OSHA Strategic Partnership Program (OSPP)
Annual Partnership Evaluation Report
Calendar Year 2011
January 1, 2011 - December 31, 2011

These tables are best viewed on tablets, notebooks, or desktop computer screens.

Partnership ID#	97

OSHA Strategic Partnership (OSP) Name
The International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), the Ford Motor Company (Ford), Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration (MIOSHA), and Automotive Component Holdings, LLC (ACH-LLC)

Purpose of OSP
The partners agree to construct an OSHA Strategic Partnership (OSP) based on mutual respect and trust, leveraging the resources of all the parties through the systematic anticipation, identification, evaluation and control of health and safety hazards at UAW/Ford, UAW/ACH, and MIOSHA locations.
Goals of Partnership
Goal	Strategy	Measure
Reduce injuries and illnesses year-over-year at each OSP location	Anticipate, identify and control hazards Create a proactive safety and health culture Create a cooperative non-adversarial relationship, optimizing the parties’ resources	Total Case Incidence Rate (TCIR) Days Away, Restricted, or Transferred Rate (DART) Lost Time Case Rate (LTCR)^*
Anticipated Outcomes
Reduction in injury and illness rates including TCIR, DART, and LTCR rates Proactive safety and health culture Cooperative relationship between OSHA and the partners ^*The Lost Time Case Rate (LTCR) is maintained and reported by the partners. The LTCR is not a rate traditionally used in OSPs as there is no Bureau of Labor Statistics rate available for comparison.

Strategic Management Plan Target Areas (check one)
	Construction	X	Manufacturing Amputations
X	Non-Construction
Strategic Management Plan Areas of Emphasis (check all applicable)
	Amputations in Construction		Oil and Gas Field Services
	Blast Furnaces and Basic Steel Products		Preserve Fruits and Vegetables
	Blood Lead Levels		Public Warehousing and Storage
	Concrete, Gypsum and Plaster Products		Ship/Boat Building and Repair
X	Ergo/Musculoskeletal		Silica-Related Disease
	Landscaping/Horticultural Services

Section 1 - General Partnership Information

Evaluation Period:
Date of Evaluation Report
Start Date	January 1, 2011	End Date	December 31, 2011

Evaluation Contact Person		Jacqueline R. Annis
Originating Office		OSHA National Office, Washington DC - Directorate of Cooperative and State Programs, Office of Partnerships and Recognition

Partnership Coverage
# Active Employers' Sites	26	# Active Employees	35,056
In 2010, during the previous OSP there were 12 participating employers and 15,194 impacted workers. With the inclusion of MIOSHA the number of participating employers has more than doubled as has the number of impacted workers. Previous to the signing of the new OSP agreement MIOSHA participated with Ford, the UAW and ACH-LLC in a separate, yet comparable partnership. With the combining of these partnership efforts the OSP now has a much broader reach in the automotive industries.

Industry Coverage (note range or specific SIC and NAICS for each partner)
Site Name	Partner	NAICS	Operations
Buffalo Stamping Plant (BSP)	Ford-OSHA	336370	Motor Vehicle Metal Stamping
Chicago Stamping Plant (CSP)	Ford-OSHA	336370	Motor Vehicle Metal Stamping
Walton Hills Stamping Plant (WHSP)	Ford-OSHA	336370	Motor Vehicle Metal Stamping
Woodhaven Stamping Plant (WSP)	Ford-MIOSHA	336370	Motor Vehicle Metal Stamping
Dearborn Tool & Die Plant (DTDP)	Ford-MIOSHA	336370	Motor Vehicle Metal Stamping
Chicago Assembly Plant (CAP)	Ford-OSHA	336111	Automobile Manufacturing
Kansas City Assembly Plant (KCAP)	Ford-OSHA	336111	Automobile Manufacturing
Ohio Assembly Plant (OAP)	Ford-OSHA	336111	Automobile Manufacturing
Saline Plant (SP)	ACH-LLC-MIOSHA	336111	Automobile Manufacturing
Shelton Road Plant (SRP)	ACH-LLC-MIOSHA	336111	Automobile Manufacturing
Dearborn Diversified Manufacturing Plant/Dearborn Stamping Plant (DDMP/DSP)	MIOSHA	336111	Automobile Manufacturing
Dearborn Truck Plant (DTP)	MIOSHA	336111	Automobile Manufacturing
Michigan Assembly Plant (MAP)	MIOSHA	336111	Automobile Manufacturing
Cleveland Engine Plant #2 (CEP2)	Ford-OSHA	336312	Gasoline Engine and Engine Parts Manufacturing
Lima Engine Plant (LEP)	Ford-OSHA	336312	Gasoline Engine and Engine Parts Manufacturing
Dearborn Engine and Fuel Plant (DEFP)	Ford-MIOSHA	336312	Gasoline Engine and Engine Parts Manufacturing
Romeo Engine Plant (REP)	Ford-MIOSHA	336312	Gasoline Engine and Engine Parts Manufacturing
Sharonville Transmission Plant (STP)	Ford-OSHA	336350	Motor Vehicle Transmission and Power Train Parts Manufacturing
Livonia Transmission Plant (LTP)	Ford-MIOSHA	336350	Motor Vehicle Transmission and Power Train Parts Manufacturing
Sterling Transaxle Plant (STAP)	Ford-MIOSHA	336350	Motor Vehicle Transmission and Power Train Parts Manufacturing
Vandyke Transmission Plant (VDTP)	Ford-MIOSHA	336350	Motor Vehicle Transmission and Power Train Parts Manufacturing
Sandusky Plastics Plant (SPP)	ACH-LLC-OSHA	336399	Other Motor Vehicle Parts Manufacturing
Woodhaven Forge Plant (WFP)	Ford-MIOSHA	332111	Iron and Steel Forging
Brownstone Parts Redistribution Center (BPRC)	Ford-MIOSHA	423120	Motor Vehicle Supplies and New Parts Merchant Wholesalers
National Parts Distribution Center (NPDC)	Ford-MIOSHA	423120	Motor Vehicle Supplies and New Parts Merchant Wholesalers
Rawsonville Parts (RP)	Ford-MIOSHA	423120	Motor Vehicle Supplies and New Parts Merchant Wholesalers

Section 2 - Activities Performed

Note whether an activity was required by the OSP and whether it was performed
	Required	Performed
a. Training	No	Yes
b. Consultation Visits	No	No
c. Safety and Health Management Systems Reviewed/Developed	Yes	Yes
d. Technical Assistance	Yes	Yes
e. VPP-Focused Activities	No	No
f. OSHA Enforcement Inspections (OSHA will provide)	No	Yes
g. Offsite Verifications	No	No
h. Onsite Non-Enforcement Interactions	Yes	Yes
i. Participant Self-Inspections	No	Yes
j. Other Activities	No	No

2a. Training (if performed, provide the following totals)
Training sessions conducted by OSHA staff	0
Training sessions conducted by non-OSHA staff	*Yes
Employees trained	**See Below
Training hours provided to employees	**See Below
Supervisors/managers trained	**See Below
Training hours provided to supervisors/managers	**See Below
Comments/Explanations (briefly describe activities, or explain if activity required but not performed)
Regular training was conducted and tracked at each site per regulatory and contractual obligations. Ford does not keep track of worker training in a central database and did not provide training data for CY 2011. And did * Training modules are available to all employees who work in participating plants and in those areas affected by the training topics. For example, there would be no need for all plant employees to take training about hexavalent chromium as not all plant employees are potentially exposed to hexavalent chromium. Training by computer, allowing workers to proceed at their own pace, is becoming a staple at all of the Ford and ACH-LLC sites in lieu of training led by a trainer. Ford and ACH-LLC offer training on a wide variety of topics including those relevant to the protocols of the OSP.

2b. Consultation Visits (if performed, provide the following total)
Consultation visits to partner sites	NA
Comments/Explanations (briefly describe activities, or explain if activity provided for but not performed)
The OSP sites do not qualify for consultation services.

2c. Safety and Health Management Systems (if performed, provide the following total)
Number of systems implemented or improved using the OSHA's 1989 Guidelines for Safety and Health Management Programs as a model	26
Comments/Explanations (briefly describe activities, or explain if activity provided for but not performed)
The Safety Operating System (SOS) improved in 2011 by using self-assessments cross plant verifications Pyramid reviews. Each quarter the plants are required to review each element of the SOS and conduct a self-assessment (Plants do not conduct self-assessments in the quarter Ford conducts one of the above self-assessments. From their self-assessments each site takes the items assessed as non-compliant and develops and action plan with a timeline for implementation. Cross plant verification teams audit to verify the items the plants marked as being in compliance. During the evaluation period Ford conducted their first round of Pyramid reviews with teams comprised of members of other plants’ safety, manufacturing and engineering departments and corporate safety staff. The team conducted one day plant visits to five of the lower performing plants and looked at behaviors and physical conditions. The team reported out to management on their findings.

2c. Safety and Health Management Systems (if performed, provide the following total)

Number of systems implemented or improved using the OSHA's 1989 Guidelines for Safety and Health Management Programs as a model

Comments/Explanations (briefly describe activities, or explain if activity provided for but not performed)

The Safety Operating System (SOS) improved in 2011 by using

self-assessments
cross plant verifications
Pyramid reviews.

Each quarter the plants are required to review each element of the SOS and conduct a self-assessment (Plants do not conduct self-assessments in the quarter Ford conducts one of the above self-assessments. From their self-assessments each site takes the items assessed as non-compliant and develops and action plan with a timeline for implementation. Cross plant verification teams audit to verify the items the plants marked as being in compliance. During the evaluation period Ford conducted their first round of Pyramid reviews with teams comprised of members of other plants’ safety, manufacturing and engineering departments and corporate safety staff. The team conducted one day plant visits to five of the lower performing plants and looked at behaviors and physical conditions. The team reported out to management on their findings.

2d. Technical Assistance (if performed, note type and by whom)
	Provided by OSHA Staff	Provided by Partners	Provided by Other Party
Conference/Seminar Participation	0	0	0
Interpretation/Explanation of Standards or OSHA Policy	0	0	0
Abatement Assistance	0	0	0
Speeches	0	0	0
Other (please specify)	0	0	0
Comments/Explanations (briefly describe activities, or explain if activity provided for but not performed)

2e. VPP-Focused Activities (if performed, provide the following totals)
Partners actively seeking VPP participation	NA
Applications submitted in 2011	NA
VPP participants approved in 2011	NA
Comments/Explanations (briefly describe activities, or explain if activity provided for but not performed)
Attaining VPP recognition is not a goal of this partnership.

2f. OSHA Enforcement Activity (if performed, provide the following totals for any programmed, unprogrammed, and verification-related inspections) **
OSHA enforcement inspections conducted	8
OSHA enforcement inspections in compliance	5
OSHA enforcement inspection with violations cited	3
Number of citations classified as Serious, Repeat, and Willful	2
Comments/Explanations (briefly describe activities, or explain if activity provided for but not performed)
April 26, 2011: Walton Hills Stamping Plant Inspection #315250365 Complaint No Citations May 23, 2011: Woodhaven Stamping Plant Inspection #312070568 Complaint Citation 1: Other: Item 1: MI 4081122203 Item 2: MI 4081122301 June 23, 2011: Dearborn Engine and Fuel Plant Inspection #312057540 Complaint No Citations July 21, 2011: Chicago Assembly Plant Inspection # Not Available Complaint No Citations August 12, 2011: Woodhaven Stamping Plant Inspection #312070675 Complaint No Citations August 15, 2011: Dearborn Truck Plant Inspection # 312070709 Referral No Citations December 9, 2011: Dearborn Stamping Plant Inspection #313290801 Complaint Citation 1: Serious: Items 1-3: 1926.62(d) Citation 2: Other Michigan standard December 20, 2011: Michigan Assembly Plant Inspection #312070865 Complaint Citation 1: Other: 1910.1200(h)(1)

2g. Offsite Verification (if performed provide the following total)
Offsite verifications performed	NA
Comments/Explanations (briefly describe activities, or explain if activity provided for but not performed)
Not required by the OSP.

2h. Onsite Non-Enforcement Verification (if performed, provide the following total)
Onsite non-enforcement verifications performed	0
Comments/Explanations (briefly describe activities, or explain if activity provided for but not performed)
MISOHA conducted five OSHA Day Verification visits during this evaluation period and submitted their reports to OSHA. Summaries of OSHA Day reports are in Appendix C. Dearborn Tool and Die Plant Dearborn, Michigan February 28, 2011 Michigan Assembly Plant (Formerly Wayne Assembly Plant) Wayne, Michigan April 12, 2011 Dearborn Diversified Manufacturing Dearborn, Michigan June 29, 2011 Livonia Transmission Plant Livonia, Michigan August 17, 2011 Sheldon Road Plant Plymouth, Michigan October 12, 2011 During CY 2011 Labor Management negotiations were ongoing and a decision was made to delay the conduct of OSHA Day visits in Federal OSHA states (Illinois, Missouri, New York, and Ohio) until the contract negotiations were over.

2i. Participant Self-Inspections (if performed provide the following totals)
Self-inspections performed	See Note
Hazards and/or violations identified and corrected/abated	See Note
Comments/Explanations (briefly describe activities, or explain if activity provided for but not performed)
While not required by the OSP, during 2011 Ford conducted several cross plant audits of their SOS. The cross plant audits were conducted by teams comprised of members of other plants' safety, manufacturing, and engineering departments. Ford reports that these audits were beneficial as they allowed a "fresh eyes" perspective at each of the plants. Information regarding hazards and/or violations identified and corrected/abated was not provided by Ford.

2j. Other Activities (briefly describe other activities performed)
None.

Section 3 - Illness and Injury Information

The tables below represent cumulative injury and illness rates by industry as compared to the 2010 BLS injury and illness rates for those same industries.

NAICS 336370 Motor Vehicle Metal Stamping (5 Participating Facilities)

	Hours	Total Cases	TCIR	# of Days Away from Work Restricted and Transferred Activity Cases	DART
2009	5,904,676	394	13.34	75	2.54
2010	6,195,786	356	11.49	67	2.16
2011	6,883,175	384	11.16	56	1.63
Total	18,983,637	1,134		198
Three Year Average Rates			12.0		2.11
BLS Rates for NAICS 336370			7.6		3.8

NAICS 336111: Automobile Manufacturing (8 Participating Facilities)

Year	Hours	Total Cases	TCIR	# of Days Away from Work Restricted and Transferred Activity Cases	DART
2009	27,407,111	2,537	18.51	597	4.36
2010	32,348,623	2,740	16.94	588	3.64
2011	39,972,052	2,901	14.52	713	3.57
Total	99,727,786	8,178		1,898
Three Year Average Ratess			16.66		3.86
BLS Rates for NAICS 336111			7.7		4.1

NAICS 336312: Gasoline Engine and Engine Parts Manufacturing (5 Participating Facilities)

Year	Hours	Total Cases	TCIR	# of Days Away from Work Restricted and Transferred Activity Cases	DART
2009	6,066,008	257	8.47	85	2.80
2010	7,191,504	289	8.04	94	2.61
2011	8,144,973	252	6.19	62	1.52
Total	21,402,485	798		241
Three Year Average Ratess			7.57		2.31
BLS Rates for NAICS 336312			5.3		2.7

NAICS 336350: Motor Vehicle Transmission and Power Train Parts Manufacturing
(4 Participating Facilities)

Year	Hours	Total Cases	TCIR	# of Days Away from Work Restricted and Transferred Activity Cases	DART
2009	11,033,184	505	9.15	152	2.76
2010	12,468,687	500	8.02	144	2.31
2011	12,499,618	486	7.30	132	2.11
Total	36,001,489	1,491		428
Three Year Average Ratess			8.16		2.39
2010 BLS Rates for NAICS 336350			5.4		2.9

NAICS 423120: Motor Vehicle Supplies and New Parts Merchant Wholesalers
(3 Participating Facilities)

Year	Hours	Total Cases	TCIR	# of Days Away from Work Restricted and Transferred Activity Cases	DART
2009	2,778,656	145	10.44	30	2.16
2010	2,744,444	135	9.84	43	3.13
2011	2,760,435	106	7.68	45	3.26
Total	8,283,535	386		118
Three Year Average Rates			9.32		2 .85
BLS Rates for NAICS 423120			4.1		2.4

NAICS 336399: Other MV Parts Manufacturing (Sandusky Plastics Plant)

Year	Hours	Total Cases	TCIR	# of Days Away from Work Restricted and Transferred Activity Cases	DART
2009	1,389,398	43	6.19	24	3.45
2010	1,679,957	43	5.1	22	2.6
2011	2,049,237	57	5.56	31	3.03
Total	5,118,592	143		77
Three Year Average Ratess			5.62		3.03
BLS Rates for NAICS 336312			5.3		2.9

NAICS 332111: Iron and Steel Forging (Woodhaven Forge Plant)

Year	Hours	Total Cases	TCIR	# of Days Away from Work Restricted and Transferred Activity Cases	DART
2009	94,789	5	10.55	0	0.0
2010	144,426	3	4.15	0	0.0
2011	190,943	11	11.52	1	1.05
Total	430,158	19		1
Three Year Average Ratess			8.74		0.35
BLS Rates for NAICS 336312			9.2		4.8

Comments
Aggregate injury and illness rates for the 27 participating facilities are represented in tabular form above. Of the 27, 25 can be collated into five industry category classifications. The first five tables represent the combined injury and illness rates for the 25 facilities under each NAICS code. The remaining two facilities are individually represented above by site name and NAICS Codes. All individual plant data is located in Appendix A. Graphical representations of the injury and illness data can be found in Appendix B. Below is a summary of rate evaluations: For this evaluation period, the injury and illness rates were evaluated and compered to the individual plants’ previous years’ rates and the 2010 BLS injury and illness rates for the individual industries. 17 sites out of 27 sites (or 63%) have experienced reductions in TCIR and DART rates between 2009 and 2011. 20 sites out of 27 sites (or 74%) have DART rates below the 2010 BLS DART rates for their respective industries. Six sites out of 27 sites (or 22%) have TCIR below the 2010 BLS Rates for their respective industries. Five sites out of 27 sites (or 19%) have both TCIR and DART rates below the 2010 BLS rates for their respective industries. A comparison has been performed of plants conducting business under the same NAICS codes. This comparison provides information about the plants’ performances compared to other facilities of the same type. The results observed are: As a whole, the five participating Motor Vehicle Metal Stamping Plants (NAICS 336370) have consistently maintained their DART rates below the 2010 BLS DART rate for that industry; but the TCIRs for those same sites are consistently well above the 2010 BLS TCIR for that industry. As a whole, the eight Automobile Manufacturing Plants (NAICS 336111) have not been consistent in maintaining their TCIR and DART rates below the 2010 BLS TRIR and DART rate for that industry, but the numbers are trending downward. As a whole, the five participating Motor Vehicle Engine Manufacturing sites (NAICS 336312) have not been consistent in maintaining their DART rates below the 2010 BLS DART rate for that industry, but in CY 2011 all five sites experienced DART rates well below the 2010 BLS DART rate for that industry. The TCIRs for the five sites have been consistently well above the 2010 BLS TCIR. In 2011 two of the five sites experienced significant reductions in their TCIR resulting in rates below the 2010 BLS TCIR for that industry. As a whole and for the last three years, three of the four Motor Vehicle Transmission and Power Train Manufacturing plants (NAICS 336350) maintained DART rates below the 2010 BLS DART rate for that industry. The converse is true for the TCIR. Three of the four sites had TCIRs consistently above the 2010 BLS TCIR, and only one site maintained TCIRs below the 2010 BLS TCIR for that industry. As a whole and for the last three years, the three Motor Vehicle Supplies and New Parts Merchant Wholesalers sites’ (NAICS 423120) TCIR and DART rates have been trending upward.

Comments

Aggregate injury and illness rates for the 27 participating facilities are represented in tabular form above. Of the 27, 25 can be collated into five industry category classifications. The first five tables represent the combined injury and illness rates for the 25 facilities under each NAICS code. The remaining two facilities are individually represented above by site name and NAICS Codes.

All individual plant data is located in Appendix A. Graphical representations of the injury and illness data can be found in Appendix B.

Below is a summary of rate evaluations:

For this evaluation period, the injury and illness rates were evaluated and compered to the individual plants’ previous years’ rates and the 2010 BLS injury and illness rates for the individual industries.

17 sites out of 27 sites (or 63%) have experienced reductions in TCIR and DART rates between 2009 and 2011.
20 sites out of 27 sites (or 74%) have DART rates below the 2010 BLS DART rates for their respective industries.
Six sites out of 27 sites (or 22%) have TCIR below the 2010 BLS Rates for their respective industries.
Five sites out of 27 sites (or 19%) have both TCIR and DART rates below the 2010 BLS rates for their respective industries.

A comparison has been performed of plants conducting business under the same NAICS codes. This comparison provides information about the plants’ performances compared to other facilities of the same type. The results observed are:

As a whole, the five participating Motor Vehicle Metal Stamping Plants (NAICS 336370) have consistently maintained their DART rates below the 2010 BLS DART rate for that industry; but the TCIRs for those same sites are consistently well above the 2010 BLS TCIR for that industry.
As a whole, the eight Automobile Manufacturing Plants (NAICS 336111) have not been consistent in maintaining their TCIR and DART rates below the 2010 BLS TRIR and DART rate for that industry, but the numbers are trending downward.
As a whole, the five participating Motor Vehicle Engine Manufacturing sites (NAICS 336312) have not been consistent in maintaining their DART rates below the 2010 BLS DART rate for that industry, but in CY 2011 all five sites experienced DART rates well below the 2010 BLS DART rate for that industry. The TCIRs for the five sites have been consistently well above the 2010 BLS TCIR. In 2011 two of the five sites experienced significant reductions in their TCIR resulting in rates below the 2010 BLS TCIR for that industry.
As a whole and for the last three years, three of the four Motor Vehicle Transmission and Power Train Manufacturing plants (NAICS 336350) maintained DART rates below the 2010 BLS DART rate for that industry. The converse is true for the TCIR. Three of the four sites had TCIRs consistently above the 2010 BLS TCIR, and only one site maintained TCIRs below the 2010 BLS TCIR for that industry.
As a whole and for the last three years, the three Motor Vehicle Supplies and New Parts Merchant Wholesalers sites’ (NAICS 423120) TCIR and DART rates have been trending upward.

Section 4 - Partnership Plans, Benefits, and Recommendations

Changes and Challenges (check all applicable)
	Changes	Challenges
Management Structure
Participants	X
Data Collection		X
Employee Involvement
OSHA Enforcement Inspections
Partnership Outreach
Training
Other (specify)
Comments
Participants: With the signing of the new agreement, MIOSHA joined the existing OSP. Their addition nearly doubles the number of facilities participating in the OSP from 14 to 26. Data Collection: While training is not required by the OSP, specific information about the types of training conducted and the number of workers trained would be beneficial as training is an integral part of any employer's safety and health management program. Ford's lack of a centralized tracking system for hours of training provided and the number of workers being trained negatively impacts their ability to provide this data.

Plans to Improve (check all applicable)
Meet more often	X
Improve data collection
Conduct more training
Change goals
Comments
The PMT plans to meet at least once a quarter. Notes from these meetings will be shared and will include agreed upon action items. These meetings will allow open dialog between the parties for ongoing improvement in the partnership.

Partnership Benefits (check all applicable)
Increased safety and health awareness	Yes
Improved relationship with OSHA	Yes
Improved relationship with employers	Yes
Improved relationship with employees or unions	Yes
Increased number of participants	Yes
Other (specify)	NA
Comments
The OSP reported the following: The partnership is a benefit for everyone, providing opportunities to have open dialog about OSHA and industry standards and interpretation of those standards. It also allows OSHA to observe operations at multiple facilities within the partnership. All of the partners benefit from working together in the sharing of best practices being used by Ford. It also provides OSHA an opportunity to discuss best practices they have seen during their visits to other facilities outside of Ford Motor Company. The inclusion of MIOSHA provides Federal OSHA with an opportunity work jointly with a State Plan state and increases the reach of the OSP. This also allows for collection of increased injury and illness data for the partnership.

Status Recommendation
Partnership Completed
Continue/Renew	X
Continue with the following provisions:

Terminate (provide explanation)