Central air-conditioning equipment installation · California

Richard Young Air Conditioning

Los Banos, CA · ~38 workers · 8 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
6.9
Avg TCR
2.8
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Richard Young Air Conditioning runs at 245% of its industry's injury rate - far more dangerous than the typical Central air-conditioning equipment installation workplace, earning a grade F.

Richard Young Air Conditioning: 6.9 TCR = 245% of Central air-conditioning equipment installation BLS 2.8 · 8y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Richard Young Air Conditioning safety composite

Richard Young Air Conditioning scores strongest on fatalities (safer than 51% of same-industry peers) and weakest on dart rate (safer than 4%), 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

23/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 6.87 per 100 workers

Safer than 22% of industry peers

DART rate
F 11.03 per 100 workers

Safer than 4% 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%).

Rising injury rate

Richard Young Air Conditioning: 9.9 → 11.0 TCR

Peak year 2024 @ 11.0 TCR · DART/TCR 1.61× in 2024

Richard Young Air Conditioning's TCR rose 1.1 from 9.9 in 2017 to 11.0 in 2024. In 2024, DART was 1.61× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 238220 · Los Banos, CA ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade F · TCR 6.9 · 245% of ind

  • DART 11.0 DART
  • RANK #427/594
  • PHOTO Rozga Plumbing and H…
  • BOOK 8y book
  • INJ 20 inj
  • SIZE ~38 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Rozga Plumbing and Heating Corporation (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Richard Young Air Conditioning in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Richard Young Air Conditioning averages 6.9 TCR (245% of the Central air-conditioning equipment installation BLS benchmark).

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

Richard Young Air Conditioning TCR series: 2017=9.9 · 2018=9.3 · 2019=8.2 · 2020=5.4 · 2021=2.5 · 2022=2.8 · 2023=5.8 · 2024=11 · BLS 2.8

Where Richard Young Air Conditioning falls in its industry

5,793 Central air-conditioning equip establishments

Safer than 22% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 3.3.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to California alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #427 safest of 594 Central air-conditioning equip employers in California.

Richard Young Air Conditioning (38 employees, TCR 6.9) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 60 employees and a TCR of 3.3 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 050100150200250 05101520 Average employees Total Case Rate Richard Young Air Conditioning
Richard Young Air Conditioning (38 employees, TCR 6.9) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 60 employees and a TCR of 3.3

Richard Young Air Conditioning has fewer employees than the Central air-conditioning equipment insta median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 3.3. 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
2024 11.0 11.0 4 0 0
2023 5.8 2.9 2 0 0
2022 2.8 2.8 1 0 0
2021 2.5 2.5 1 0 0
2020 5.4 0.0 2 0 0
2019 8.2 8.2 3 0 0
2018 9.3 4.7 4 0 0
2017 9.9 7.4 3 1 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

238220 · CA · Los Banos

5,793 Central air-conditioning equipment installation employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 51,834 rated employers in California with headcount on file · 52 employers in Los Banos, CA · 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 Rozga Plumbing and Heating Corporation 6.9 TCR
NAICS-TCR Haller Enterprises - York 6.9 TCR
NAICS-TCR Terrys Heating and Air Conditioning ID, lLC 6.9 TCR
NAICS-TCR Atlantis Comfort Systems Corp 6.9 TCR
STATE-SIZE CAL-O SHIPPING 38 FTE
STATE-SIZE GAR & S Farm Labor Services, Inc. 38 FTE
STATE-SIZE Supreme Almonds of California, Inc. 38 FTE
STATE-SIZE Bays Ranch Inc 38 FTE
CITY-NEAR California Department of Transportation Facility 316 779 FTE
CITY-NEAR The Liberty Packing Company 590 FTE
CITY-NEAR Liberty Packing Company 496 FTE
CITY-NEAR Sutter Valley Hospitals (30738) 374 FTE
NAT-TCR Ceric Fabrication Co Inc. 6.9 TCR
NAT-TCR Spirit Industries LLC 6.9 TCR
NAT-TCR T&R Contracting Inc 6.9 TCR
NAT-TCR 01-NCA 6.9 TCR
NAT-SIZE PSI Urethanes, Inc. 38 FTE
NAT-SIZE Technomark Inc 38 FTE
NAT-SIZE Midwest Mold & Texture Corporation 38 FTE
NAT-SIZE Shinnston Price Cutter 38 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: 2024, 2023, 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.