Industrial process control instruments manufacturing · Texas

Md Totco Cedar Park Facility

Cedar Park, TX · ~258 workers · 5 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

A
Excellent Safety Record
0.3
Avg TCR
3.3
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Md Totco Cedar Park Facility runs at 8% of its industry's injury rate - far safer than the typical Industrial process control instruments manufacturing workplace, earning a grade A.

Md Totco Cedar Park Facility: 0.3 TCR = 8% of Industrial process control instruments manufacturing BLS 3.3 · 5y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Md Totco Cedar Park Facility safety composite

Md Totco Cedar Park Facility scores strongest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 96% 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).

B

77/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
A 0.27 per 100 workers

Safer than 96% 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%).

TCR Δ

−1.4

2016→2021

Md Totco Cedar Park Facility injury rate improved

Md Totco Cedar Park Facility's TCR fell 1.4 from 1.4 in 2016 to 0.0 in 2021. Peak filing year was 2016 at 1.4 TCR. In 2021, DART was 0× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2016=1.4 · 2018=0.0 · 2019=0.0 · 2020=0.0 · 2021=0.0

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 334513 · Cedar Park, TX AT/BELOW-IND · MID

Grade A · TCR 0.3 · 8% of ind

  • DART 0.0 DART
  • RANK #3/32
  • PHOTO S14 SEN - HAMPTON
  • BOOK 5y book
  • INJ 4 inj
  • SIZE ~258 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: S14 SEN - HAMPTON (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Md Totco Cedar Park Facility in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Md Totco Cedar Park Facility averages 0.3 TCR (8% of the Industrial process control instruments manufacturing BLS benchmark).

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

Md Totco Cedar Park Facility TCR series: 2016=1.4 · 2018=0 · 2019=0 · 2020=0 · 2021=0 · BLS 3.3

Where Md Totco Cedar Park Facility falls in its industry

322 Industrial process control ins establishments

Safer than 96% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 1.3.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Texas alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #3 safest of 32 Industrial process control ins employers in Texas.

Md Totco Cedar Park Facility (258 employees, TCR 0.3) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 96 employees and a TCR of 1.3 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 0200400600 02468 Average employees Total Case Rate Md Totco Cedar Park Facility
Md Totco Cedar Park Facility (258 employees, TCR 0.3) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 96 employees and a TCR of 1.3

Md Totco Cedar Park Facility has more employees than the Industrial process control instruments m median and a lower injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 1.3. 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
2021 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2020 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2019 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2018 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2016 1.4 1.4 4 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

334513 · TX · Cedar Park

322 Industrial process control instruments manufacturing employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 38,394 rated employers in Texas with headcount on file · 94 employers in Cedar Park, 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 S14 SEN - HAMPTON 0.3 TCR
NAICS-TCR MSA Safety Pittsburgh Manufacturing, LLC - Cranberry Twp 0.3 TCR
NAICS-TCR Yokogawa Corporation of America (combined sites) 0.3 TCR
NAICS-TCR MSA Safety Pittsburgh Manufacturing, LLC 0.3 TCR
STATE-SIZE MS Directional, LLC 258 FTE
STATE-SIZE Tri-County Electric Cooperative, Inc 258 FTE
STATE-SIZE Turner at Formosa Plastics Corporation Point Comfort TX 258 FTE
STATE-SIZE Bakkavor Foods USA (San Antonio) 258 FTE
CITY-NEAR Cedar Park Regional Medical Center 392 FTE
CITY-NEAR 2991 344 FTE
CITY-NEAR WM 2991 314 FTE
CITY-NEAR 2342 - Cedar Park 306 FTE
NAT-TCR Ciox Health - Dunlap Office 0.3 TCR
NAT-TCR Appleton, WI HVAC 0.3 TCR
NAT-TCR Alert Innovation 0.3 TCR
NAT-TCR Manna Pro Corporate/Sales 0.3 TCR
NAT-SIZE UMC, Inc - Utah 258 FTE
NAT-SIZE WLD 258 FTE
NAT-SIZE Enterprise Electric Company 258 FTE
NAT-SIZE UConn - Avery Point Campus 258 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: 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 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.