procedure. The changes were effective on 

August 1, 2005. Several changes were implemented in the Revised Rules including the lowering 

of the threshold for cases eligible for mandatory settlements and the raising of the aggregate 

penalty for entry of cases into Simplified Proceedings. While the agency has revised it Rules of 

Procedure to change the threshold for case eligibility, the impact of the changes must be 

monitored to ensure that intended results of more efficient case processing and disposition are 

achieved. 

Legislative and Regulatory Changes

Any 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, as noted above with respect to 

pending legislation. 

Additional Factors

Additional factors affecting our ability to meet our strategic plan goals include adequate funding, 

and the ability to attract and recruit qualified candidates for this specialized area of federal safety 

and health law. 

X. 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 fiscal year 2008 performance report, and 

 

1

 As of the beginning of fiscal years 2007, 2008, and 2009, the Commission’s inventory of 

pending cases consisted of 27, 25 and 20 cases, respectively. 
16 

the agency’s internal progress reports for the fiscal year 2009 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 Internet website, and distribute the plan to the trade press, trade associations, 

labor unions, the OSHA Bar, and the Department of Labor. 

XI. 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 our annual performance budgets. The agency’s evaluation schedule is noted below: 

C Evaluate/monitor electronic filing of legal documents. 

C Evaluate the security of information technology systems and security management 

measures used for addressing security issues annually. 

C Audit financial statements annually.