Industry profile · NAICS 333999

Screening and sifting machinery for general industrial use manufacturing

Workplace injury rates across 268 OSHA-reporting establishments in this industry, 2016–2024.

268
Employers
3.3
Avg TCR
3.3
BLS benchmark
3,212
Injuries

The industry picture

Employers in Screening and sifting machinery for general industrial use manufacturing average 3.3 recordable injuries per 100 workers, below the BLS national benchmark of 3.3.

3.3
avg TCR · reporting employers
3.3
BLS national benchmark
268
employers reporting
3,212
recordable injuries

OSHA-reporting establishments skew toward larger, higher-hazard sites, so the reporting average runs above the BLS all-establishment benchmark.

What Screening and sifting machinery for general industrial use manufacturing Safety Data Reveals

The Screening and sifting machinery for general industrial use manufacturing sector (NAICS 333999) encompasses 268 distinct employer establishments currently reporting to OSHA's Injury Tracking Application. Across this cohort, workers have logged 3,212 recordable injuries during the 2016–2024 reporting window, producing an industry-weighted average Total Case Rate (TCR) of 3.3 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 3.3 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 Screening and sifting machinery for general industrial use 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 4 of 6
Employer LocationGradeAvg TCR
Advent Design Corporation Bristol, Pa 19007, PA B 1.9
Matrix Design LLC Bartlett, IL B 1.8
JR Automation Technologies, LLC Holland, MI Holland, MI B 1.8
Gordonsville Plant Gordonsville, TN B 1.8
Gooch and Housego (Keene) LLC Keene, NH B 1.8
Gudel, Inc Ann Arbor, MI B 1.7
General Atomics - Rancho Bernardo - G95 San Diego, CA B 1.7
Minnetonka, MN, USA Minnetonka, MN B 1.7
Gagne Inc. Johnson City, NY B 1.7
ATS Assembly & Test Carolina Rockhill, SC A 1.6
Centrus Energy ACO-OR Oak Ridge, TN A 1.6
PaR Shoreview Shoreview, MN A 1.6
Sulzer ChemTech CTUS - Tulsa Tulsa, OK A 1.6
Des-Case Corporation Goodlettsville, TN A 1.6
CBG Biotech Ltd Solon, OH A 1.5
ATC Automation Cookeville, TN A 1.5
Wheelabrator Group, Inc. Lagrange, GA A 1.5
WST Westlake, OH A 1.5
Filtration Systems Products Fredricktown, MO A 1.5
Johnson Controls Marinette Marinette, WI A 1.5
Mli Osha Daytona Beach, FL A 1.5
Automation Solutions, Inc North Attleboro, MA A 1.4
IDEX MPT Inc. - USA Westwood, MA A 1.4
Shape Process Automation Auburn Hills, MI A 1.4
AutoMatrix Grand Rapids, MI A 1.4
CI - El Paso TX El Paso, TX A 1.4
Esys Auburn Hills, MI A 1.4
Isthmus Engineering & Manufacturing Madison, WI A 1.3
Innovative Machining Technology Boyertown, PA A 1.3
Trucent Inc. Dexter, MI A 1.3
JR Automation Technologies LLC - Nashville, TN Nashville, TN A 1.3
Fire Safe Products dba Filtration Systems Products Fredericktown, MO A 1.3
AccuWeb Madison, WI A 1.3
MMLJ - Houston Houston, TX A 1.2
Treadwell Corporation Thomaston, CT A 1.2
FANUC America Corporation - Rochester Hills Rochester Hills, MI A 1.2
Solidscape Merrimack, NH A 1.2
SMHT Manchester, NH A 1.2
Proton Energy Systems, Inc. Wallingford, CT A 1.2
ATS Assembly & Test Wixom Wixom, MI A 1.2
Setpoint Systems Ogden, UT A 1.2
Tridim Filter Allentown PA Allentown, PA A 1.2
Tridim Filter (Elgin) Elgin, IL A 1.1
FAIST ChemTec, Inc. Gastonia, NC A 1.1
Trucent Industrial Technologies and Services Noblesville, IN A 1.1
Pearce Pump Supply Prairieville, LA A 1.1
ATS Assembly & Test Lewis Center Lewis Center, OH A 1.1
PAR Systems Shoreview, MN A 1.1
Brown and Bigelow Saint Paul, MN A 1.1
Pentair Conroe, TX A 1.0
← Prev Page 4 of 6 Next →
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details. Retrieved and formatted by PlainSafetyScore Editorial

Verify with BLS →

Verify with OSHA →

Working in Screening and sifting machinery for general industrial use manufacturing?

This sector averages 3.3 against a BLS benchmark of 3.3 - but individual employers span the full A-to-F range.

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.