Metal stampings (except automotive, cans, coins), unfinished, manufacturing · Minnesota

Cedar Lake Engineering

Maple Lake, MN · ~83 workers · 6 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
9.9
Avg TCR
3.3
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Cedar Lake Engineering runs at 299% of its industry's injury rate - far more dangerous than the typical Metal stampings (except automotive, cans, coins), unfinished, manufacturing workplace, earning a grade F.

Cedar Lake Engineering: 9.9 TCR = 299% of Metal stampings (except automotive, cans, coins), unfinished, manufacturing BLS 3.3 · 6y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Cedar Lake Engineering safety composite

Cedar Lake Engineering scores strongest on fatalities (safer than 50% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 13%), 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).

F

32/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 9.88 per 100 workers

Safer than 13% of industry peers

DART rate
D 2.6 per 100 workers

Safer than 40% of industry peers

Fatalities
D 0

Safer than 50% 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%).

Rising injury rate

Cedar Lake Engineering: 8.3 → 13.0 TCR

Peak year 2023 @ 13.0 TCR · DART/TCR 0.26× in 2023

Cedar Lake Engineering's TCR rose 4.7 from 8.3 in 2018 to 13.0 in 2023. In 2023, DART was 0.26× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 332119 · Maple Lake, MN ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade F · TCR 9.9 · 299% of ind

  • DART 2.6 DART
  • RANK #22/27
  • PHOTO Co-Line Welding, Inc.
  • BOOK 6y book
  • INJ 49 inj
  • SIZE ~83 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Co-Line Welding, Inc. (0.1 TCR gap)

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

Cedar Lake Engineering in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Cedar Lake Engineering averages 9.9 TCR (299% of the Metal stampings (except automotive, cans, coins), unfinished, manufacturing BLS benchmark).

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

Cedar Lake Engineering TCR series: 2018=8.3 · 2019=11.5 · 2020=4.9 · 2021=12.8 · 2022=8.9 · 2023=13 · BLS 3.3

Where Cedar Lake Engineering falls in its industry

477 Metal stampings (except automo establishments

Safer than 13% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 5.1.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Minnesota alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #22 safest of 27 Metal stampings (except automo employers in Minnesota.

Cedar Lake Engineering (83 employees, TCR 9.9) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 62 employees and a TCR of 5.1 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 0100200300400 0510152025 Average employees Total Case Rate Cedar Lake Engineering
Cedar Lake Engineering (83 employees, TCR 9.9) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 62 employees and a TCR of 5.1

Cedar Lake Engineering has more employees than the Metal stampings (except automotive, cans median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 5.1. 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
2023 13.0 2.6 10 0 0
2022 8.9 0.0 7 0 0
2021 12.8 1.3 10 0 0
2020 4.9 0.0 4 0 0
2019 11.5 4.6 10 0 0
2018 8.3 1.0 8 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

332119 · MN · Maple Lake

477 Metal stampings (except automotive, cans, coins), unfinished, manufacturing employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 15,828 rated employers in Minnesota with headcount on file · 11 employers in Maple Lake, MN · 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 Co-Line Welding, Inc. 9.9 TCR
NAICS-TCR McKey Perforating TN 355 9.8 TCR
NAICS-TCR Processed Metals Innovators, Inc. 9.8 TCR
NAICS-TCR Chandler 9.8 TCR
STATE-SIZE King Gen Plant-PD 83 FTE
STATE-SIZE MVEC 83 FTE
STATE-SIZE Hy-Tec Construction of Brainerd, Inc. 83 FTE
STATE-SIZE J&D Construction, Inc. 83 FTE
CITY-NEAR MP NEXLEVEL, LLC 915 FTE
CITY-NEAR HIGH SCHOOL (200) 287 FTE
CITY-NEAR ELEMENTARY (100) 275 FTE
CITY-NEAR Bernatello's Pizza, Inc. - Sales 151 FTE
NAT-TCR Idaho Tents & Events 9.9 TCR
NAT-TCR Wick Buildings Inc 9.9 TCR
NAT-TCR Oak Hill Country Club 9.9 TCR
NAT-TCR McLoughlin Place 9.9 TCR
NAT-SIZE Medic Air Systems, Inc. Port Orange FL 83 FTE
NAT-SIZE County Market #446 83 FTE
NAT-SIZE DATTCO - New Haven 83 FTE
NAT-SIZE Marietta HME 4003 83 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: 2023, 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.