Semiconductor making machinery manufacturing · Texas

Lam Research Corp. Austin Field Office

Austin, TX · ~30 workers · 6 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

A
Excellent Safety Record
0.4
Avg TCR
3.3
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Lam Research Corp. Austin Field Office runs at 12% of its industry's injury rate - far safer than the typical Semiconductor making machinery manufacturing workplace, earning a grade A.

Lam Research Corp. Austin Field Office: 0.4 TCR = 12% of Semiconductor making machinery manufacturing BLS 3.3 · 6y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Lam Research Corp. Austin Field Office safety composite

Lam Research Corp. Austin Field Office scores strongest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 84% 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

73/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
B 0.39 per 100 workers

Safer than 84% of industry peers

DART rate
B 0 per 100 workers

Safer than 78% 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%).

Lam Research Corp. Austin Field Office held a steady TCR band

Lam Research Corp. Austin Field Office's TCR held near 0.0 from 0.0 in 2016 to 0.0 in 2022. Peak filing year was 2021 at 2.3 TCR. In 2022, DART was 0× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2016=0.0 · 2017=0.0 · 2018=0.0 · 2020=0.0 · 2021=2.3 · 2022=0.0

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 333242 · Austin, TX AT/BELOW-IND · SMALL

Grade A · TCR 0.4 · 12% of ind

  • DART 0.0 DART
  • RANK #5/11
  • PHOTO 7130 Columbia
  • BOOK 6y book
  • INJ 1 inj
  • SIZE ~30 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: 7130 Columbia (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Lam Research Corp. Austin Field Office in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Lam Research Corp. Austin Field Office averages 0.4 TCR (12% of the Semiconductor making machinery manufacturing BLS benchmark).

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

Lam Research Corp. Austin Field Office TCR series: 2016=0 · 2017=0 · 2018=0 · 2020=0 · 2021=2.3 · 2022=0 · BLS 3.3

Where Lam Research Corp. Austin Field Office falls in its industry

133 Semiconductor making machinery establishments

Safer than 84% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 1.2.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Texas alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #5 safest of 11 Semiconductor making machinery employers in Texas.

Lam Research Corp. Austin Field Office (30 employees, TCR 0.4) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 100 employees and a TCR of 1.2 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 01,0002,0003,000 02468 Average employees Total Case Rate Lam Research Corp. Austin Field Office
Lam Research Corp. Austin Field Office (30 employees, TCR 0.4) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 100 employees and a TCR of 1.2

Lam Research Corp. Austin Field Office has fewer employees than the Semiconductor making machinery manufactu median and a lower injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 1.2. 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
2022 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2021 2.3 2.3 1 0 0
2020 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2018 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2017 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2016 0.0 0.0 0 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

333242 · TX · Austin

133 Semiconductor making machinery manufacturing employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 38,394 rated employers in Texas with headcount on file · 1,645 employers in Austin, TX · 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 7130 Columbia 0.4 TCR
NAICS-TCR Kinetic Systems Inc. Mega Fluid 0.4 TCR
NAICS-TCR TEL Manufacturing and Engineering of America 0.4 TCR
NAICS-TCR Arques Campus, Applied Materials, (Bldg. 72,81, 85,87) 0.4 TCR
STATE-SIZE BRAZOS RIVER SOD FARM 30 FTE
STATE-SIZE Coyote Lake Feeders LLC 30 FTE
STATE-SIZE Dimmitt Feedyard 30 FTE
STATE-SIZE Green Plains Cattle Company LLC - Hereford 30 FTE
CITY-NEAR Ensign Services 11,325 FTE
CITY-NEAR NA-US-TX-Austin-Giga Texas 8,621 FTE
CITY-NEAR 6017-Loc: CORP LOC - US Austin 6,911 FTE
CITY-NEAR 6017-CORP LOC - USA UNITED STATES - AST 5,272 FTE
NAT-TCR Tech Park 2 0.4 TCR
NAT-TCR PSSI - 0410 National Beef Packing Company LLC - Dodge City 0.4 TCR
NAT-TCR Certech Inc. 0.4 TCR
NAT-TCR 2967-CA183 0.4 TCR
NAT-SIZE Homeland 197 30 FTE
NAT-SIZE Kingsport TN Yard 30 FTE
NAT-SIZE New Visions Services, Inc 30 FTE
NAT-SIZE Cort Trade Shows and Events 30 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: 2022, 2021, 2020, 2018, 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.