Filters (e.g., air, engine oil, fuel) automotive, truck, and bus, manufacturing · North Carolina

M+H Fayetteville Plant

Fayetteville, NC · ~1,066 workers · 3 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

C
Average Safety Record
4.5
Avg TCR
5.4
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

M+H Fayetteville Plant runs at 84% of its industry's injury rate - about level with the typical Filters (e.g., air, engine oil, fuel) automotive, truck, and bus, manufacturing workplace, earning a grade C.

M+H Fayetteville Plant: 4.5 TCR = 84% of Filters (e.g., air, engine oil, fuel) automotive, truck, and bus, manufacturing BLS 5.4 · 3y Form 300A (see methodology below)

M+H Fayetteville Plant safety composite

M+H Fayetteville Plant scores strongest on fatalities (safer than 51% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 30%), 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).

D

36/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 4.51 per 100 workers

Safer than 30% of industry peers

DART rate
F 2.67 per 100 workers

Safer than 31% of industry peers

Fatalities
D 0

Safer than 51% 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%).

TCR Δ

−1.5

2016→2018

M+H Fayetteville Plant injury rate improved

M+H Fayetteville Plant's TCR fell 1.5 from 5.0 in 2016 to 3.5 in 2018. Peak filing year was 2017 at 5.1 TCR. In 2018, DART was 0.59× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2016=5.0 · 2017=5.1 · 2018=3.5

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 336390 · Fayetteville, NC AT/BELOW-IND · LARGE

Grade C · TCR 4.5 · 84% of ind

  • DART 2.7 DART
  • RANK #21/24
  • PHOTO Oakley - Flint
  • BOOK 3y book
  • INJ 99 inj
  • SIZE ~1,066 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Oakley - Flint (0.0 TCR gap)

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

M+H Fayetteville Plant in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows M+H Fayetteville Plant averages 4.5 TCR (84% of the Filters (e.g., air, engine oil, fuel) automotive, truck, and bus, manufacturing BLS benchmark).

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

M+H Fayetteville Plant TCR series: 2016=5 · 2017=5.1 · 2018=3.5 · BLS 5.4

Where M+H Fayetteville Plant falls in its industry

772 Filters (e.g., air, engine oil establishments

Safer than 30% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 3.2.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to North Carolina alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #21 safest of 24 Filters (e.g., air, engine oil employers in North Carolina.

M+H Fayetteville Plant (1,066 employees, TCR 4.5) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 154 employees and a TCR of 3.2 2×2 strategic matrix plotting 30 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 05001,0001,500 051015 Average employees Total Case Rate M+H Fayetteville Plant
M+H Fayetteville Plant (1,066 employees, TCR 4.5) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 154 employees and a TCR of 3.2

M+H Fayetteville Plant has more employees than the Filters (e.g., air, engine oil, fuel) au median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 3.2. 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
2018 3.5 2.7 38 1 0
2017 5.1 1.7 18 38 0
2016 5.0 2.2 43 16 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

336390 · NC · Fayetteville

772 Filters (e.g., air, engine oil, fuel) automotive, truck, and bus, manufacturing employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 16,981 rated employers in North Carolina with headcount on file · 317 employers in Fayetteville, NC · 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 Oakley - Flint 4.5 TCR
NAICS-TCR Flex-N-Gate Chicago 4.5 TCR
NAICS-TCR Flex N Gate Troy LLC 4.5 TCR
NAICS-TCR SEJONG ALABAMA LLC 4.5 TCR
STATE-SIZE Rockingham Plant 1,066 FTE
STATE-SIZE Kidde Aerospace & Defense 1,064 FTE
STATE-SIZE Amazon.com Services LLC - RDU5 1,063 FTE
STATE-SIZE Novant Health Matthews Medical Center 1,070 FTE
CITY-NEAR Cape Fear Valley Health System/Cumberland County 5,925 FTE
CITY-NEAR Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company - Fayetteville 2,118 FTE
CITY-NEAR County of Cumberland 2,104 FTE
CITY-NEAR Goodyear Fayetteville 2,044 FTE
NAT-TCR BFX Fire 4.5 TCR
NAT-TCR Melville (Nymel) 4.5 TCR
NAT-TCR Big Lots Store #574 FORT MYERS, FL 4.5 TCR
NAT-TCR Isle at Watermere Southlake 4.5 TCR
NAT-SIZE Shelby Baptist Medical Center 1,066 FTE
NAT-SIZE North America Fulfillment Centers (FCs) : TPA2 1,066 FTE
NAT-SIZE Empire Southwest, LLC - Mesa 1,066 FTE
NAT-SIZE TG Kentucky LLC 1,066 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: 2018, 2017, 2016. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.