Intertek Testing Services
Campaign Finance$0 Given
Figures are based on itemized contributions reported to the Federal Election Commission and state agencies. Please note that:
- contributions under $200 are not reported, and so are not included in totals.
- only contributions from individuals and organizations to candidates are included. Various accounting measures and more exotic contribution types are excluded.
- contributions are matched based on organization and recipient name reported within each election cycle. Contributions using an incorrect or non-standard version of the name may be missed.
- corporate name changes and mergers may cause figures to differ from those of the Center for Responsive Politics.
- organization totals include known subsidiaries of the organization.
Figures are based on lobbying activity reported to the Senate Office of Public Records. Reported dollar amounts are required to be accurate only to the nearest $20,000. For organizations whose primary business is lobbying, we display total income and top clients. For organizations that are not primarily lobbying firms, we display total amount spent on lobbying and top lobbying firms hired.
For more information, please see our lobbying methodology page.
Lobbying on Behalf of Intertek Testing Services
Names of Lobbyists
Most Frequently Disclosed Lobbying Issues
- Homeland Security,
- Consumer Product Safety,
- Health Issues,
- Energy & Nuclear Power,
- Labor, Antitrust & Workplace
RegulationsMentioned in 11 dockets
All data is based on documents downloaded from Regulations.gov. The first table shows mentions: all documents that include the name of the company anywhere in the document or document metadata. The second table shows submissions: all documents where the submitter metadata included the company name. Each table shows the top 10 dockets, ranked by number of occurrences.
Matches are based on a search for the company name. Variations in the company name, such as acronyms, nicknames or alternate names may cause documents to be missed. The mention of a company name in a document may be incidental and does not necessarily indicate that the company has any relevance to the document. Company names that are common English words may erroneously match with text that is not referring to the company.
Not all agencies submit public comments to Regulations.gov. For a list of participating and non-participating agencies see here. Agencies that do submit to Regulations.gov have varying levels of accuracy and completeness.
Regulations and public comments can be downloaded in bulk here.
The tables show occurrences of "Intertek Testing Services" in public comments on proposed federal regulations.
Mentions in Document Text
View all mentions data for Intertek Testing Services
- Toggle 2 EERE Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment: Commercial Clothes Washers 2012
- Toggle 2 EPA Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California; 2007 South Coast State Implementation Plan for 1997 8-hour Ozone Standard and 2007 State Strategy 2011
- Toggle 2 EPA California Transport SIP for the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM-2.5 standards - Prongs 1-2 (Significant Contribution to Nonattainment, Interference with Maintenance) 2011
- Toggle 1 USCBP Re-Accreditatons and Re-approvals as Commercial Gaugers and Laboratories: Interek Testing Services 2011
- Toggle 1 EPA California Transport SIP (Prong 3 - PSD) 2011
- Toggle 1 PHMSA In the Matter of A.M. Pyrotechnics, LLC 2011
- Toggle 1 EPA Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans, California 2007San Joaquin Valley 8-hour Ozone Plan and 2007 State Strategy 2011
- Toggle 1 NRC Notice of Receipt and Availability of Application for Renewal of Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 Facility Operating License 2011
- Toggle 1 EPA "Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of California; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan and Interstate Transport Plan; Interference with Visibility Requirement". 2011
- Toggle 1 FDA To refrain from taking administrative action against intertek by dismissing them as an Accredited Person for 510(k) review under the FDA Modernization Act of 1997 without due process 2012