Arming and fusing devices, missile, manufacturing · Ohio

L3Harris Technologies Fuzing & Ordnance Systems

Cincinnati, OH · ~705 workers · 3 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

A
Excellent Safety Record
0.4
Avg TCR
3.3
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

L3Harris Technologies Fuzing & Ordnance Systems runs at 11% of its industry's injury rate - far safer than the typical Arming and fusing devices, missile, manufacturing workplace, earning a grade A.

L3Harris Technologies Fuzing & Ordnance Systems: 0.4 TCR = 11% of Arming and fusing devices, missile, manufacturing BLS 3.3 · 3y Form 300A (see methodology below)

L3Harris Technologies Fuzing & Ordnance Systems safety composite

L3Harris Technologies Fuzing & Ordnance Systems scores strongest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 94% of same-industry peers) and weakest on fatalities (safer than 53%), blended into one 0-100 breakdown against same-industry peers. A missing measure drops out and redistributes its weight rather than deflating the score. This is a per-dimension breakdown, distinct from the single letter grade above it (which weights TCR alone against the BLS industry benchmark).

B

80/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
A 0.37 per 100 workers

Safer than 94% of industry peers

DART rate
B 0 per 100 workers

Safer than 82% of industry peers

Fatalities
D 0

Safer than 53% of industry peers

Benchmarked live against every credibly-rated employer in the same NAICS industry code in the current OSHA extract (a segment must have at least 8 rated peers to benchmark). Not a legal or compliance determination; PlainSafetyScore's own weighting (TCR 40%, DART 35%, fatalities 25%).

L3Harris Technologies Fuzing & Ordnance Systems held a steady TCR band

L3Harris Technologies Fuzing & Ordnance Systems's TCR held near 0.1 from 0.6 in 2022 to 0.5 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2022 at 0.6 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2022=0.6 · 2023=0.0 · 2024=0.5

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 332993 · Cincinnati, OH AT/BELOW-IND · MID

Grade A · TCR 0.4 · 11% of ind

  • DART 0.0 DART
  • RANK #1/4
  • PHOTO NGDS-MN07
  • BOOK 3y book
  • INJ 7 inj
  • SIZE ~705 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: NGDS-MN07 (0.1 TCR gap)

Read with this employer → · Industry book → · Ohio employers → · Look up another →

L3Harris Technologies Fuzing & Ordnance Systems in the TCR neighbourhood

Average Total Case Rate among this establishment and nearest same-industry peers

TCR

What this shows L3Harris Technologies Fuzing & Ordnance Systems averages 0.4 TCR (11% of the Arming and fusing devices, missile, manufacturing BLS benchmark).

Source U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA Injury Tracking Application (Form 300A) As of 2026-08-25

L3Harris Technologies Fuzing & Ordnance Systems TCR series: 2022=0.6 · 2023=0 · 2024=0.5 · BLS 3.3

Where L3Harris Technologies Fuzing & Ordnance Systems falls in its industry

36 Arming and fusing devices, mis establishments

Safer than 94% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 1.7.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Ohio alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #1 safest of 4 Arming and fusing devices, mis employers in Ohio.

L3Harris Technologies Fuzing & Ordnance Systems (705 employees, TCR 0.4) among 26 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 188 employees and a TCR of 1.7 2×2 strategic matrix plotting 27 entities by Average employees (X) and Total Case Rate (Y), with a crosshair dividing the plot into four quadrants. Larger & higher-riskSmaller & higher-riskLarger & saferSmaller & safer than peers 0200400600800 0246810 Average employees Total Case Rate L3Harris Technologies Fuzing & Ordnance Systems
L3Harris Technologies Fuzing & Ordnance Systems (705 employees, TCR 0.4) among 26 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 188 employees and a TCR of 1.7

L3Harris Technologies Fuzing & Ordnance Systems has more employees than the Arming and fusing devices, missile, manu median and a lower injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 1.7. Workforce size and injury rate do not always move together within the same industry -- some of its smaller peers run higher rates than its larger ones, and vice versa.

Year-by-Year Safety Data

Year TCR DART Injuries Illnesses Fatalities
2024 0.5 0.0 3 0 0
2023 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2022 0.6 0.1 4 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

332993 · OH · Cincinnati

36 Arming and fusing devices, missile, manufacturing employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 22,650 rated employers in Ohio with headcount on file · 1,513 employers in Cincinnati, OH · 4 cross-state NAT-TCR peers · 4 cross-state NAT-SIZE peers. Closest matches by relationship code are listed below.

Rel Establishment Metric
NAICS-TCR NGDS-MN07 0.4 TCR
NAICS-TCR EBAD-MK 0.5 TCR
NAICS-TCR General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems St. Petersburg 0.2 TCR
NAICS-TCR EBAD-GM 0.7 TCR
STATE-SIZE Arconic AFE Cleveland Operations 705 FTE
STATE-SIZE Honeywell Intelligrated Mason 704 FTE
STATE-SIZE Toledo Facility 706 FTE
STATE-SIZE Goodrich - Aircraft Wheels and Brakes - Troy OH 704 FTE
CITY-NEAR Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center 17,011 FTE
CITY-NEAR Cincinnati Operations 10,239 FTE
CITY-NEAR Supply Chain : Evendale, OH 7,118 FTE
CITY-NEAR Supply Chain Evendale OH 6,400 FTE
NAT-TCR Gartons Rigging 0.4 TCR
NAT-TCR ODI-RIC 0.4 TCR
NAT-TCR Sealy Container 0.4 TCR
NAT-TCR Avis Furniture 0.4 TCR
NAT-SIZE Parnall Office 705 FTE
NAT-SIZE WIKA Instrument LP 705 FTE
NAT-SIZE Texas Jack in the Box 705 FTE
NAT-SIZE Grocery Supply Company 705 FTE

Rel codes: NAICS-TCR · STATE-SIZE · CITY-NEAR · NAT-TCR/NAT-SIZE cross-state. Read with this employer →

Data Source: OSHA Injury Tracking Application (ITA), mandatory establishment-level injury/illness reports. Grades compare employer Total Case Rate (TCR) to BLS IIF industry benchmarks. Data covers years reported by this establishment: 2024, 2023, 2022. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.