Industry profile · NAICS 333993
Packaging machinery manufacturing
Workplace injury rates across 290 OSHA-reporting establishments in this industry, 2016–2024.
- 290
- Employers
- 3.1
- Avg TCR
- 3.3
- BLS benchmark
- 2,770
- Injuries
The industry picture
Employers in Packaging machinery manufacturing average 3.1 recordable injuries per 100 workers, below the BLS national benchmark of 3.3.
- 3.1
- avg TCR · reporting employers
- 3.3
- BLS national benchmark
- 290
- employers reporting
- 2,770
- recordable injuries
OSHA-reporting establishments skew toward larger, higher-hazard sites, so the reporting average runs above the BLS all-establishment benchmark.
What Packaging machinery manufacturing Safety Data Reveals
The Packaging machinery manufacturing sector (NAICS 333993) encompasses 290 distinct employer establishments currently reporting to OSHA's Injury Tracking Application. Across this cohort, workers have logged 2,770 recordable injuries during the 2016–2024 reporting window, producing an industry-weighted average Total Case Rate (TCR) of 3.1 injuries per 100 full-time workers per year. Because OSHA's ITA mandates submission from establishments with 250+ employees plus all high-hazard industries at 20+ employees, this dataset represents a structural slice of U.S. workplace risk rather than a voluntary sample.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes a separate national benchmark TCR of 3.3 for this NAICS code, derived from the BLS Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses. Comparing the two, the ITA-reported rate of 3.1 is below the BLS benchmark, a gap that typically widens when the industry contains many large, high-exposure establishments required to file ITA reports. Employers in the table below are sorted so you can see how far individual establishments deviate from both the industry average and the national benchmark.
The practical value of industry-level safety data is threefold. First, jobseekers can gauge whether a prospective employer is better or worse than its industry peers, not just absolute injury counts, which tilt toward larger payrolls. Second, insurers and workers' compensation carriers use sector TCR as a baseline for experience-modification adjustments. Third, safety professionals benchmark their own programs against the cohort median. Use the grade-sorted employer list below to identify specific establishments within Packaging machinery manufacturing that outperform or underperform the sector average, and click through to each record for year-by-year injury, illness, and fatality breakdowns.
Employers in this industry, by injury rate
Page 3 of 6| Employer | Location | Grade | Avg TCR |
|---|---|---|---|
| A-S SW San Marcos | San Marcos, CA | C | 3.1 |
| Ansonia | Ansonia, CT | C | 3.1 |
| Emhart Glass Mfg. Inc | Horseheads, NY | C | 3.0 |
| Mason office | Mason, OH | C | 2.9 |
| Atlantic Natural Foods | Nashville, NC | C | 2.9 |
| US Bottlers Machinery CO | Charlotte, NC | C | 2.9 |
| E-Pak Machinery Inc. | Laporte, IN | C | 2.9 |
| Gehl Foods, LLC. - Freistadt | Germantown, WI | C | 2.8 |
| Benchmark Automation, LLC | Stathan, GA | C | 2.8 |
| Airport | Bartonville, IL | C | 2.8 |
| Midlands Packaging | Lincoln, NE | C | 2.8 |
| All-Fill, Inc | Exton, PA | C | 2.8 |
| Rapak- Woodridge | Woodridge, IL | C | 2.6 |
| Federal Manufacturing | Waukesha, WI | B | 2.6 |
| Expanded Mining -Moss DD | Peoria, IL | B | 2.6 |
| Polyonics | Westmoreland, NH | B | 2.6 |
| Latitude 36 Foods Salinas | Salinas, CA | B | 2.6 |
| E-PAK Machinery | La Porte, IN | B | 2.6 |
| RA Pearson Company | Spokane, WA | B | 2.6 |
| AutoPak Engineering Corporation | Caguas, PR | B | 2.6 |
| 4174 Fort Worth Sheet Feeder | Fort Worth, TX | B | 2.6 |
| Fogg Filler Company LLC | Zeeland, MI | B | 2.5 |
| Production Automation Inc. Main Office | Montgomery, AL | B | 2.5 |
| Milan-Deere Returns | Milan, IL | B | 2.5 |
| Pneumatic Scale Angelus - Clearwater | Clearwater, FL | B | 2.5 |
| MBC Aerosol | Elgin, IL | B | 2.5 |
| PMI Cartoning, Inc. | Elk Grove Village, IL | B | 2.5 |
| R.A Jones & Co. - Davenport, IA | Davenport, IA | B | 2.5 |
| Services to Enhance Potential Detroit | Detroit, MI | B | 2.5 |
| Barry Wehmiller Packaging Systems | Brooklyn Park, MN | B | 2.4 |
| Southtown FAB | Peoria, IL | B | 2.4 |
| KHS USA, Inc. | Waukesha, WI | B | 2.4 |
| Change Parts, Inc. | Luington, MI | B | 2.4 |
| ID Technology-York | York, PA | B | 2.4 |
| Services to Enhance Potential Dearborn South | Dearborn, MI | B | 2.4 |
| Waukegan, IL | Waukegan, IL | B | 2.3 |
| MGS | Maple Grove, MN | B | 2.3 |
| Zalkin Americas | Statham, GA | B | 2.3 |
| Modern Packaging LLC | Deer Park, NY | B | 2.3 |
| Rethceif Enterprises LLC | Ossian, IN | B | 2.3 |
| R+D Custom Automation | Trevor, WI | B | 2.3 |
| Delta Industrial Services, Inc. | Ramsey, MN | B | 2.3 |
| JLS Automation | York, PA | B | 2.3 |
| Serac Inc. | Carol Stream, IL | B | 2.2 |
| K-Ter Imagineering, Inc. | Kansas City, MO | B | 2.2 |
| Panther Industries LLC | Highlands Ranch, CO | B | 2.2 |
| Mossville | Chillicothe, IL | B | 2.2 |
| BEVCORP Willoughby | Willoughby, OH | B | 2.2 |
| Korber Medipak Systems NA, Inc | Fargo, ND | B | 2.2 |
| Butler Automatic | Middleboro, MA | B | 2.2 |
Safety grades are a transparent derived index PlainSafetyScore computes from public OSHA and BLS data, not an official OSHA rating. Read our methodology - how this data is sourced, computed, and verified.
Related
Working in Packaging machinery manufacturing?
This sector averages 3.1 against a BLS benchmark of 3.3 - but individual employers span the full A-to-F range.
- Look up a specific employer in this industry, not just the sector average. Look up an employer
- See how this industry ranks against every other sector. Industry rankings
- Learn what an A-to-F grade requires within an industry benchmark. How grades work
Sector figures use the credible-subset mean across reporting employers; a benchmark is not any single establishment's measured rate.
Every figure and grade on PlainSafetyScore is computed directly from OSHA's published Injury Tracking Application data and BLS industry benchmarks, no number is typed in by an editor. See our editorial standards & corrections policy, the methodology behind these safety grades, or report a data error. Data current as of 2016-2024 OSHA ITA release.