The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission 

OSHRC 

FISCAL YEAR 2017

PERFORMANCE BUDGET AND JUSTIFICATION

February 2016 
Table of Contents

Fiscal Year 2017 Performance Budget Justification 

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

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

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

IV. Budget by Object Classification Category ........................................................36

V. Other Tables........................................................................................................41 
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 parties are 

accorded due process. 

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. 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 it is directed for review by the Commission. When such review is granted, 

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

Senate confirmation–address the issues presented by the case and issue a decision. Any final 

Commission decision may be appealed to the Federal courts of appeals. At both levels of 

decision the Review Commission is charged with providing 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 ALJs 

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 is recognized for being – objective, fair, prompt, 

professional, and respected. 

 An agency that creates a body of law through its decisions that defines and 

explains the rights and responsibilities of employers and employees under the 

Act. 
2

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

qualified and diverse workforce; and modern information management, 

communications, and administrative systems. 

 An agency that values teamwork; develops its employees; and seeks to 

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

Strategic Goals 

OSHRC has three overarching strategic goals: 

1) Engendering 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) Providing 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 U.S. 

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission requests an appropriation of $13,411,000 

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

Year (FY) 2017. The funding request would also allow us to fulfill our legislative mandate to 

serve as an administrative court providing fair and prompt resolution of disputes involving 

OSHA, employers charged with violations of Federal safety and health standards, and employees 

and/or their representatives. The request supports the goal in the Review Commission’s 

Strategic Plan to improve service to the public.

In recent years, and strictly for budgetary reasons, the Review Commission’s actual FTE level 

was lower than the estimated FTE ceiling. As a result, we rebased our FTE level to reflect a 

more realistic estimate in FY 2014 and FY 2015. As with our budget request for FY 2015 and 

FY 2016, the funding requested for FY 2017 assumes the support for 66 FTEs. This level 

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

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

support the Commission function. 

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

cases handled by the ALJs. We attribute this trend to two factors. First, OSHA has increasingly 

focused on encouraging more resource and time-intensive inspections, which can result in the 

issuance of more citation items. Second, the Department of Labor, Office of the Solicitor has 

decided to leverage litigation resources and focus less on litigating a high volume of cases in 

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

challenges the Review Commission because the ALJs must invest a greater amount of time in 

handling those matters. And this places increased demand on the limited FTE assigned to handle 

cases. In addition to the increased complexity of our cases, the current level of new cases 

exceeds our FY 2008 levels, and the end of year inventory remains higher than previous years. 

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 $13,411,000. This funding level supports essential agency 

programs, 66 FTE positions, as well as the continued development and implementation of our efiling initiative discussed below. 
4

Our FY 2017 estimated costs include: 

 $9,999,000 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 caseload which has 

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

 $1,485,696 for office space rent. 

 $458,107 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). 

 $377,000 to continue OSHRC’s e-filing initiative. 

 $1,091,197, the remaining amount, will be used to enable the Review Commission to 

complete its annual performance plan goals and targets and to implement governmentwide and Review Commission specific transparency initiatives. These costs include 

travel expenses for ALJs to hold hearings, court reporting services, managing the 

language access plan, the annual financial audit, the Federal Information Security 

Management Act (FISMA) audit, training and development of staff, and the maintenance 

and purchase of equipment. 

E-filing Initiative 

In 2013 the Review Commission began 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 will permit the electronic filing and 

service of litigation documents. The e-filing solution, when fully implemented, will 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) Engendering 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) Providing responsible stewardship of agency 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.

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 e-
5

filing performance work statement. The Agency awarded a competitive contract in September 

2013 for the preliminary stages of development 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 design and implementation of an e-filing solution. 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 funding for full licensing and data migration is available. 

The Review Commission’s FY 2017 budget request includes $377,000 to support the e-filing 

initiative. This estimate includes both one-time expenses for hardware, infrastructure 

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

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

IT infrastructure has been enhanced to a level that will ease the transition to a cloud based 

solution. This baseline installation includes limited bandwidth and no redundancy. Additional 

funding is required to build out one additional circuit in our Denver office that can act as a 

backup if the main connection fails. The estimated annual cost (Trusted Internet Connections, 

Managed Trusted Internet Protocol Service, and bandwidth) will be $40,000. The initial 

program design is complete and the next steps are to obtain sufficient licenses, secure additional 

user training, and effectuate migration of data from a currently maintained internal system to the 

cloud based solution. A detailed description of the requirements as well as the recurring annual 

costs for the support of the e-filing system is provided below.1

 

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 Plan (“LAP”) to fulfill its obligation under Executive Order 13166. In 

2011, OSHRC revised its LAP 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 

LAP was transferred to the Office of the Chief Administrative Law Judge. A draft updated plan 

was developed and circulated to all judges and key Review Commission staff members for 

 

1 The estimate includes a one-time cost of $377,000 for services and licenses to support the deployment of the efiling system. This also includes maintenance of equipment necessary to support cloud computing, licenses, data 

migration, and enhancements to satisfy federal recordkeeping, security, and privacy requirements.
6

review and feedback. The Review Commission implemented the revised and updated plan in 

August 2014. Based on feedback received from DOJ, the LAP was revised again in November 

2015. The current LAP has already been implemented by OSHRC and a copy has been 

forwarded to DOJ for review. 

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

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

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

law. To accomplish this very important goal, the FY 2017 budget request includes $20,000 to 

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

proficiency. 
7

FY 2017 

Appropriations Language 

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES 

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

$13,411,000.
III. PERFORMANCE

BUDGET

JUSTIFICATION BY

ORGANIZATIONAL

UNIT 
8

Performance Justification by Organizational Unit

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

agency’s overarching mission: 

1. The Administrative Law Judge function; 

2. The Commission function; 

3. The Office of 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 and the Agency’s strategic planning efforts. 

Funding and staffing by function is as follows: 

FUNDING (IN MILLIONS) AND FTE BY FUNCTION

FY2016 Enacted FY2017 Request

$ FTE $ FTE

Administrative Law Judge 5.3 28 5.8 28

Commission 5.5 29 5.8 29

Executive Director 1.8 9 1.8 9

 Total 12.6 66 13.4 66

 
9

Administrative Law Judge Function 

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

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

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

fair, just, and expeditious adjudication of disputes brought before the Review Commission and 

its ALJs. 

The Administrative Law Judges report through the Chief Judge to the Chairman of the agency. 

However, they act independently in arriving at case decisions. The Review Commission’s 

procedural rules are similar to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and are designed and 

administered to secure the just and timely determination of every contested case. In the absence 

of a specific Review Commission rule, the Federal Rules apply. 

Proceedings before the Review Commission’s Administrative Law Judges

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Administrative Law Judge. The case is generally assigned to an ALJ 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 constantly

monitoring 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 completed 35,822 inspections in FY 2015, and estimates that it will complete 33,615 in 

FY 2016, and 35,352 inspections in FY 2017. Of particular importance over the last several 

years from the Review Commission’s resources 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 an increased number of contests in comparison to FY 2008. This trend 

has persisted since FY 2008. Moreover, OSHA implemented a new administrative 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 
10 

percent in FY 2011 and FY 2012, contributing to the increase in our caseload. In FY 2013, the 

Review Commission docketed 2,215 contests. In FY 2014, the Review Commission docketed 

2,017 contests, and in FY 2015 2,164 contests. While data in recent years suggests that our 

caseload increase is stabilizing we continue to have an inventory of challenging complex cases 

which require more resources and time to resolve. 

Moreover, in addition to the greater number 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 heat stress, lock-out/tag-out, workplace 

violence, 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. We attribute this trend to two 

factors. First, OSHA has increasingly focused its attention on encouraging more resource- and 

time-intensive inspections. Second the Department of Labor, Office of the Solicitor has decided 

to leverage litigation resources and focus less on high volume in favor of high-impact strategic 

cases. The increase in complexity of cases challenges the Review Commission because 

Administrative Law Judges must invest a greater amount of time in handling those matters. This 

also places an increased demand on the limited FTE assigned to handle cases. 

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

following: 

 Intricacies of the law (complex questions of law) 

 Volume of documents, including transcripts 

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

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

neurology and infectious diseases) 

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

distinct and separate items) 

 Technical, novel, difficult or new issues raised 

 Various types of cases, such as those involving workplace violence, heat 

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

spaces 

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

appropriate portion of its ALJ docket into its Mandatory Settlement Part and Simplified 

Proceedings programs, both of which are innovative methodologies to speed the settlement or 

adjudication of pending cases. During FY 2011, the Review Commission began an evaluation of 

its current Mandatory Settlement Part program to ascertain whether even greater improvement in 

this settlement process can be achieved. This evaluation, “Dispute Resolution in the 

Administrative Process: Evaluation of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission 
11 

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 reviewed the 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, or up to $30,000, when found eligible by the Chief Judge. The Simplified 

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

unencumbered by formal procedural and evidentiary rules, while ensuring that due process 

requirements will be maintained. Under this process, a business, with or without counsel, can 

present its case before an ALJ and receive a prompt decision. Most paperwork, including legal 

filings, has been eliminated so that justice can be rendered swiftly and inexpensively. The 

process reduces the time and legal expenses to employers contesting relatively small penalty 

cases.

In FY 2015, approximately 27 percent of new cases were assigned to Simplified Proceedings. 

The Review Commission projects that approximately 30 percent of new cases will be assigned to 

the Simplified Proceedings process in FY 2016 and 30 percent in FY 2017. 
12 

Simplified Proceedings Case Activity 

FY 2012 through FY 2017

Anticipated Administrative Law Judge Workload for FY 2017

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

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

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

held, and their length and complexity. 

The number of OSHA inspections and their focus also affects the Review Commission’s 

caseload. In particular, inspections of high hazard workplaces - especially those with high injury 

and illness rates, fatalities, repeat offenders, and egregious violations - generally result in larger 

contestable proposed penalties. These inspections tend to result in more complex and 

contentious cases, which consume extensive time. The discovery process is lengthy and time 

consuming, motion practice is expanded, legal research and decision-writing time is protracted 

and, of necessity, the trial process is elongated and complicated.

FY 2012

Actual

FY 2013

Actual

FY 2014

Actual

FY 2015

Actual

FY 2016

Estimate

FY 2017

Estimate

New Cases 2,696 2,215 2,017 2,164 2,500 2,500

Cases 

assigned to

Simplified 

Proceedings

1,571 919 708 586 750 750
13 

The following table provides actual Administrative Law Judge workloads for fiscal years 2012

through 2015, and estimated workloads for fiscal years 2016 and 2017.

FY 2012

Actual

FY 2013

Actual

FY 2014

Actual

FY 2015

Actual

FY 2016

Estimate

FY 2017

Estimate

OSHA 

Inspections*: 40,961 39,228 36,163 35,822 33,615 35,352

Administrative Law Judge Workload:

A. Case Inventory,

Start of Year 1,345 1,154 909 888 1,099 1,044

B. New Cases 2,696 2,215 2,017 2,164 2,500 2,500

C. Total Caseload 4,041 3,369 2,926 3,052 3,599 3,544

D. Disposals**

(1) With 

Hearing 95 68 50 61 75 75

(2) Mandatory 

Settlement 

Conferences

81 66 56 80 85

(3) Without 

Hearing 2,792 2,311 1,922 1,836 2,400 2,400

E. Total

 Dispositions 2,887 2,460 2,038 1,953 2,555 2,560

Total Case 

Inventory, 

End of Year 1,154 909 888 1,099 1,044 984

*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. 
14 

Staffing 

The Office of the Chief Administrative Law Judge requires 28 FTE positions in FY 2017 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 2016 Enacted FY 2017 Request

$ FTE $ FTE

Administrative Law 

Judge Function 5.3 28 5.8 28
15 

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. 

 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 
16 

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 2013

through 2017: 

Outcome Goals Performance

Measures

FY

2013 

Actual

(Target)

FY

2014

Actual

(Target)

FY 

2015

Actual

(Target)

FY 

2016

(Target)

FY 

2017

(Target)

Ensure that a 

significant 

proportion of noncomplex cases at the 

ALJ level are 

resolved in less than 

one year.

Percent within 

one year.

95.3%

Target not 

met

(98%)

97%

Target met

(95%)

New Goal 

developed 

for FY 2015

New Goal 

developed 

for FY 2016

New Goal 

developed for 

FY 2017

Ensure that a 

significant 

proportion of 

complex cases at the 

ALJ level are 

resolved in less than 

one year.

Percent within 

one year. 

85.6%

Target not 

met

(95%)

80%

Target not 

met

(89%)

New Goal 

developed 

for FY 2015

New Goal 

developed 

for FY 2016

New Goal 

developed for 

FY 2017

Ensure that a 

significant 

proportion of both 

complex and noncomplex cases at the 

ALJ level are 

resolved within one 

year to 20 months 

from docketing. *

-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

-Dispose of 

95% of 

simplified 

cases within 

one year.

97%

Target met

-Dispose of 

90% of 

conventional 

cases within 

17 months.

92%

Target met

-Dispose of 

98% of 

settlement 

part cases 

within 19 

months.

95%

Target not 

met

-Dispose of 

95% of 

-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 

92% of 

complex 

cases within 

20 months.

(FY 2015 

was the 

baseline year 

for this 

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 

92% of 

complex cases 

within 20 

months.
17 

Outcome Goals Performance

Measures

FY

2013 

Actual

(Target)

FY

2014

Actual

(Target)

FY 

2015

Actual

(Target)

FY 

2016

(Target)

FY 

2017

(Target)

complex 

cases within 

20 months.

(FY 2015 

will be the 

baseline year 

for this 

measure)

80%

Target not 

met

measure)

Improve training

opportunities for

Administrative Law

Judges.

Time and 

resources 

dedicated to 

judicial training 

with special 

emphasis on 

mediation and 

dispute 

resolution.

New goal 

developed to 

support FY 

2014 – 2018 

Strategic Plan

Pro rata 

share of the 

Agency’s 

training 

resources 

were

devoted.

Target met

(Pro rata 

share of the 

Agency’s 

training 

resources)

Pro rata 

share of the 

Agency’s 

training 

resources 

were 

devoted.

Target met

(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

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

11 key

decisions and 

orders 

published

Target not 

met

(15 key 

decisions and 

orders 

published)

13 key 

decisions and 

orders 

published

Target not 

met

(20 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. 
18 

The Review Commission is 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 2015, 

two factors adversely impacted OCALJ’s ability to meet the targeted outcome goal. First, the 

office, which includes Denver and Atlanta, was significantly understaffed due to inadequate legal 

support. 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 disposition of complex cases may 

continue. This budget request includes funding for the three additional positions requested in FY 

2016 to provide legal support to OCALJ. 

Next, 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 the 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. 
19 

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 ALJ. This appellate level of review must be prompt, fair, 

and protective of the parties’ rights. 

Proceedings before the Commission

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

the Review Commission’s 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 ALJs become a 

final order of the Review Commission 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 Office of the General Counsel (OGC) after the 

Commission decides a case. 

OGC provides legal advice and assists the Review Commission in complying with the various 

laws, regulations and executive orders governing its operations. OGC has primary responsibility 

for preparing and presenting factual and legal analyses to assist Commission members in 

adjudicating appeals, and also provides legal advice on ethics, Freedom of Information Act 

(FOIA), Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO), procurement, appropriations, Privacy Act and 

other areas. 

The Commission function also includes the work of the Commission’s Executive Secretary, who 

is responsible for the docketing of cases at both the ALJ and Commission levels and serves as 

the Records Management Officer for the Agency in coordination with the National Archives and 

Records Administration (NARA). 

Commission Operations

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

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

case is prepared for decision. Three external factors that have a major impact on the operations 
20 

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

novelty of the issues presented for review. 

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 three Commissioners during only 7 months of FY 2015. This 

was the result of one Commissioner’s term expiring in April of 2015. Notwithstanding the lack 

of a full complement of Commissioners for almost half of the fiscal year, the Commission 

resolved 16 cases during FY 2015 and met the GPRA goal targets for FY 2015 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 at the 

ALJ and at the Commission levels have increased significantly in recent years.

Anticipated Commission Workload for FY 2017

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

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

before the Review 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 2015, the Commission had 35 cases pending on its docket at the beginning of the year. It 

received 13 new cases and resolved 16 cases by year-end. Thus, the Commission entered FY 

2016 with 33 cases pending review. During FY 2016, the Commission estimates receiving 28 

new cases and resolving 27 cases, ending FY 2016 with 34 cases pending review. For FY 2017, 

the Commission anticipates receiving 28 new cases and disposing of 27 cases, ending that year 

with an inventory of 35 cases. 
21 

FY 2012

Actual

FY 2013

Actual

FY 2014

Actual

FY 2015

Actual

FY 2016

Estimate

FY 2017

Estimate

New Cases:

Cases 

Directed for 

Review:

14 24 11 13 24 24

Other New 

Cases:

Interlocutory 

Appeals

2 0 0 0 2 2

Remands 3 1 0 1 2 2

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Other 

New Cases:

5 1 0 1 4 4

Total New 

Cases:

19 25 11 14 28 28

Case 

Inventory 

from Prior 

Year: 35 31 36 35 33 34

Total 

Caseload:

54 56 47 49 61 62

Dispositions: 23 20 12 16 27 27

Case 

Inventory, 

End of Year:

31 36 35 33 34 35

Staffing 

The Commission function requires 29 FTE positions in FY 2017. This includes 9 FTE positions 

for the three Commissioners and their immediate staff, 15 FTE positions for the Office of 

General Counsel (including one additional FTE position requested in FY 2016, a supervisory attorney 

advisor) and 5 FTE positions for the Office of the Executive Secretary. 
22 

FUNDING (IN MILLIONS) AND FTE

FY 2016 Enacted FY 2017 Request

$ FTE $ FTE

Commission Function 5.5 29 5.8 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 Counsel’s meeting 

o Semiannual Commission docket review 
23 

 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. 

 Identify and provide training opportunities to all agency attorneys and support staff that 

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

writing, ethics, and technology and case management. 

 Use individual performance plans that support priorities in the Review Commission’s 

strategic and annual performance plans. 

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

preparation and issuance. 

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

the Commission level. 

In accordance with Public Law 111-352, the Government Performance and Results 

Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRA Modernization Act of 2010) and Public Law 103-62, the 

Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993, the Review Commission revised its 

strategic plan for the period FY 2014 through FY 2018. The revised plan focuses on the three 

overarching goals of 1) Engendering respect for the rule of law; 2) Expanding transparency and 

openness; and 3) Providing 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 2013 through 2017:
24 

Outcome 

Goals

Performance 

Measures

FY 

2013

Actual

(Target)

FY

2014

Actual

(Target)

FY

2015

Actual

(Target)

FY 

2016

(Target)

FY 

2017

(Target)

Reduce the 

average age 

of open cases 

at the 

Commissionlevel. 

Average age of 

open cases.

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

Replacement 

Goal 

developed for 

FY 2017

Resolve all 

priority cases 

in a timely 

manner.

Percent of priority 

cases disposed of 

within 6 months.

100%

Target met

(100%)

100%

Target met

(100%)

(100%)

Target met

(100%)

(100%) (100%)

Develop and 

implement 

case 

management 

practices that 

will 

minimize the 

average age 

of all 

pending 

Commissionlevel cases.

Average age of 

all pending 

Commission-level 

cases.

New goal 

developed to 

support FY 

2014 – 2018 

Strategic 

Plan

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)

Implemented case 

management 

practices.

The estimated 

average age of all 

pending 

Commission-level 

cases is 21 months.

Target met

(24 months or less)

Continue to 

implement case 

management 

practices

(23 months or 

less) 

Continue to 

implement 

case 

management 

practices

(22 months or 

less)
25 

Outcome 

Goals

Performance 

Measures

FY 

2013

Actual

(Target)

FY

2014

Actual

(Target)

FY

2015

Actual

(Target)

FY 

2016

(Target)

FY 

2017

(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

Case 

management 

practices 

developed.

Target met

(Develop case 

management 

practices)

Case management 

practices were 

fully implemented.

Target met

(Implement case 

management 

practices).

Reduce 

average age of 

the oldest 15 

percent of 

pending 

Commission 

level cases by 

10 percent 

from FY 2013 

level. 

Reduce 

average age 

of the oldest 

15 percent of 

pending 

Commission 

level cases by 

10 percent 

from FY 

2014 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. 
26 

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 2017

During FY 2017, 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; 
27 

 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 FYs 2015 and 2016, the Review Commission plans to further improve the quality of its webbased transparency initiatives, including enhancing the OSHRC website to make more 

information available to internal and external customers, revising our COOP, and undertaking 

other activities in support of our mission. In FY 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 was 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 acquire necessary licensing to fully 

support the e-filing system initiative. 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 began the infrastructure 

upgrade using vendors from the General Services Administration’s information technology 

schedule. This budget request includes funds to fully implement the e-filing solution and to 

remediate any issues that are likely to arise after initial deployment. The successful 

implementation and management of this e-filing system will be demonstrative proof of the 

Agency’s commitment to using technology to improve accuracy and efficiency in its case 

management practices. 
28 

Staffing 

The Office of the Executive Director requires 9 FTE in FY 2017. 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 2016 Enacted FY 2017 Request

$ FTE $ FTE

Executive Director 

Function

1.8 9 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:

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).
29 

Responsible

stewardship of 

Agency resources to 

enhance operations 

and efficiencies in 

information 

technology, financial 

management, human 

resources, and real 

property to 

accomplish the 

agency’s statutory 

and regulatory 

mandates.

 Develop and present an annual budget and performance plan 

that clearly present how the organization will accomplish 

government-wide management priorities, agency-wide 

goals, and organizational goals.

 Implement a comprehensive human capital plan designed to 

recruit, retain and develop staff; support succession planning 

by strategically aligning present and future human capital 

needs and workforce planning; and evaluate the 

performance management system based on individual and 

organizational effectiveness.

 Integrate knowledge management processes into a plan to 

capture, share and generate knowledge and establish a 

unified knowledge network of people, processes and 

technology to enhance operations and efficiencies in all 

aspects of essential Agency operations.

 Improve technology infrastructure through efficiencies and 

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

support the effective use of broadband, cyber security, and 

energy efficiency.

 Use existing and real property more effectively by 

implementing energy efficiency practices, space alignment 

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

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 2013

through 2017: 
30 

Outcome 

Goals

Performance 

Measures

FY

2013

Actual

(Target)

FY

2014

Actual

(Target)

FY

2015

Actual

(Target)

FY

2016

(Target)

FY 

2017

(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

All required 

material posted 

to the website 

in less than 7 

days and 

usually within 

one day after 

issuance.

Target met

(All material 

posted no later 

than 7 days 

after issuance)

All required 

material posted 

to the website 

in less than 7 

days and 

usually within 

one day after 

issuance.

Target met

(All material

posted no later 

than 7 days 

after issuance)

All material 

posted no later 

than 7 days 

after issuance

All material 

posted no later 

than 7 days 

after issuance

Produce timely 

and accurate 

reports on the 

Review 

Commission’s 

activities, 

including all 

reports required 

by law

Timeliness of 

submissions of 

required reports, 

e.g., financial 

statements, 

OMB, OPM, 

and EEO 

reports, etc.

New goal 

developed to 

support FY 

2014 – 2018 

Strategic Plan

All material 

submitted by 

required 

deadlines.

Target met

(100% of all 

material to be 

submitted by 

required 

deadlines)

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

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)

Draft language 

access plan was 

posted on the 

Agency’s 

website.

Target met

(Fully 

implement a 

language 

access plan and 

post to the 

Agency’s 

website for 

public access)

Review 

documents to 

be translated 

and posted on 

the Agency’s 

website

Review 

documents to 

be translated 

and posted on 

the Agency’s 

website
31 

Outcome 

Goals

Performance 

Measures

FY

2013

Actual

(Target)

FY

2014

Actual

(Target)

FY

2015

Actual

(Target)

FY

2016

(Target)

FY 

2017

(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

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)

Agency 

program goals 

were aligned 

with the budget 

to efficiently 

accomplish the 

mission.

Target met

(Align budget 

with Agency 

program goals 

to efficiently 

accomplish 

mission (e.g., 

program, 

human capital, 

procurement, 

IT 

infrastructure, 

and space and 

facilities)

Align budget 

with Agency 

program goals 

to efficiently

accomplish 

mission (e.g., 

program, 

human capital, 

procurement, 

IT 

infrastructure, 

and space and 

facilities)

Align budget 

with Agency 

program goals 

to efficiently 

accomplish 

mission (e.g., 

program, 

human capital, 

procurement, 

IT 

infrastructure, 

and space and 

facilities)
32 

Outcome 

Goals

Performance 

Measures

FY

2013

Actual

(Target)

FY

2014

Actual

(Target)

FY

2015

Actual

(Target)

FY

2016

(Target)

FY 

2017

(Target)

Implement a 

comprehensive 

human capital 

plan designed 

to recruit, 

retain and 

develop staff; 

support 

succession 

planning by 

strategically 

aligning 

present and 

future human 

capital needs 

and workforce 

planning; and 

evaluate the 

performance 

management 

system based 

on individual 

and 

organizational 

effectiveness

Increase 

personnel 

capabilities and 

development by 

improving 

training 

opportunities

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)

.44 percent of 

basic payroll 

devoted to staff 

training and 

development.

*Target not 

met

(.65 percent of 

basic payroll 

devoted to staff 

training and 

development)

.70 percent of 

basic payroll 

devoted to staff 

training and 

development

.80 percent of 

basic payroll 

devoted to staff 

training and 

development

*The Review Commission devoted .44 percent of basic payroll to staff training and development. 

However, our ability to expend .65 percent was severely impacted due to a nearly three month Continuing 

Resolution and severe budget constraints that were implemented during FY 2015 to avoid employee 

furloughs. 
33 

Outcome 

Goals

Performance 

Measures

FY

2013

Actual

(Target)

FY

2014

Actual

(Target)

FY

2015

Actual

(Target)

FY

2016

(Target)

FY

2017

(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

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)

Identified 

knowledge 

gap 

vulnerabilities 

to enhance 

Agency

operations 

and programs. 

Target met

(Use findings 

from 

evaluation of

knowledge 

management 

audit to 

identify and 

address 

knowledge 

gaps)

Evaluate the 

effectiveness 

of the Phased 

Retirement 

HR initiative. 

Evaluate and 

address 

knowledge 

management 

vulnerabilities 

to further 

enhance 

Agency 

operations 

and programs. 

**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. 
34 

Outcome 

Goals

Performance 

Measures

FY

2013

Actual

(Target)

FY

2014

Actual

(Target)

FY

2015

Actual

(Target)

FY

2016

(Target)

FY

2017

(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/commun

ications to ensure 

customers can 

access necessary 

information 

without delay

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 e-filing 

initiative)

Upgraded data 

circuits, 

implemented a 

new data 

analysis 

platform that 

scans internet 

traffic, trained 

staff on usage 

policies, and 

procured and 

installed Host 

servers.

Target met

(Implement 

recommended 

IT 

infrastructure 

upgrades 

identified in 

evaluation)

Continue

monitoring

technology

infrastructure 

to determine if 

additional 

resources are 

required

Continue 

monitoring 

technology 

infrastructure 

to determine 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

-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 

eco-friendly 

sources)

-Disposed of 

equipment 

through 

certified 

recyclers.

Use of virtual 

machines and 

all equipment 

purchases meet 

EPA Energy 

Efficiency 

standards. 

Moved to a 

shared printing 

environment by 

using installed 

copiers as 

default printers 

moving away 

from desktop 

printers. 

Expanded 

Citrix to 

accommodate 

additional 

telework staff.

Continue 

monitoring to 

ensure 

supplies and 

equipment are 

procured from 

eco-friendly 

sources

Continue 

monitoring to 

ensure supplies 

and equipment 

are procured 

from ecofriendly 

sources
35 

Outcome 

Goals

Performance 

Measures

FY

2013

Actual

(Target)

FY

2014

Actual

(Target)

FY

2015

Actual

(Target)

FY

2016

(Target)

FY

2017

(Target)

Target met

(Dispose of 

equipment in an 

environmentally 

friendly 

manner)

Target met

(Increase the 

percentage of 

supplies and 

equipment 

procured from 

eco-friendly 

sources)

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

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)

Successful 

implementation 

of FOIA online 

form and use of 

dedicated FOIA 

email address to 

expedite 

receipt, 

tracking, and 

processing of 

requests.

Target met

(Develop tools 

to be used for 

processing and 

expediting 

FOIA requests 

electronically)

Evaluate and 

monitor use of 

online FOIA 

request form; 

explore 

options for 

online tracking 

capability

Explore 

advanced 

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 

$13,411,000 for FY 2017 to continue our mission of adjudicating OSHA-issued workplace safety 

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

other costs. 

The proposed budget for FY 2017 by object classification category is shown in the table below, 

along with the FY 2016 Enacted Appropriation. A narrative explanation of the amount requested 

for each object classification follows the table.

Object Classification Table 

Fiscal Years 2016 and 2017

(Dollars in Thousands) 

 Change

 FY 2016 Enacted –

 FY 2017 Request

Budget Object 

Class

FY 2016

Enacted

FY 2017

Request $ %

11.0 Personnel 

Compensation $7,385 $7,823 +438 +5.93

12.0 Personnel Benefits 1,981 2,176 +195 +9.84

Subtotal Personal 

Services 9,366 9,999 +633 +6.76

21.0 Travel 185 185 0 0

22.0 Transportation of 

Things 10 10 0 0

23.1 Space Rental 

Payments (GSA) 1,482 1,486 +4 +.27

23.3 Communications, 

Utilities and Misc. 343 272 -71 -20.7

24.0 Printing and 

Reproduction 17 17 0 0

25.0 Other Services 971 1,030 +59 +6.08

26.0 Supplies and 

Materials 43 43 0 0

31.0 Equipment 222 369 +147 +66.22

Grand Total 12,639 13,411 +772 +6.11
37 

Budget Object Classification Detail 

11.0 Personnel Compensation 

Change FY 2016 Enacted – FY 2017 Request 

FY 2016 Enacted FY 2017 Request Amount Percent

7,385,000 7,823,000 +438,000 +5.93

The Review Commission requests $7,823,000 to fund direct payroll costs in FY 2017. This 

includes funding for a 1.6 percent pay increase that is anticipated in January 2017. 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 2016 Enacted – FY 2017 Request

FY 2016 Enacted FY 2017 Request Amount Percent

1,981,000 2,176,000 +195,000 +9.84

The Review Commission requests $2,176,000 to fund the payroll-related costs of employee 

benefits in FY 2017. 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 2016 Enacted – FY 2017 Request

FY 2016 Enacted FY 2017 Request Amount Percent

185,000 185,000 0 0

The requested amount for travel in FY 2017 is $185,000. Travel of Administrative Law Judges 

(ALJs) to conduct hearings accounts for the majority of this request. It should be noted that 

approximately 90 percent of the Review Commission’s travel budget pays for ALJ travel in order 

to conduct hearings. By law, these hearings must be conducted as close as possible to the site of 

the alleged violation. The remainder of these funds is for travel associated with training, 

necessary travel to the regional offices and other requirements. 

22.0 Transportation of Things 

Change FY 2016 Enacted – FY 2017 Request

FY 2016 Enacted FY 2017 Request Amount Percent

10,000 10,000 0 0

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

Commission offices and other locations. 
38 

23.1 Rental Payments to GSA 

Change FY 2016 Enacted – FY 2017 Request

FY 2016 Enacted FY 2017 Request Amount Percent

1,482,000 1,486,000 +4,000 +0.27

The request includes $1,486,000 for office space rental for the National and Regional Offices. 

These projected rent costs are based on FY 2017 estimates provided by the General Services 

Administration (GSA) to the Review Commission. 

23.3 Communications, Utilities and Miscellaneous Charges 

Change FY 2016 Enacted – FY 2017 Request

FY 2016 Enacted FY 2017 Request Amount Percent

343,000 272,000 -71,000 -20.70

The Review Commission requests $272,000 for communication costs in FY 2017. 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. 

This includes telecommunication costs to support our cloud initiative with increased security and 

bandwidth requirements and pave the way for future cloud initiatives. 

Local phone service and telecommunication costs are projected to be $252,000. Postage for the 

required mailing of letters, case files, and other materials related to cases is expected to be 

$20,000. 

24.0 Printing and Reproduction

Change FY 2016 Enacted – FY 2017 Request

FY 2016 Enacted FY 2017 Request Amount Percent

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

The requested amount for printing in FY 2017 is $17,000. Printing costs consist mainly of the 

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

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

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

$10,000 in fiscal year 2017. 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 2016 Enacted – FY 2017 Request

FY 2016 Enacted FY 2017 Request Amount Percent

971,000 1,030,000 +59,000 +6.08
39 

The requested amount for other services in FY 2017 is $1,030,000. 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 $458,107 is requested for services 

provided by other Federal agencies. Our costs have increased in this category as a result of 

additional service costs associated with a new time and attendance system provided by the 

National Finance Center (NFC), along with higher costs for our Interagency Agreements with the 

Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and NARA. This area includes $14,000 for personnel 

and payroll services provided by NFC, $295,000 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 services to support us in carrying 

out our mission. These include: court reporting ($100,000); maintenance/incremental 

enhancements including security of the Review Commission’s information technology system, 

and services to support deployment of the e-filing system ($183,000); services for translation of 

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

independent evaluation of information technology security under the Federal Information 

Security Management Act (FISMA) ($29,000); and on-line legal research ($43,000). This 

category also includes funding for other contractual services such as the annual audit of our 

financial statements ($29,000), library operations ($81,000), training and other requirements to 

support the agency’s mission. 

26.0 Supplies and Materials 

Change FY 2016 Enacted – FY 2017 Request

FY 2016 Enacted FY 2017 Request Amount Percent

43,000 43,000 0 0

The requested amount for supplies and materials in FY 2017 is $43,000. This amount includes 

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

31.0 Equipment 

Change FY 2016 Enacted – FY 2017 Request

FY 2016 Enacted FY 2017 Request Amount Percent

222,000 369,000 +147,000 +66.22
40 

The requested amount for equipment in FY 2017 is $369,000. The Review Commission began the 

development and implementation of an e-filing system in FY 2013 with a hosted internet-based 

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

information technology infrastructure was upgraded and licensing, and hosting costs are required 

to maintain the system. We estimate that the licensing costs will be $247,000. 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 FISMA. 

Our information technology equipment includes personal computers, printers, a local area 

network, and associated peripherals. Finally, a small portion of this funding will be used to 

purchase any office furniture that may be needed. 
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 $8,081,0002

1997 $7,753,000 $7,753,000 $7,753,000 $7,738,0003

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

1999 $8,050,000 $8,100,000 $8,100,000 $8,092,0004

2000 $8,500,000 $8,100,000 $8,500,000 $8,470,0005

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

2002 $8,964,000 $8,964,000 $8,964,000 $8,958,0006

2003 $9,577,000 $9,577,000 $9,577,000 $9,673,0007

2004 $10,115,000 $10,115,000 $9,610,000 $9,863,0008

2005 $10,516,000 $10,595,000 $10,595,000 $10,510,2409

2006 $10,510,000 $10,510,000 $10,510,000 $10,404,90010

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

2008 $10,696,000 $10,696,000 $10,696,000 $10,696,00011

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 $11,712,00012

2012 $12,773,000 $11,689,000 $11,689,000 $11,689,00013

2013 $11,965,000 $11,667,000 $11,667,000 $11,666,90814

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

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

2016 $13,212,000 $12,639,000 $11,100,000 $12,639,000 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

14 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 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 

 Actual Estimate Estimate 

 

Administrative Law Judge: 

AL-II 1 1 1 

AL-III 11 11 11 

GS-14 2 3 2 

GS-13 1 3 4 

GS-12 2 1 1 

GS-11 0 1 1 

GS-10 1 1 1 

GS-9 2 1 2 

GS-8 4 6 5 

 Sub-total 24 28 28 

Commission: 

Executive Level III 0 1 1 

Executive Level IV 2 2 2 

ES-00 2 2 2 

GS-15 4 7 7 

GS-14 5 7 7 

GS-13 2 2 2 

GS-12 2 1 1 

GS-11 3 4 4 

GS-10 0 0 0 

GS-9 1 1 1 

GS-8 1 1 1 

GS-7 0 1 1 

 Sub-total 22 29 29 

Office of the Executive Director: 

ES-00 1 1 1 

GS-15 2 2 2 

GS-14 0 0 0 

GS-13 0 0 0 

GS-12 3 4 5 

GS-11 0 1 0 

GS-9 1 0 0 

GS-7 0 0 0 

GS-6 0 1 1 

GS-5 0 0 0 

 Sub-total 7 9 9 

Total full-time positions: 53 66 66