Courier services (i.e., intercity network) (except establishments operating under a universal service obligation) · Colorado

Rhino Logistics LLC

Boulder, CO · ~65 workers · 2 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
22.2
Avg TCR
6.5
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Rhino Logistics LLC runs at 341% of its industry's injury rate - far more dangerous than the typical Courier services (i.e., intercity network) (except establishments operating under a universal service obligation) workplace, earning a grade F.

Rhino Logistics LLC: 22.2 TCR = 341% of Courier services (i.e., intercity network) (except establishments operating under a universal service obligation) BLS 6.5 · 2y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Rhino Logistics LLC safety composite

Rhino Logistics LLC scores strongest on fatalities (safer than 51% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 3%), 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

22/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 22.19 per 100 workers

Safer than 3% of industry peers

DART rate
F 10.36 per 100 workers

Safer than 24% of industry peers

Fatalities
D 0

Safer than 51% 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

−11.8

2022→2023

Rhino Logistics LLC injury rate improved

Rhino Logistics LLC's TCR fell 11.8 from 28.1 in 2022 to 16.3 in 2023. Peak filing year was 2022 at 28.1 TCR. In 2023, DART was 0.47× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2022=28.1 · 2023=16.3

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 492110 · Boulder, CO ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade F · TCR 22.2 · 341% of ind

  • DART 10.4 DART
  • RANK #132/140
  • PHOTO Mack Logistics LLC
  • BOOK 2y book
  • INJ 27 inj
  • SIZE ~65 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Mack Logistics LLC (0.1 TCR gap)

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

Rhino Logistics LLC in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Rhino Logistics LLC averages 22.2 TCR (341% of the Courier services (i.e., intercity network) (except establishments operating under a universal service obligation) BLS benchmark).

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

Rhino Logistics LLC TCR series: 2022=28.1 · 2023=16.3 · BLS 6.5

Where Rhino Logistics LLC falls in its industry

6,679 Courier services (i.e., interc establishments

Safer than 3% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 8.0.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Colorado alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #132 safest of 140 Courier services (i.e., interc employers in Colorado.

Rhino Logistics LLC (65 employees, TCR 22.2) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 113 employees and a TCR of 8.0 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 01,0002,0003,0004,000 0102030 Average employees Total Case Rate Rhino Logistics LLC
Rhino Logistics LLC (65 employees, TCR 22.2) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 113 employees and a TCR of 8.0

Rhino Logistics LLC has fewer employees than the Courier services (i.e., intercity networ median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 8.0. 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 16.3 10.4 10 1 0
2022 28.1 8.9 17 2 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

492110 · CO · Boulder

6,679 Courier services (i.e., intercity network) (except establishments operating under a universal service obligation) employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 9,007 rated employers in Colorado with headcount on file · 190 employers in Boulder, CO · 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 Mack Logistics LLC 22.3 TCR
NAICS-TCR 468 22.1 TCR
NAICS-TCR CASNR - SAN RAMON 22.3 TCR
NAICS-TCR NVELK - ELKO CENTER 22.3 TCR
STATE-SIZE Lost Creek Dairy 65 FTE
STATE-SIZE VM West, LP 65 FTE
STATE-SIZE WORLEY & MCCULLOUGH, INC. 65 FTE
STATE-SIZE Glacier Construction CO INC. 65 FTE
CITY-NEAR Boulder Campus 1,554 FTE
CITY-NEAR Foothills Campus 1,368 FTE
CITY-NEAR Measurement Solutions-Boulder Flow 761 FTE
CITY-NEAR Flow Measurement Products 711 FTE
NAT-TCR Nelson County Jail 22.2 TCR
NAT-TCR Rockland Marine Corp 22.2 TCR
NAT-TCR Wpax 0045 (Collins Ln - F) 22.2 TCR
NAT-TCR Sandcastle Hotel on the Beach 22.2 TCR
NAT-SIZE USM Store #512 (United) 65 FTE
NAT-SIZE Food 4 Less - Salinas 65 FTE
NAT-SIZE 1991 - Morris Il Return Center 65 FTE
NAT-SIZE TX 65 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. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.