Employer
Netto Ag Inc
Safety Grade
C
Avg TCR
3.1
per 100 workers
Inspections
2
years on record
Harvesting machinery and equipment, agriculture, manufacturing · California
2026 data Public-data reference. official source

Netto Ag Inc

Open-data reference.

HANFORD, CA | Harvesting machinery and equipment, agriculture, manufacturing

~220 avg employees | 2 years of OSHA data

C
Average Safety Record
Avg TCR
3.1
per 100 workers/yr
Industry Avg TCR
3.3
BLS benchmark
Total Injuries
30
across all years
Fatalities
0
across all years

Netto Ag Inc has an average TCR of 3.1, which is 95% of the industry average (3.3) for Harvesting machinery and equipment, agriculture, manufacturing. This is better than average.

Safety Insights for Netto Ag Inc

Netto Ag Inc operates an establishment with approximately 220 full-time equivalent workers in HANFORD, CA, classified under the Harvesting machinery and equipment, agriculture, manufacturing industry (NAICS 333111). Across 2 years of mandatory OSHA Injury Tracking Application (ITA) reporting, this employer has accumulated 30 recordable injuries, 0 occupational illnesses, and 0 workplace fatalities. The average Total Case Rate (TCR) of 3.1 injuries per 100 full-time workers per year provides the anchor metric for the C letter grade (Average Safety Record).

Benchmarked against the Bureau of Labor Statistics industry average of 3.3 for Harvesting machinery and equipment, agriculture, manufacturing, Netto Ag Inc's workforce experiences 95% of the typical injury burden. This ratio matters because TCR already normalizes for hours worked — a 200,000-hour exposure base equals roughly 100 full-time workers — so establishments with very different headcounts can be compared directly. A TCR below the benchmark signals that controls, training, or automation may be outperforming peers.

Multi-year trend analysis is the single most reliable signal here: a one-year spike could reflect a single severe event, whereas sustained elevation across 2 reporting cycles points to systemic hazard exposure. Readers evaluating Netto Ag Inc as an employer, contractor, investment, or regulatory target should examine the yearly DART rate (days away, restricted, or transferred), the fatality count of 0, and any year-over-year deterioration shown in the table below. All figures come directly from employer-submitted OSHA Form 300A summaries — there is no modeling, estimation, or third-party adjustment layered on top of the government data.

Verify This Employer with OSHA

All injury, illness, and fatality figures on this page are sourced from Netto Ag Inc's own mandatory OSHA Form 300A summaries. Cross-check the underlying establishment record directly against the federal source — name, NAICS classification, recordable case totals, and inspection history are all searchable on OSHA's Establishment-Specific Injury and Illness Data system.

Verify on OSHA Establishment Search

Source: U.S. Department of Labor — OSHA Establishment-Specific Injury and Illness Data. NAICS 333111 — Harvesting machinery and equipment, agriculture, manufacturing.

DART Rate — Transparent Calculation (2024)

DART (Days Away, Restricted, or Transferred) is computed by OSHA as incidents × 200,000 ÷ hours worked. The 200,000-hour denominator equals roughly 100 full-time workers, which lets establishments of very different sizes be compared directly.

10 DART incidents × 200,000 ÷ 454,030 hours worked = 4.40 DART

Methodology: 29 CFR 1904 — OSHA Form 300A recordkeeping

Cross-Validating Context — Establishment vs Industry vs State

Benchmark TCR Source
Netto Ag Inc (this establishment) 3.14 OSHA ITA Form 300A, 2-year avg
Irrigation equipment, agriculture, manufacturing industry avg 3.30 BLS IIF, NAICS 333111
California state avg (all industries) 58.88 OSHA ITA, state-level rollup

Industry benchmarks: Bureau of Labor Statistics — Injuries, Illnesses, and Fatalities (IIF) program

Reportable Incident Timeline

Year-by-year reportable incidents (recordable injuries + illnesses + fatalities) submitted by Netto Ag Inc to OSHA's Injury Tracking Application. Each row anchors to OSHA's inspection records search where you can pull the underlying inspection case numbers and citations for that establishment-year.

Source: OSHA Inspection Information System (IMIS) — inspection case-number records

Year-by-Year Safety Data

Year TCR DART Injuries Illnesses Fatalities
2024 6.2 4.4 14 0 0
2023 0.1 0.1 16 0 0

Frequently Asked Questions

What is Netto Ag Inc's safety grade?
Netto Ag Inc has a safety grade of C (Average Safety Record). This grade is based on their average Total Case Rate (TCR) of 3.1 compared to the BLS industry benchmark of 3.3 for Harvesting machinery and equipment, agriculture, manufacturing.
How is the safety grade calculated?
Safety grades are calculated by comparing an employer's average Total Case Rate (TCR) — the number of workplace injuries and illnesses per 100 full-time workers per year — against the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) industry benchmark. Grade A means significantly below average injury rates; grade F means significantly above average.
How many injuries has Netto Ag Inc reported?
Netto Ag Inc has reported 30 total injuries and 0 fatalities across 2 years of OSHA data (2024, 2023). This data comes from mandatory OSHA Injury Tracking Application (ITA) reports.
Where does PlainSafetyScore get its data?
All safety data comes from OSHA's Injury Tracking Application (ITA), which collects mandatory establishment-level injury and illness reports from employers with 250+ employees or those in high-hazard industries. Industry benchmarks are from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Injuries, Illnesses, and Fatalities (IIF) program.

Explore More Safety Data

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. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.

Related

Data sourced from official U.S. government datasets. See our methodology for details. Retrieved and formatted by PlainSafetyScore Editorial