Resellers, satellite telecommunication · Maryland

Command and Control Technologies

Annapolis, MD · ~286 workers · 2 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

A
Excellent Safety Record
0.3
Avg TCR
0.7
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Command and Control Technologies runs at 47% of its industry's injury rate - far safer than the typical Resellers, satellite telecommunication workplace, earning a grade A.

Command and Control Technologies: 0.3 TCR = 47% of Resellers, satellite telecommunication BLS 0.7 · 2y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Command and Control Technologies safety composite

Command and Control Technologies scores strongest on dart rate (safer than 81% of same-industry peers) and weakest on fatalities (safer than 50%), 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).

C

66/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
C 0.33 per 100 workers

Safer than 63% of industry peers

DART rate
B 0 per 100 workers

Safer than 81% 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%).

TCR Δ

−0.7

2017→2018

Command and Control Technologies injury rate improved

Command and Control Technologies's TCR fell 0.7 from 0.7 in 2017 to 0.0 in 2018. Peak filing year was 2017 at 0.7 TCR. In 2018, DART was 0× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2017=0.7 · 2018=0.0

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 517410 · Annapolis, MD AT/BELOW-IND · MID

Grade A · TCR 0.3 · 47% of ind

  • DART 0.0 DART
  • RANK #3/4
  • PHOTO Mission-Critical Tec…
  • BOOK 2y book
  • INJ 2 inj
  • SIZE ~286 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Mission-Critical Technologies (0.1 TCR gap)

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

Command and Control Technologies in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Command and Control Technologies averages 0.3 TCR (47% of the Resellers, satellite telecommunication BLS benchmark).

Source U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA Injury Tracking Application (Form 300A) As of 2026-09-26

Command and Control Technologies TCR series: 2017=0.7 · 2018=0 · BLS 0.7

Where Command and Control Technologies falls in its industry

8 Resellers, satellite telecommu establishments

Safer than 63% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 1.6.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Maryland alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #3 safest of 4 Resellers, satellite telecommu employers in Maryland.

Command and Control Technologies (286 employees, TCR 0.3) among 6 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 323 employees and a TCR of 1.6 2×2 strategic matrix plotting 7 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 05001,0001,500 0510152025 Average employees Total Case Rate Mission-Critical TechnologiesHughes Network Systems, LLC.Hughes Network Systems - Lakeforest (LFF)Jackson BranchClarksville BranchShelbyville BranchCommand and Control Technologies
Command and Control Technologies (286 employees, TCR 0.3) among 6 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 323 employees and a TCR of 1.6

Command and Control Technologies has fewer employees than the Resellers, satellite telecommunication median and a lower injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 1.6. 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
2018 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2017 0.7 0.0 2 1 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

517410 · MD · Annapolis

8 Resellers, satellite telecommunication employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 7,213 rated employers in Maryland with headcount on file · 125 employers in Annapolis, MD · 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 Mission-Critical Technologies 0.4 TCR
NAICS-TCR Hughes Network Systems, LLC. 0.1 TCR
NAICS-TCR Hughes Network Systems - Lakeforest (LFF) 0.1 TCR
NAICS-TCR Michigan Branch 1.6 TCR
STATE-SIZE FCDS - DMD8-DDC3 286 FTE
STATE-SIZE Wm. T. Burnett & Co. Foaming Division 286 FTE
STATE-SIZE Ev-Air-Tight Services LLC 286 FTE
STATE-SIZE Complete Care Hyattsville 001 286 FTE
CITY-NEAR Luminis Health Anne Arundel Medical Center Inc 3,308 FTE
CITY-NEAR Luminis Health Doctors Community Medical Center Inc 1,392 FTE
CITY-NEAR Luminis Health Clinical Enterprise Inc 923 FTE
CITY-NEAR Arinc Incoporated (Annapolis MD) 860 FTE
NAT-TCR Ethicon Cincinnati 0.3 TCR
NAT-TCR DePuy Synthes Corporate Tech Center 1310 West Chester 0.3 TCR
NAT-TCR ILS - Memphis 0.3 TCR
NAT-TCR Wegmans Corporate Woods CRPWDS 0.3 TCR
NAT-SIZE Skanska Burns McDonnell ECCO - CPV Valley 286 FTE
NAT-SIZE Maxim Healthcare- Allentown 339 286 FTE
NAT-SIZE Clover Health Care 286 FTE
NAT-SIZE Nestle Waters North America Allentown East (NPL) 286 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: 2018, 2017. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.

Read our methodology - how this data is sourced, computed, and verified.

Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.