Search and detection systems and instruments manufacturing · Ohio

L-3 communications Cincinnati Electronics

Mason, OH · ~711 workers · 2 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

A
Excellent Safety Record
0.6
Avg TCR
3.3
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

L-3 communications Cincinnati Electronics runs at 18% of its industry's injury rate - far safer than the typical Search and detection systems and instruments manufacturing workplace, earning a grade A.

L-3 communications Cincinnati Electronics: 0.6 TCR = 18% of Search and detection systems and instruments manufacturing BLS 3.3 · 2y Form 300A (see methodology below)

L-3 communications Cincinnati Electronics safety composite

L-3 communications Cincinnati Electronics scores strongest on dart rate (safer than 75% 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

62/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
C 0.59 per 100 workers

Safer than 58% of industry peers

DART rate
B 0 per 100 workers

Safer than 75% 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%).

L-3 communications Cincinnati Electronics held a steady TCR band

L-3 communications Cincinnati Electronics's TCR held near 0.0 from 0.6 in 2016 to 0.6 in 2017. Peak filing year was 2016 at 0.6 TCR. In 2017, DART was 0× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2016=0.6 · 2017=0.6

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 334511 · Mason, OH AT/BELOW-IND · MID

Grade A · TCR 0.6 · 18% of ind

  • DART 0.0 DART
  • RANK #6/14
  • PHOTO L3 Cincinnati Electr…
  • BOOK 2y book
  • INJ 8 inj
  • SIZE ~711 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: L3 Cincinnati Electronics (0.0 TCR gap)

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

L-3 communications Cincinnati Electronics in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows L-3 communications Cincinnati Electronics averages 0.6 TCR (18% of the Search and detection systems and instruments manufacturing BLS benchmark).

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

L-3 communications Cincinnati Electronics TCR series: 2016=0.6 · 2017=0.6 · BLS 3.3

Where L-3 communications Cincinnati Electronics falls in its industry

388 Search and detection systems a establishments

Safer than 58% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 0.7.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Ohio alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #6 safest of 14 Search and detection systems a employers in Ohio.

L-3 communications Cincinnati Electronics (711 employees, TCR 0.6) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 207 employees and a TCR of 0.7 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 05001,0001,5002,000 0246810 Average employees Total Case Rate L-3 communications Cincinnati Electronics
L-3 communications Cincinnati Electronics (711 employees, TCR 0.6) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 207 employees and a TCR of 0.7

L-3 communications Cincinnati Electronics has more employees than the Search and detection systems and instrum median and a lower injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 0.7. 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
2017 0.6 0.0 4 0 0
2016 0.6 0.1 4 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

334511 · OH · Mason

388 Search and detection systems and instruments manufacturing employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 22,650 rated employers in Ohio with headcount on file · 159 employers in Mason, OH · 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 L3 Cincinnati Electronics 0.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR Linkabit Division-Florida 0.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR Lockheed Martin Corporation Moorestown Campus (1015) 0.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR NGMS-F104 0.6 TCR
STATE-SIZE SH Processing Plant 711 FTE
STATE-SIZE IAC Wauseon LLC 711 FTE
STATE-SIZE 6458-ZECO 712 FTE
STATE-SIZE Victoria's Secret & Company Kettering Call Center 712 FTE
CITY-NEAR Intelligrated Systems, LLC, dba Honeywell Intelligrated and its successors 1,036 FTE
CITY-NEAR Intelligrated Systems LLC - Installations 966 FTE
CITY-NEAR HQ & FIELD 915 FTE
CITY-NEAR L3Harris Cincinnati Electronics 892 FTE
NAT-TCR Nelson Electric Company 0.6 TCR
NAT-TCR HUNTSVILLE_AL 0.6 TCR
NAT-TCR Signode Industrial Products LLC 0.6 TCR
NAT-TCR REN450 Brand Standards 0.6 TCR
NAT-SIZE Wichita KS Main 711 FTE
NAT-SIZE Werner Enterprises/OMANE Terminal 711 FTE
NAT-SIZE Werner Management/OMANE Terminal 711 FTE
NAT-SIZE Strawberry Harvest 711 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: 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.