Public safety bureaus and statistics centers, government · Utah

Utah Communications Authority

Salt Lake City, UT · ~30 workers · 5 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

D
Poor Safety Record
5.5
Avg TCR
3.2
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Utah Communications Authority runs at 173% of its industry's injury rate - more dangerous than the typical Public safety bureaus and statistics centers, government workplace, earning a grade D.

Utah Communications Authority: 5.5 TCR = 173% of Public safety bureaus and statistics centers, government BLS 3.2 · 5y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Utah Communications Authority safety composite

Utah Communications Authority scores strongest on dart rate (safer than 85% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 46%), 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)
D 5.54 per 100 workers

Safer than 46% of industry peers

DART rate
B 0 per 100 workers

Safer than 85% of industry peers

Fatalities
C 0

Safer than 55% 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

−2.9

2018→2022

Utah Communications Authority injury rate improved

Utah Communications Authority's TCR fell 2.9 from 6.3 in 2018 to 3.4 in 2022. Peak filing year was 2019 at 11.5 TCR. In 2022, DART was 0× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2018=6.3 · 2019=11.5 · 2020=3.5 · 2021=2.9 · 2022=3.4

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 922190 · Salt Lake City, UT ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade D · TCR 5.5 · 173% of ind

  • DART 0.0 DART
  • RANK P46
  • PHOTO Guilford County Sher…
  • BOOK 5y book
  • INJ 8 inj
  • SIZE ~30 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Guilford County Sheriff Administration (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Utah Communications Authority in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Utah Communications Authority averages 5.5 TCR (173% of the Public safety bureaus and statistics centers, government BLS benchmark).

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

Utah Communications Authority TCR series: 2018=6.3 · 2019=11.5 · 2020=3.5 · 2021=2.9 · 2022=3.4 · BLS 3.2

Where Utah Communications Authority falls in its industry

79 Public safety bureaus and stat establishments

Safer than 46% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 5.3.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers
Utah Communications Authority (30 employees, TCR 5.5) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 89 employees and a TCR of 5.3 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 05001,0001,500 010203040 Average employees Total Case Rate Utah Communications Authority
Utah Communications Authority (30 employees, TCR 5.5) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 89 employees and a TCR of 5.3

Utah Communications Authority has fewer employees than the Public safety bureaus and statistics cen median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 5.3. 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
2022 3.4 0.0 1 0 0
2021 2.9 0.0 1 0 0
2020 3.5 0.0 1 0 0
2019 11.5 11.5 3 0 0
2018 6.3 6.3 2 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

922190 · UT · Salt Lake City

79 Public safety bureaus and statistics centers, government employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 3,861 rated employers in Utah with headcount on file · 998 employers in Salt Lake City, UT · 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 Guilford County Sheriff Administration 5.5 TCR
NAICS-TCR Law Enforcement - Bailiffs, High Point 5.3 TCR
NAICS-TCR City of New Prague 5.3 TCR
NAICS-TCR Fire Station 1 5.1 TCR
STATE-SIZE ProPetro Services -- Rocky Mountain Division 30 FTE
STATE-SIZE Jordanelle Special Service District 30 FTE
STATE-SIZE KEARNS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 30 FTE
STATE-SIZE Primo Builders, LLC 30 FTE
CITY-NEAR Delta Air Lines - SLC 4,843 FTE
CITY-NEAR PC - Primary Childrens Hospital 3,254 FTE
CITY-NEAR L3 Technologies, Inc. 3,229 FTE
CITY-NEAR Salt Lake City Terminal 2,766 FTE
NAT-TCR 4795-PD-CRW-CHARLESTON-CRW-PDMT 5.5 TCR
NAT-TCR Diversicare of Meridian 5.5 TCR
NAT-TCR Vibra Hospital of Western Massachusetts, LLC d/b/a Vibra Hospital of Western Massachusetts - Central 5.5 TCR
NAT-TCR HG819 5.5 TCR
NAT-SIZE 6957-LNK 30 FTE
NAT-SIZE 9976 Central Fill Pharmacy Wh 30 FTE
NAT-SIZE Steiner Plumbing & Electric Inc. 30 FTE
NAT-SIZE Kadon Trucking Inc 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, 2019, 2018. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.