Motor freight carrier, general, long-distance, truckload (TL) · Texas

Target (WC USX TDT)

Denton, TX · ~74 workers · 6 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

B
Good Safety Record
3.0
Avg TCR
4.5
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Target (WC USX TDT) runs at 66% of its industry's injury rate - safer than the typical Motor freight carrier, general, long-distance, truckload (TL) workplace, earning a grade B.

Target (WC USX TDT): 3.0 TCR = 66% of Motor freight carrier, general, long-distance, truckload (TL) BLS 4.5 · 6y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Target (WC USX TDT) safety composite

Target (WC USX TDT) scores strongest on fatalities (safer than 53% of same-industry peers) and weakest on dart rate (safer than 45%), 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

49/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
D 2.96 per 100 workers

Safer than 51% of industry peers

DART rate
D 2.38 per 100 workers

Safer than 45% 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%).

Target (WC USX TDT) held a steady TCR band

Target (WC USX TDT)'s TCR held near 0.3 from 2.7 in 2016 to 2.4 in 2021. Peak filing year was 2017 at 6.0 TCR. In 2021, DART was 0.8× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2016=2.7 · 2017=6.0 · 2018=0.0 · 2019=2.2 · 2020=4.5 · 2021=2.4

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 484121 · Denton, TX AT/BELOW-IND · SMALL

Grade B · TCR 3.0 · 66% of ind

  • DART 2.4 DART
  • RANK #174/297
  • PHOTO Express Delivery Ser…
  • BOOK 6y book
  • INJ 17 inj
  • SIZE ~74 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Express Delivery Services, Inc. (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Target (WC USX TDT) in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Target (WC USX TDT) averages 3.0 TCR (66% of the Motor freight carrier, general, long-distance, truckload (TL) BLS benchmark).

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

Target (WC USX TDT) TCR series: 2016=2.7 · 2017=6 · 2018=0 · 2019=2.2 · 2020=4.5 · 2021=2.4 · BLS 4.5

Where Target (WC USX TDT) falls in its industry

3,252 Motor freight carrier, general establishments

Safer than 51% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 3.0.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Texas alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #174 safest of 297 Motor freight carrier, general employers in Texas.

Target (WC USX TDT) (74 employees, TCR 3.0) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 61 employees and a TCR of 3.0 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 01,0002,0003,0004,0005,000 05101520 Average employees Total Case Rate Target (WC USX TDT)
Target (WC USX TDT) (74 employees, TCR 3.0) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 61 employees and a TCR of 3.0

Target (WC USX TDT) has more employees than the Motor freight carrier, general, long-dis median and a lower injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 3.0. 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
2021 2.4 2.4 2 0 0
2020 4.5 4.5 4 0 0
2019 2.2 2.2 2 0 0
2018 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2017 6.0 6.0 6 0 0
2016 2.7 2.7 3 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

484121 · TX · Denton

3,252 Motor freight carrier, general, long-distance, truckload (TL) employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 38,394 rated employers in Texas with headcount on file · 211 employers in Denton, TX · 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 Express Delivery Services, Inc. 3.0 TCR
NAICS-TCR TTI- Spartanburg, SC 3.0 TCR
NAICS-TCR PORTLAND DRY 3.0 TCR
NAICS-TCR R.S.T., Inc. 3.0 TCR
STATE-SIZE Acrosa Crushed Concrete 74 FTE
STATE-SIZE Tolk Station-124 74 FTE
STATE-SIZE Ft. Bend Service Center CP18 74 FTE
STATE-SIZE Bluebonnet Electric Cooperative, Inc. - Headquarters and Corporate Services 74 FTE
CITY-NEAR Peterbilt Paccar 2,843 FTE
CITY-NEAR Peterbilt Motors Company 2,095 FTE
CITY-NEAR Texas Health Denton 1,091 FTE
CITY-NEAR 060 Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Denton 1,040 FTE
NAT-TCR Buckles-Smith Electric Corporate Santa Clara 3.0 TCR
NAT-TCR Hanes Industries 8602 3.0 TCR
NAT-TCR Trulite Glass W34 3.0 TCR
NAT-TCR General Parts - Bloomington 3.0 TCR
NAT-SIZE Wesco - EPG 74 FTE
NAT-SIZE Dollar Tree (WC USX JOT) 74 FTE
NAT-SIZE Family Dollar (WC USX FOK) 74 FTE
NAT-SIZE Dollar General (WC USX DBE) 74 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: 2021, 2020, 2019, 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.