Powered by GoogleTranslate
Regulations (Preambles to Final Rules) - Table of Contents
• Record Type: Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratories-Fees
• Section: 7
• Title: Section 7 - VII. Regulatory Matters

VII. Regulatory Matters

A. Final Economic Analysis and Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act require Federal agencies to analyze the cost, and other consequences and impacts, of proposed and final rules. In accordance with these requirements, OSHA prepared this final economic analysis to accompany this final rule by OSHA to allow the Department of Labor to charge and retain fees for services provided to Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratories (NRTLs). The analysis included a description of the industry, an estimation of the costs of compliance, and an evaluation of the economic and other impacts of the proposed rule on firms in this sector. The analysis also examined the costs and impacts of the proposal on affected small entities, as defined by the Small Business Administration. Because the fee structure has remained largely unchanged, and because there were no comments on the substance of this analysis, it is the same as that for the proposed rule.

Affected Industry

OSHA standards require that certain equipment and materials used in the workplace meet minimum criteria for performance or safety. In 29 CFR Parts 1910 (governing hazards in general industry) and 1926 (governing hazards in the construction industry), there are more than 160 paragraphs that require certain equipment to be either safety tested, listed, or approved in order for that equipment to be used in the workplace. Table 1 provides a listing of the types of equipment that require testing, listing or approval by NRTLs. The requirements to test, list or approve equipment are necessary to ensure that employees use appropriate safe equipment 3. Although it is ultimately the employer's responsibility to provide safe equipment, few, if any, have the technical capabilities to test items such as electrical conductors and equipment, the fire resistance properties of materials, the lifting capacity of scaffold hoists, etc., for safety.

Table 1. Categories of Equipment/Materials Required by Various Provisions in OSHA's Standards to Be Certified by an NRTL

Electrical Conductors or Equipment

  • Automatic Sprinkler Systems

  • Fixed Extinguishing Systems (Dry chemical, water spray, foam or gaseous agents)

  • Fixed Extinguishing Systems Components and Agents

  • Portable Fire Extinguishers

  • Automatic Fire Detection Devices and Equipment

  • Employee Alarm Systems

  • Self-Closing Fire Doors

  • Fire (B) Doors

  • Windows (Frames)

  • Heat Actuated (Closing) Devices (Dip Tanks)

  • Exit Components

  • Spray Booth Overspray Filters

  • Flame Arresters, Check Valves, Hoses (Transfer Stations), Portable Tanks, and Safety Cans -- Flammable Combustible Liquids)

  • Pumps and Self-Closing Faucets (for Dispensing Class I Liquids)

  • Flexible Connectors (Piping, Valves, Fittings)

  • Service Station Dispensing Units (Automotive, Marine)

  • Mechanical or Gravity Ventilation Systems (Automotive Service Station Dispensing Area)

  • Automotive Service Station Latch -- Open Devices for Dispensing Units

  • New Commercial and Industrial LPG Consuming Appliances

  • Flexible Connectors (Piping, Valves, Fittings) -- LPG

  • Powered Industrial Truck LPG Conversion Equipment

  • LPG Storage and Handling Systems (DOT Containers, Cylinders)

  • Automatic Shut-off Devices (Portable LPG Heaters Including Salamanders)

  • LPG container assemblies (non-DOT) for interchangeable installation above or under ground.

sbull; Fixed electrostatic apparatus and devices (coating operations).

  • Electrostatic hand spray apparatus and devices.

  • Electrostatic fluidized beds and associated equipment.

  • Each appurtenance (e.g., pumps, compressors, safety relief devices, liquid-level gauging devices, valves and pressure gauges) in storage and handling of anhydrous ammonia.

  • Gasoline, LPG, diesel, or electrically powered industrial trucks used in hazardous atmospheres.

  • Acetylene apparatus (torches, regulators or pressure- reducing valves, generators [stationary and portable], manifolds).

  • Acetylene generator compressors or booster systems.

  • Acetylene piping protective devices.

  • Manifolds (fuel gas or oxygen) -- separately for each component part or as assembled units.

  • Scaffolding and power or manually operated units of single- point adjustable suspension scaffolds.

  • Hoisting machine and supports (Stone setters' adjustable multiple-point suspension scaffold).

  • Hoisting machines (Two-point suspension; Masons' adjustable multiple-point suspension scaffold).

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis, 2000.

A product testing lab tests equipment in accordance with test standards, such as those established by Underwriters Laboratories (UL), Factory Mutual Research Corporation (FMRC), the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), or the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). These materials typically contain requirements concerning the design specifications of the equipment, the specific physical tests to be performed, the criteria for passing these tests, etc. The development of a product test standard for a particular type of product can be a deliberate, lengthy, and expensive process that involves a team of engineers and scientists. In addition, test standard development is a dynamic process in which test standards are constantly revised. For example, UL generally reviews each of its test standards at least once every 3 years. Further, at any point in time, between 10 and 20 percent of the UL test standards have been changed during the preceding 6 months. In light of this effort and expense, very few organizations develop their own product test standards.

Independent testing labs are entities that are separate from any manufacturer, trade association, or equipment vendor. They typically test a variety of products within one or more general testing disciplines (e.g., electrical, thermal, mechanical) for many clients, such as manufacturers, trade associations, physicians, and state agencies. Most of the smaller labs specialize in testing specific types of products within one or two general testing disciplines. Even the larger testing labs tend to specialize within one or two general testing disciplines and do not test every type of product within a general testing discipline.

According to the 1992 Census, there are approximately 4,704 independent testing labs in the United States, of which 4,540 are profit making and 164 are not-for-profit (see Table 2). Of the 4,704 testing labs, 1,776 perform chemical or biological testing 4 and about 2,928 concentrate on product testing [1]. The second category of testing labs performs such types of tests as electrical resistance or capacity, fire resistance of materials, materials strength, acoustic and vibration testing, etc. Some of these testing labs will be affected by the rule. Total combined receipts for taxable and non-taxable establishments were $5.13 billion in 1992. Not-for-profit establishments represent 3.4 percent of the total number of testing establishments and 7.2 percent of total revenues.


  Number of firms Number of establishments Total receipts ($million) Number of employees Percent receipts b from testing
Taxable Establishments 3,513 4,540 70,762 $4,764 94.47
Non-Taxable Establishments 135 a 164 6,256 371 90.13

Source: US Department of Commerce. 1992 Census of Service Industries. SC92-S-1. February 1995

a Calculated based on the ratio of non-taxable firms to establishments in SIC 873.

b Other sources of receipts for taxable and non-taxable labs include physical or biological research and development, engineering consulting and design, and contributions (tax-exempt labs only).

By 1992, the testing industry increased by 40 percent, from a total of 3,458 testing labs in 1987; there are several reasons for this growth. First, as technology grows more complex, fewer personnel within the equipment manufacturing organization have the technical expertise to certify the quality of the finished product, i.e., fewer people in a given organization have the ability to perform the overall product certification function. Product testing laboratories can help to provide this quality assurance function. Second, the increase in product liability suits has encouraged manufacturers to take additional steps to verify the safety characteristics of their products. Third, more information is now being sought on product toxicity [2].

The testing industry employs 76,718 workers. Small establishments with one to nine employees represent 3,002 establishments (64 percent of all establishments), but collectively employ only 11,095 employees (14 percent of all employees).

The rule contains requirements for the payment of fees for services provided by OSHA to the NRTLs. The two distinct groups of testing labs that will be affected by the rule are: (1) Testing labs that will seek acceptance by OSHA as "nationally recognized testing labs" for particular types of equipment testing, listing, and approval required under Part 1910.7, and (2) existing NRTLs wishing to retain their eligibility for testing and certification of workplace equipment and/or to expand their NRTL program. Testing labs that do not seek OSHA acceptance will not be affected by the rule and will, therefore, incur no costs of compliance.

Currently, there are 17 testing laboratories that have NRTL status and that operate over 40 testing facilities (sites). Table 3 lists the laboratories and the number of sites for these labs. Both domestic and foreign testing laboratories may be affected by this rule. The Canadian Standards Association (CSA) is a product testing lab that is Canadian- owned and operated and is the only foreign testing lab that has, to any significant degree, entered the American product safety testing market. CSA certification is accepted by some state and local building code authorities.


Testing laboratory Number of sites
1. Applied Reserch Laboratories, Inc. (ARL) 1
2. Canadian Standards Association (CSA) 6
3. Communication Certification Laboratory, Inc. (CCL) 1
4. Curtis-Straus LLC. (CSL) 1
5. Detroit Testing Laboratory, Inc. (DTL) 1
6. Electro-Test, Inc. (ETI) 2
7. Entela, Inc. (ENT) 2
8. Factory Mutual Research Corporation (FM) 2
9. Intertek Testing Services NA, Inc. (ITS) 8
10. MET Laboratories, Inc. (MET) 1
11. National Technical Systems, Inc. (NTS) 1
12. NSF International (NSF) 1
13. SGS U.S. Testing Co., Inc. (SGSUS) 2
14. Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) 1
15. TUV Rheinland of North America, Inc. (TUV) 1
16. Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL) 10
17. Wyle Laboratories, Inc. (WL) 1
Total 42

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis, 2000


This section presents estimates of the costs that will be incurred by firms to come into compliance with the final rule for NRTL fees. These costs do not represent new costs to the economy; instead, they represent a new method of paying for the costs of the NRTL certification program. Today, these costs are paid by taxpayers as part of OSHA's budget. This rule will transfer the payment of these costs to the NRTLs themselves and NRTL applicants.

Testing laboratories participating in the OSHA program will be subject to costs for two types of services: (1) Application processing for the initial recognition of an organization, and for expansion and renewal of an existing NRTL's recognition; and (2) audits (post-recognition reviews), which enable the NRTL to maintain its recognition from OSHA. The fees for these services are based on the actual cost of the service rendered and will thus vary by circumstances. Table A, in Part VI of this notice, shows the elements of the fee structure and a sample fee schedule. The activities covered by each category of fees are explained in detail in that part.

OSHA relied on a review of the NRTL application information from 1988 to 1996 to develop estimates on the annual number of new applicants, and expansion and renewal requests. On average, OSHA receives about 3 initial applications for NRTLs and 3 applications for renewal, and 7 applications for expansions on an annual basis.

OSHA expects to receive NRTL application requests from foreign- based testing laboratories as a result of a Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) between the United States and the European Union (EU). Through the MRA, foreign labs located in the EU that apply for and are recognized as NRTLs can perform the same activities as US based NRTLs. The fees being adopted by OSHA will ensure that US taxpayers are not subsidizing foreign businesses. At this time, there is insufficient information to quantify the number of foreign labs that may apply for NRTL status and their future costs of compliance for these labs.

OSHA estimates that labs will require approximately 0.5 hours of an accountant's time to estimate OSHA-related activities and to process payment. Employee wages are based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimate of total employee compensation for the professional specialty of $30.17 per hour [3]. These costs and the estimated fee costs are shown combined in Table 5.

Estimates of the total cost of full compliance with the requirements of the NRTL fee rule are presented in Table 4. This table also shows OSHA's estimates of the average fee for each type of service costs, as well as a current estimate of total annual fee collections. Total estimated costs for the testing laboratory industry would amount to about $240,000 annually. OSHA estimates that initial recognitions will cost an average of $20,423 per establishment, expansions of recognition application will cost an average of $7,820 per establishment, renewals of recognition will cost an average of $8,641 per establishment, and annual audits will cost an average of $2,436 per establishment.


Category Average cost per application or audit Est. number per year Estimated fee collection
Initial Recognition Applications $20,423 3 $61,269
Expansion of Recognition Applications 7,820 7 54,739
Renewal of Recognition Applications 8,641 3 25,924
Annual Site Visits (Audits) 2,436 40 97,432
       Total     239,364

Source: Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities, 1999

Economic Impacts

OSHA assessed the economic impacts of the costs of compliance with the regulation for NRTL fees and has determined that the regulation is economically feasible for firms in this industry. The rule would have the advantage of encouraging economic efficiency by pricing the service of the NRTL program rather than providing the service for free. As mentioned above, the cost of the NRTL program is currently borne by taxpayers through OSHA's budget. This rule would transfer the payment of some of these costs to firms receiving the service from OSHA.

To determine whether the rule's projected costs of compliance would raise issues of economic feasibility for the affected industry or would adversely alter the competitive structure of the industry, OSHA developed quantitative estimates of the economic impact of the rule on establishments in the affected industry, and thus on the 17 firms already recognized as NRTLs. In this analysis, compliance costs are compared with industry revenues and profits.

Estimates of compliance costs are compared with estimates of annual revenues based on data from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, "Table 3: United States -- The Number and Percent of Firms, Establishments, Employment, Annual Payroll, and Estimated Receipts by Industry and Employment Size for 1993," while estimates of pre-tax profits for most industries are based on data from Robert Morris Associates [3].

OSHA compared the baseline financial data with total annual compliance costs by computing compliance costs as a percentage of revenues. Table 5 shows compliance costs as a percentage of sales and pre-tax profits. This table is titled a screening analysis because it simply measures costs as a percentage of pre-tax profits and sales and does not predict impacts on these sales and pre-tax profits. The screening analysis is used to determine whether the compliance costs associated with the NRTL fees could lead to significant impacts on the affected firms. The actual impact of the rule on the profits and sales of firms will depend on the price elasticity of demand for the services provided by the affected firms.


  Annual costs of compliance Revenues ($1000) Pre-tax
profits ($1000)
Annualized costs of compliance as a
percent of
Sales Pre-tax profit
Testing Laboratories (SIC 8734) $239,825 $5,547,796 $316,224 0.004 0.08

US Department of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis, 1998; Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities, 1999

US Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy. Table 3: US Establishments, Employment, and Payroll by Industry and Firm Size, 1993

aRevenues do not include foreign laboratories sales

Price elasticity refers to the relationship between the price charged for a product and demand for that product; that is, the more elastic the relationship, the less able a firm is to pass the costs of compliance through to its customers in the form of a price increase and the more it will have to absorb the costs of compliance from its profit. When demand is completely inelastic, firms can absorb all the costs of compliance simply by raising the prices they charge for the service; under this scenario, profits are untouched. Where demand is inelastic, the impact of compliance costs that amount to 1 percent of revenues would be a 1 percent increase in the price of the product, with no decline either in demand or in profits. Such a situation would be most likely when there are few, if any, substitutes for the service offered by the affected establishments and where such services account only for a small portion of the income of its consumers. When demand is completely elastic, firms cannot absorb the costs simply by passing the cost increase through in the form of a price increase; instead, they must absorb the cost increase from their profits. In this case, no increase in price is possible, and before-tax profits would be reduced by an amount equal to the costs of compliance. Under this scenario, if the costs of compliance are a large percentage of the establishment's profits, some establishments might be forced to close. This scenario is highly unlikely to occur, however, because it can only arise when there are other services that are, in the eyes of consumers, perfect substitutes for the services the affected establishments provide. A common intermediate case would be a price elasticity of one. In this situation, if the costs of compliance amount to 1 percent of revenues, then production would decline by 1 percent and prices would rise by 1 percent. In this case, establishments remain in business and maintain the same revenue as before but would produce 1 percent less product or service. Consumers would effectively absorb the costs through a combination of increased prices and reduced consumption; this, as the court described in ADA v. Secretary of Labor, is the more typical case.

As shown in Table 5, the impacts imposed by the rule are not sizeable on the industry. On average, annualized compliance costs would amount to only 0.004 percent of estimated industry revenues and 0.08 percent of estimated profits. Even if no price increase were possible, a 0.08 percent decline in profits would not threaten the viability of the industry. These impacts are overestimated since the revenues do not include foreign organization revenues. Thus, the rule is determined to be economically feasible for affected laboratories.

As previously noted, OSHA received a comment from a "stakeholder" that stated the proposed fees would have a significant impact on the manufacturers who are customers of NRTL services [Ex. 2-19]. However, they did not present any information or evidence of such impacts. Testing fees are minor costs compared with the product's development and manufacturing costs. The price of testing entails not only the charges for the direct testing service, but also the length of time taken by the testing process. In other words, the time spent by the manufacturer waiting for the product to be tested is time during which the product is not being sold and the manufacturer is not receiving the income necessary to offset the expenses of designing the product, establishing a production line, etc. In addition to the time component, the market for testing services is highly competitive and the demand inelastic because, in general, the price for testing services is a very small component of the overall costs of the product. OSHA estimated in its Final Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Final Rule for 29 CFR Part 1910, Safety Testing of Certification of Certain Workplace Equipment and Materials and Programs, that the actual testing, listing and approval expenditures for tested equipment would be between 0.23 percent and 0.50 percent of the value of these products [2]. Thus, on average, product testing fees are a minor component of the cost of manufacturing equipment and will continue to remain so even after the fees have been implemented.

Potential Economic Impacts of the Regulation on Small Entities

This section measures the potential economic impacts of the regulation on small entities in the affected testing laboratory industry to determine whether the regulation has a significant impact on a substantial number of small firms, as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (as amended in 1996). For the purposes of this analysis, OSHA defines small entities using the Small Business Administration's (SBA) Table of Size Standards. The SBA size standards for-profit firms identify firms with less than $5 million in revenues as small in the testing laboratory service sector.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act addresses impacts on "small businesses," and "small not-for-profit organizations," both of which are referred to in this analysis as "small entities." What constitutes a small entity is defined by the SBA in terms of the number of employees or annual receipts (unless otherwise stated) constituting the largest size that a for-profit enterprise (together with its affiliates) may be and still remain eligible as a small business for various SBA and other Federal Government programs. A "small organization" is defined as any "not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field." Since this definition would include all of the not-for-profit entities, no separate analysis of small organizations is necessary.

The number of establishments operated by small firms and the number of affected workers employed in small firms are based on Bureau of the Census data5. The Bureau of the Census data classify firms according to the number of workers employed by the enterprise. The following employment size classifications were used: 1-4, 5-9, 10-19, 20-99, 100- 499, 500+. For each firm size classification, data were provided on the total number of firms, establishments, employees and estimated annual receipts.

Based on the SBA size category and the Census data, OSHA has determined that most of the testing labs with NRTL status are of substantial size in terms of both gross revenues and number of employees. The average revenue of these firms, based on the employment size categories provided by the Census data, is estimated to range from $6.9 million to $18.9 million per firm.

The purpose of this analysis is to assess the impacts on business organizations consisting of one or more domestic establishments under common ownership or control, without regard to the number of states in which a business organization may be operating establishments. However, the data provided by the Census do not include the number of enterprises, but rather the number of firms, which, by the Census' definition, is essentially the number of states in which an enterprise operates establishments in a specific industry. Thus, to the extent that enterprises operate establishments in the same industry in multiple states, estimates of the number of entities may be overestimated.

To estimate the number of small entities, average revenues per firm were calculated in each enterprise size category using Census data, and size categories where average revenues per firm were less than the standards set by SBA (i.e., less than $5 million for all other firms), firms in those size categories were assumed to be small entities. Table 6 shows the estimated number of small entities in the industry. Only 9 small businesses and 1 not-for-profit entity are currently NRTLs and thus certain to be affected. However, the rule could affect any of the 3,170 small independent testing laboratories if such entities wish to become NRTLs. About 87 percent of all independent testing laboratories are estimated to be operated by small entities.

Table 6 presents the results of the regulatory flexibility screening analysis. It shows the estimated annual compliance costs and economic impacts relative to revenues and pre-tax profit for affected small entities. For testing laboratories seeking NRTL status for the first time, the annual compliance cost amounts to only 0.22 percent of revenues and 3.90 percent of profits for small entities. The analysis also shows that for-profit testing labs with current NRTL status have compliance costs that are 0.25 percent of revenues and 4.36 percent of profits. For not-for-profit NRTLs, compliance costs represent 0.10 percent of revenues. Impacts of these magnitudes do not exceed the thresholds OSHA has established for significant impacts.

Thus, because this rule will not have a significant impact on small entities (as defined by the SBA), OSHA certifies that this final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.


  Definition of small entity Employ- ment size Number of small firms Annual- ized cost per firm Average revenues per small firm Pre-tax profits per small firm Annual- ized cost of compliance as a percent of
Sales Pre- tax profit
Testing Laboratories (SIC 8734) <$5 million <100 NA $5,359 $2,413,243 $137,555 0.22 3.90
Testing Laboratories with NRTL Status For-Profit Firms <$5 million <100 9 6,000 2,413,243 137,555 0.25 4.36
Not-For-Profit Firms Not-for-Profit 500+ 1 18,180 18,913,183   0.10  

US Department of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis, 2000; Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities, 1999
US Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy. Table 3: US Establishments, Employments, and Payroll by Industry and Firm Size, 1993
Note: As defined by the Small Business Administration's Table of Size Standards


1. US Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1992 Census of Service Industries: Industry Series: SC92-S-1, -4, -5. Washington, D.C., February 1995.

2. US Department of Labor, OSHA. Final Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Final Rule 29 CFR PART 1910 for Safety Testing of Certification of Certain Workplace Equipment and Materials and Programs. March 1988.

3. Robert Morris Associates. Annual Statement Studies. September 1995.

B. Environmental Impact Assessment

In accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), Council on Environmental Quality NEPA regulations (40 CFR Part 1500), and the Department of Labor's NEPA regulations (29 CFR Part 11), the Assistant Secretary has determined that this final rule will not have a significant impact on the external environment.

C. Federalism

This final rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 13132, regarding Federalism. This final rule would only set fees for services provided by the Federal Government to private entities and has no impact on Federalism. The rule does not limit or restrict State policy options.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

OSHA does not plan to develop or implement a form for NRTLs and NRTL applicants to use to pay the fees but will provide instructions on how to calculate the fees, as previously stated. The Agency does not believe a form is needed since the fee calculations are relatively simple. In addition, OSHA has no reporting requirements related to the fees. As a result, there are no additional burden hours associated with the fees.

E. Unfunded Mandates

For the purposes of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, as well as Executive Order 13084 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), this rule does not include any Federal mandate that may result in increased expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, or increased expenditures by the private sector of more than $100 million in any year.

F. State Plan States

The 25 States and territories with their own OSHA approved occupational safety and health plans are not affected by this final rule. These 25 states and territories are: Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut (for state and local government employees only), Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York (for state and local government employees only), North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Virgin Islands, Washington, and Wyoming.

FOOTNOTE(3) A substantial amount of the equipment tested is used in situations other than those in which OSHA has sole interest. As one example, electrical conductors and equipment installed in buildings must conform with the state and local building code, the National Electrical Code, and any requirements established by the property insurer. In addition, manufacturers have products examined by testing laboratories in order to meet the demands of their product liability insurers as well as to improve the product. Thus, OSHA is not the only organization concerned about the safety of many of these products. (Back to Text)

FOOTNOTE(4) Biological and chemical testing labs perform such tests as chemical composition of substances, blood tests, etc., and would not be affected by the final rule. (Back to Text)

FOOTNOTE(5) The Bureau of the Census defines a "firm" as "a business organization consisting of one or more domestic establishments in the same state and industry that were specified under common ownership or control," and an "enterprise" as "a business organization consisting of one or more domestic establishments that were specified under common ownership or control." In other words, if, for example, an enterprise with 100 employees operates nursing homes in four states, the Bureau of the Census would count this as four firms in the nursing home industry in the 100 to 499 employment size classification. (Back to Text)

[65 FR 46813, July 31, 2000]

Regulations (Preambles to Final Rules) - Table of Contents

Thank You for Visiting Our Website

You are exiting the Department of Labor's Web server.

The Department of Labor does not endorse, takes no responsibility for, and exercises no control over the linked organization or its views, or contents, nor does it vouch for the accuracy or accessibility of the information contained on the destination server. The Department of Labor also cannot authorize the use of copyrighted materials contained in linked Web sites. Users must request such authorization from the sponsor of the linked Web site. Thank you for visiting our site. Please click the button below to continue.