Proposed Rule2021-24786
Apprenticeship Programs, Labor Standards for Registration
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
November 15, 2021
Issuing agencies
Labor Department
Abstract
The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL or the Department) proposes to rescind its regulation regarding Standards Recognition Entities (SREs) of Industry-Recognized Apprenticeship Programs (IRAPs). Specifically, the proposed rule would rescind the regulatory framework for the Department's recognition of SREs and SREs' role in recognizing IRAPs, and make necessary conforming changes to the Department's registered apprenticeship regulations.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 217 (Monday, November 15, 2021)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 217 (Monday, November 15, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62966-62978]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2021-24786]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
29 CFR Part 29
[Docket No. ETA-2021-0007]
RIN 1205-AC06
Apprenticeship Programs, Labor Standards for Registration
AGENCY: Employment and Training Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL or the Department) proposes
to rescind its regulation regarding Standards Recognition Entities
(SREs) of Industry-Recognized Apprenticeship Programs (IRAPs).
Specifically, the proposed rule would rescind the regulatory framework
for the Department's recognition of SREs and SREs' role in recognizing
IRAPs, and make necessary conforming changes to the Department's
registered apprenticeship regulations.
DATES: To be ensured consideration, comments must be received on or
before January 14, 2022.
ADDRESSES: You may submit written comments electronically by the
following method:
<bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
Follow the instructions on the website for submitting comments. Label
all submissions with docket number ETA-2021-0007 and RIN 1205-AC06.
Instructions. Include docket number ETA-2021-0007 in your comments
as well as RIN 1205-AC06.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number ETA-2021-0007
and RIN 1205-AC06, by using the Federal eRulemaking portal: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. Follow the website instructions for submitting
comments (under ``Help'' > ``How to use <a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a>'').
Please be advised that the Department will post all comments
received that relate to this proposed rule on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> without making any change to the comments or
redacting any information. The <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> website is
the Federal eRulemaking portal, and all comments posted there are
available and accessible to the public. Therefore, the Department
recommends that commenters remove personal information, such as Social
Security numbers, personal addresses, telephone numbers, and email
addresses, included in their comments, as such information may become
easily available to the public via the <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>
website. It is the responsibility of the commenter to safeguard
personal information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heidi Casta, Acting Administrator,
Office of Policy Development and Research, U.S. Department of Labor,
200 Constitution Avenue NW, Room N-5641, Washington, DC 20210,
Telephone: (202) 693-3700 (voice) (this is not a toll-free number) or
1-800-326-2577 (TDD).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The National Apprenticeship Act of 1937 (NAA), 29 U.S.C. 50,
authorizes the Secretary of Labor (Secretary) to: (1) Formulate and
promote the use of labor standards necessary to safeguard the welfare
of apprentices and to encourage their inclusion in apprenticeship
contracts; (2) bring together employers and labor for the formulation
of programs of apprenticeship; and (3) cooperate with State agencies
engaged in the formulation and promotion of standards of
apprenticeship. 29 U.S.C. 50. The Department promulgated regulations to
implement the NAA at 29 CFR part 30 (equal employment opportunity in
apprenticeship) in 1963 and part 29 (labor standards for the
registration of apprenticeship programs) in 1977. The part 30
regulations prohibit discrimination in registered apprenticeship based
on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, age
(40 or older), genetic information, and disability, and they require
sponsors of registered apprenticeship programs (RAPs) to take
affirmative action to provide equal opportunity in such programs. The
part 29 regulations set forth labor standards safeguarding the welfare
of apprentices, including: Prescribing policies and procedures
concerning the registration, cancellation, and deregistration of
apprenticeship programs; recognizing State Apprenticeship Agencies
(SAAs) as Registration Agencies; and matters relating thereto. The
Department significantly updated 29 CFR part 29 in 2008 to ``increase
flexibility, enhance program quality and accountability, and promote
apprenticeship opportunity in the 21st century, while continuing to
safeguard the welfare of apprentices'' (73 FR 64402, Oct. 29, 2008),
and updated 29 CFR part 30 in 2016 ``to
[[Page 62967]]
modernize equal employment opportunity regulations'' (81 FR 92026, Dec.
19, 2016). These regulations provide the framework for the registered
apprenticeship system.
On June 15, 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order (E.O.)
13801, ``Expanding Apprenticeships in America'' (82 FR 28229), which
directed the Secretary to consider issuing regulations that promote the
development of IRAPs by third parties. Section 8(b)(iii) of E.O. 13801
also established a Task Force on Apprenticeship Expansion (Task Force)
to identify strategies and proposals to promote apprenticeships, to
include ``the most effective strategies for creating industry-
recognized apprenticeships.'' Based on E.O. 13801 and the Task Force's
recommendations, the Department issued a new rule entitled
``Apprenticeship Programs, Labor Standards for Registration, Amendment
of Regulations'' (IRAP rule), codified at 29 CFR part 29, subpart B,
which established the IRAP system. 85 FR 14294 (Mar. 11, 2020).
The IRAP rule established a process for DOL's Office of
Apprenticeship (OA) Administrator (Administrator) to recognize
qualified third-party entities, known as SREs, which would, in turn,
evaluate and recognize IRAPs. The IRAP rule set forth the requirements
for third-party entities applying for Departmental recognition as SREs.
It also identified certain requirements apprenticeship programs must
meet in order to obtain recognition from SREs as IRAPs. The IRAP rule
was published on March 11, 2020, and went into effect on May 11, 2020.
As of the date of this proposed rule, the Department has recognized 27
SREs, which have, in turn, recognized 175 IRAPs, with 165 of these
programs recognized by a single SRE.
On February 17, 2021, President Biden issued E.O. 14016,
``Revocation of Executive Order 13801'' (86 FR 11089), which in section
2 directed Federal agencies to ``promptly consider taking steps to
rescind any orders, rules, regulations, guidelines, or policies''
implementing E.O. 13801.
Pursuant to E.O. 14016, on February 17, 2021, the Department
announced it would be undertaking a review of the IRAP system and as a
result suspended the acceptance of new applications to become a
recognized SRE and suspended making final determinations for
organizations that had already submitted an application to become a
recognized SRE.\1\ The Department advised that all SREs already
approved by the Department and all IRAPs recognized by an SRE could
continue to perform their functions as described in the regulation, to
include the recognition of new IRAPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ <a href="https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/eta/eta20210217">https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/eta/eta20210217</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department's review of the IRAP system and proposed rescission
of the IRAP rule has been informed by the Administration's priority to
create jobs ``to be filled by diverse, local, well-trained workers who
have a choice to join a union'' through strengthening RAPs.\2\ The
Department is focused on rebuilding the middle class, connecting a
diverse workforce to family-sustaining jobs, and playing an active role
in the rebuilding of the workforce to address the effects of the 2019
Coronavirus Disease pandemic in a manner consistent with its mission to
``foster, promote, and develop the welfare of the wage earners, job
seekers, and retirees of the United States; improve working conditions;
advance opportunities for profitable employment; and assure work-
related benefits and rights.'' \3\ As such, the Department plays an
important role in ensuring workers are paid a fair wage, provided a
safe workplace, and provided the tools and training necessary to access
equitable economic opportunity and success. This mission is always
important, but even more so as the country emerges and begins to
recover from the 2019 Coronavirus Disease pandemic.\4\ The pandemic has
led to millions of workers becoming unemployed, and it has exposed
vulnerabilities and fissures in our economy as a result of systemic
racism and economic inequality, of which the burdens were felt greatest
by low-wage earners and communities of color. The Department views the
registered apprenticeship system--a system that has benefited thousands
of workers and employers throughout its existence--as a far more
effective system than IRAPs for delivering on DOL's mission to help
workers access family-sustaining jobs, protect the safety and welfare
of apprentices, and reach out to underserved communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ White House, ``Fact Sheet: Biden Administration to Take
Steps to Bolster Registered Apprenticeships'' (Feb. 17, 2021),
available at <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/02/17/fact-sheet-biden-administration-to-take-steps-to-bolster-registered-apprenticeships/">https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/02/17/fact-sheet-biden-administration-to-take-steps-to-bolster-registered-apprenticeships/</a>.
\3\ <a href="https://www.dol.gov/general/aboutdol">https://www.dol.gov/general/aboutdol</a>.
\4\ The IRAP rule was published on March 11, 2020, which is the
same day that the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a
pandemic and 2 days before the President declared a national
emergency concerning the COVID-19 pandemic. See World Health
Organization Director General's opening remarks at the media
briefing on COVID-19 (Mar. 11, 2020), available at <a href="https://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19---11-march-2020">https://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19---11-march-2020</a>;
Proclamation 9994, Declaring a National Emergency Concerning the
Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Outbreak, 85 FR 15337 (Mar. 13,
2020). The declaration of a national emergency continues as of the
date of the publication of this proposed rule. Continuation of the
National Emergency Concerning the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-
19) Pandemic, 86 FR 11599 (Feb. 24, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The IRAP rule, conversely, does not align with the Administration's
and Department's priorities for several reasons, as discussed in
further detail below. Among them is that IRAPs have fewer quality
training and worker protection standards than RAPs and, contrary to the
conclusions in the IRAP rule, the Department no longer considers it
appropriate or necessary to create an additional apprenticeship model,
particularly one that does not guarantee the same protections for
apprentices. The IRAP rule also threatens to undermine the robust and
successful registered apprenticeship system by creating a duplicative
system that lacks sufficient oversight and quality necessary to ensure
the Department endorses programs meeting the needs of the American
workforce and economy. Although the IRAP rule was premised on the idea
that parallel apprenticeship systems were preferable as a means to
better grow apprenticeship generally, upon further consideration and
review the Department thinks that the existence of two parallel systems
overseen by the Department is an inefficient and ineffective use of its
resources.
In the IRAP rule, IRAPs were touted as a more flexible, industry-
driven model that would enable expansion of apprenticeship into new
industries and occupations. However, as explained in greater detail
below, the Department has reconsidered this conclusion and now thinks
that the IRAP rule is redundant and not necessary to broaden the scope
of apprenticeship coverage by industry. In addition, upon review the
Department now thinks that the IRAP rule does not provide adequate
focus on worker needs and protections, does not ensure adequate program
quality standards, does not provide sufficient equal employment
opportunity protections for apprentices, and does not provide a proven
pathway to family-sustaining jobs.
The Department therefore believes that focusing its efforts and
resources on expanding the registered apprenticeship system will more
effectively meet the needs of industry and workers alike, and has
concluded that the best path forward is to rescind the IRAP rule and
focus on further strengthening the successful registered apprenticeship
system.
[[Page 62968]]
II. The Registered Apprenticeship System is Highly Successful for
Industry
For over 80 years, the registered apprenticeship system has met the
demands from industry to provide quality work-based training. RAPs
combine paid on-the-job learning (OJL) with related instruction to
progressively increase workers' skill levels and wages. With this
``earn and learn'' model, apprentices are employed and earn wages from
the first day on the job. Industries that have adopted RAPs as part of
their work-based learning models have cited the standards, skillsets,
and retention offered by skilled workers associated with RAPs as
advantageous to their bottom line. In one survey, nearly three-fourths
of surveyed employers stated that registered apprenticeships drove
increased worker productivity.\5\ RAPs are a flexible training strategy
that can be customized to meet the needs of any business, including
allowing employers to partner with workforce partners and educators to
develop and apply industry standards to training programs, thereby
increasing the quality and productivity of the workforce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Urban Institute Research Report, ``The Benefits and
Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors' Perspective''
(June 12, 2009), available at <a href="https://www.urban.org/research/publication/benefits-and-challenges-registered-apprenticeship-sponsors-perspective">https://www.urban.org/research/publication/benefits-and-challenges-registered-apprenticeship-sponsors-perspective</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A skilled workforce is foundational to a strong economy, and
registered apprenticeship provides a proven avenue by which to deliver
much needed talent development to various industry sectors, including
as the economy recovers from the disruption cause by the COVID-19
pandemic. Employers have continued to turn to registered apprenticeship
to hire and train new employees, with over 221,000 new registered
apprentices over the past year across several industries, including
cybersecurity, healthcare, advanced manufacturing, transportation,
energy, and information technology (IT).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The 25 federally administered States and 18 federally
recognized SAAs use the Employment and Training Administration's
Registered Apprenticeship Partners Information Database System
(RAPIDS) to provide individual apprentice and sponsor data. These
data represent registered apprenticeship national results for Fiscal
Year (FY) 2020 (Oct. 1, 2019-Sept. 30, 2020), as reported by these
entities, and are available at <a href="https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/apprenticeship/about/statistics/2020">https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/apprenticeship/about/statistics/2020</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This growth is not an anomaly. Since its establishment, the
registered apprenticeship system has, with few exceptions, shown strong
growth. The past 5 years saw the creation of over 13,500 new RAPs. In
2020 alone, there were nearly 26,000 RAPs active across the nation, and
3,143 new apprenticeship programs were established nationwide,
representing 73-percent growth from 2009 levels.\7\ Despite the COVID-
19 pandemic, 2020 represents the third-highest year of new RAP
development over the past decade. As a result of these programs, more
than 221,000 new workers became apprentices in 2020. In total, there
were over 636,000 apprentices across the Nation who were obtaining
skills while earning the wages they need to build financial security,
and over 80,000 apprentices have successfully completed their program
and received a certificate of completion recognized by industries
across the Nation.\8\ Apprentices who have successfully completed their
program and received their certificate of completion have high career
retention rates, with over 94 percent of graduates retaining
employment.\9\ The continued, sustained growth of registered
apprenticeship demonstrates it remains a trusted and successful
framework that industry can leverage to develop and retain a skilled
workforce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ OA 2020 Data and Statistics, available at <a href="https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/apprenticeship/about/statistics/2020">https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/apprenticeship/about/statistics/2020</a>.
\8\ OA 2020 Data and Statistics, available at <a href="https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/apprenticeship/about/statistics/2020">https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/apprenticeship/about/statistics/2020</a>.
\9\ OA Career Seeker Fact Sheet (Sept. 2020), available at
<a href="https://www.apprenticeship.gov/sites/default/files/Career_Seeker_Fact_Sheet.pdf">https://www.apprenticeship.gov/sites/default/files/Career_Seeker_Fact_Sheet.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department expects this broad-based growth to continue as the
registered apprenticeship system is an important part of the
Administration's workforce development strategy, including its COVID-19
recovery strategy in which registered apprenticeship can provide a
bridge to businesses to an economic recovery. Thus, registered
apprenticeship has been, and will continue to be, an important long-
term education and talent development strategy for all workers, and in
turn for industry.
III. The Registered Apprenticeship System is Highly Successful for
Workers
In addition to the demonstrated success of the registered
apprenticeship system as a workforce training model for industry, it
has proven to be highly successful and beneficial to workers because of
its emphasis on both high-quality training and apprentice safety and
welfare. Registered apprenticeship is designed to ensure high-quality
training through mentorship, OJL, and related instruction while also
prioritizing safety, wage progression, and equal employment opportunity
for apprentices. Registered apprenticeships follow federally approved
industry standards for workplaces, and programs must abide by set
ratios for supervision to further enhance safety in the program. During
training, apprentices are guaranteed progressive wage increases, and
research shows that Registered Apprenticeship program completers earn
over $300,000 (including benefits) more over their lifetimes as
compared with individuals who do not complete a registered
apprenticeship.\10\ Further, the Department has taken significant steps
to increase the participation of women and individuals from
underrepresented groups through the robust requirements in 29 CFR part
30. With registered apprenticeship, there is also an added level of
accountability because the Department can exercise its enforcement
authority to intervene and ensure employers provide industry-
established prevailing wages, ensure stringent safety standards are in
place, and monitor program quality to protect workers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See, e.g., Mathematica Policy Research, ``An Effectiveness
Assessment and Cost-Benefit Analysis of Registered Apprenticeship in
10 States: Final Report'' (July 25, 2012), <a href="https://wdr.doleta.gov/research/FullText_Documents/ETAOP_2012_10.pdf">https://wdr.doleta.gov/research/FullText_Documents/ETAOP_2012_10.pdf</a>. The study cautions
against interpreting its results, which do not control for
unobservable skill or motivation, as having conclusively identified
the effects of registered apprenticeships on earnings. Moreover, the
estimates do not represent increments between registered
apprenticeships and IRAPs (the latter not having been implemented at
the time the study was conducted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In contrast, the IRAP model was designed in a way that does not
incorporate these same benefits and protections. IRAPs do not ensure
that programs uniformly produce a high quality of training recognized
across the Nation, are not designed to promote and advance diversity in
the apprenticeship system, and do not include the same apprentice
safety and welfare requirements as the RAP model. The IRAP model was
designed as a hands-off approach, requiring SREs to play the primary
role in program monitoring and intervention. The Department no longer
views this as a reasonable or effective alternative to the standards
and oversight that are the hallmarks of the registered apprenticeship
system. While SREs are responsible for establishing and enforcing the
individual standards of the programs under their purview, each SRE may
have differing standards and views on acceptable levels for
performance. For example, IRAPs' lack of uniform requirements regarding
a progressively increasing wage, enhanced safety standards, and
affirmative action goals mean there is no
[[Page 62969]]
uniformity across different IRAPs and SREs.
This is fundamentally inconsistent with the Department's goal of
expanding quality apprenticeships in a manner that both ensures a high
level of quality while also retaining industry input and flexibility to
adapt the apprenticeship model to different industries and occupations.
RAPs--which can be, and have been, adapted to different occupations and
are recognized for their high quality and effective worker
protections--have proven effective in striking an appropriate balance
between the structure necessary to ensure high-quality training and the
flexibility necessary to adapt the apprenticeship model to different
industries and occupations. Further, the Department's ability to
intervene to address disparities in quality and worker protections
across IRAPs is limited because the Department does not have the
ability to directly monitor or oversee IRAPs, and such disparities may
cause confusion for apprentices and promote inequitable outcomes among
program participants.
A. Registered Apprenticeships Uniformly Provide More Rigorous, Higher
Quality Training
As described further below, registered apprenticeships must adhere
to rigorous training requirements, to include OJL and related
instruction. When compared to registered apprenticeships, IRAPs do not
have the same standards for minimum skill level or competency baselines
in their respective occupations.
1. On-the-Job Learning
A structured OJL model is a hallmark of a high-quality
apprenticeship program, as this framework provides standardized
evaluation of apprentice proficiency using a time-based model,
competency-based model, or a hybrid of both, with benchmarks that
ensure mastery in the apprentice's respective occupation and
flexibility in the approach used that ensures apprenticeships can be
developed and customized to a variety of occupations. Registered
apprenticeships generally require a minimum of 2,000 hours (or 1 year)
of OJL for time-based and hybrid programs. Registered apprenticeships
can also be measured against skills-based competencies, and the amount
of OJL typically amounts to 1 year but may take more or less time
depending on the individual. The standardized approach to OJL employed
in registered apprenticeships ensures apprentices have the necessary
time, within a structured framework, to apply their skills and training
in practice and apprentices meet minimum skill level or competency
baselines before entering the workforce. Further, registered
apprenticeships are assessed based, in part, on whether OJL is
available for all phases of an apprentice's training. Because OJL is a
critical component for the apprentice's learning experience, the
Department considers a structured mentorship requirement as a strength
for high-quality apprenticeship programs. Registered apprenticeships
pair apprentices with experienced employees (also referred to as
Journeyworkers) who have already mastered the skills and competencies
associated with the occupation such that these individuals can mentor
apprentices with on-the-job guidance and direction that ensures safety
and quality training.
In contrast, IRAPs are not required to have a robust, structured
OJL model. Instead, IRAPs need only follow the written training plan
established by the SRE--a plan that has no requirements other than that
it be formulated using consensus-based competency standards. Because
not all IRAPs provide the same structured, standardized framework for
OJL as RAPs, the quality of training can vary across SREs and, in turn,
IRAPs. As a result, apprentices participating in IRAPs may lack access
to rigorous, structured OJL--a critical component of a high-quality
apprenticeship program because it equips registered apprentices to
enter the workforce. Although the training provisions of the IRAP rule
were based on the assumption that SREs are in the best position to
establish OJL frameworks, the Department now views this lack of
uniformity in OJL as inconsistent with the goal of growing a highly
skilled workforce through apprenticeship as it could too easily lead to
apprenticeship programs that do not provide sufficient training to
apprentices. The Department thinks that the existing OJL models
available under the registered apprenticeship system--which can be
adapted to different occupations and are recognized for their high
quality and effective worker protections--have proven effective in
striking an appropriate balance between the structure necessary to
ensure high-quality training and the flexibility necessary to adapt the
apprenticeship model to different industries and occupations.
2. Related Instruction
As important as OJL is the related instruction \11\ component of an
apprenticeship program. By requiring related instruction as part of
registered apprenticeship, the Department ensures employers are
equipping apprentices with the theoretical and technical knowledge in
subjects related to their respective occupations. This is essential to
a high-quality apprenticeship program, and it is the Department's
priority that minimum related instruction standards are integrated into
the apprenticeship programs it recognizes. A minimum of 144 hours of
related instruction is recommended for registered apprenticeships, and
recognizing the benefit of robust related instruction, most registered
apprenticeships exceed the 144-hour recommendation. This approach
ensures apprentices uniformly receive meaningful and substantive
knowledge in their respective occupations, creating a well-rounded
training experience that provides the educational foundation necessary
for success in practical settings, while also retaining flexibility
based on different industries and occupations that may require varying
amounts of related instruction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ ``Related instruction'' is an organized and systematic form
of instruction designed to provide the apprentice with the knowledge
of the theoretical and technical subjects related to the
apprentice's occupation. Such instruction may be given in a
classroom, through occupational or industrial courses, or by
correspondence courses of equivalent value, electronic media, or
other forms of self-study approved by the Registration Agency. 29
CFR 29.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In contrast, the IRAP requirements lack standards on minimum
related instruction hours, and do not articulate how SREs monitor or
evaluate related instruction. As a matter of design, apprentices in an
IRAP may lack access to this key component of a high-quality
apprenticeship program and apprentices and the program therefore may
not provide sufficient educational experiences for the foundational
knowledge that is necessary in their occupations. In the IRAP rule, the
Department viewed SREs as best-placed to develop the standards and
frameworks on related instruction, but it no longer finds this approach
consistent with the goal of expanding high-quality apprenticeships.
Instead the Department finds that the conspicuous absence of minimum
standards and an articulated approach to evaluation for related
instruction in IRAPs means the Department cannot uniformly ensure
apprentices in those programs receive the theoretical and technical
knowledge necessary in their respective occupations, which is a
hallmark of a high-quality apprenticeship program and necessary to
developing a highly skilled workforce. Accordingly, the Department
cannot ensure IRAPs are
[[Page 62970]]
providing the quality of related instruction necessary to ensure
apprentices are competent in these occupations, which conflicts with
the Department's goal of expanding high-quality apprenticeships.
B. Registered Apprenticeships Provide Better Safety and Welfare
Protections
The importance of apprentice safety and welfare cannot be
overstated. As discussed further below, the registered apprenticeship
system includes requirements related to safety, equal employment,
progressive wages, and other worker protections that provide
apprentices with meaningful employment opportunities while also
guaranteeing rights and protections on the job.
In contrast, the requirements of the IRAP rule fall short in these
areas. As discussed further below, the requirements include basic
compliance with existing laws but do not create additional obligations
that focus on safeguarding the welfare of apprentices, especially with
respect to progressively increasing wages, safety requirements, and
equal employment opportunity (EEO). The IRAP rule also dilutes the
Department's role in overseeing apprenticeships, tasking SREs with this
oversight role instead and retaining only a minimal role in overseeing
the SREs.
1. Workplace Safety
Enhanced safety standards are an essential element of a successful
apprenticeship program. While the additional requirements of RAPs are
designed to keep apprentices safe, this does not mean each RAP requires
the same training or same safety precautions--these are workplace- and
industry-specific requirements within the framework of the registered
apprenticeship system.
RAPs require several safety protections designed to both teach
apprentices how to work safely within their occupation and create safe
workplaces for apprentices. RAPs must specify a numeric ratio of
apprentices to Journeyworkers ``consistent with proper supervision,
training, safety, and continuity of employment.'' 29 CFR 29.5(b)(7).
They must also have ``[a]dequate and safe equipment and facilities for
training and supervision'' in addition to ``safety training for
apprentices on the job and in related instruction.'' 29 CFR 29.5(b)(9).
Though broad, these safety requirements focus on both physical
workplace safety and safety through training and mentorship. Further,
they are meant to protect the safety of apprentices in each RAP by
being tailored to the specific conditions in which those apprentices
will be working and learning.
In contrast, IRAPs are not necessarily covered by enhanced safety
standards beyond generally applicable Federal, State, and local safety
laws and regulations and any additional safety requirements of the SRE.
While a SRE may require an IRAP to have stricter, more tailored safety
standards than required by applicable law, this discretionary
requirement is insufficient to protect the safety of apprentices who,
by definition, are being trained on the job and therefore would benefit
from additional workplace protections, particularly for less skilled
workers training in occupations that pose a higher risk of injury or
death. Although the safety provisions of the IRAP rule were based on
the assumptions that SREs would be able to better determine the safety
standards relevant to their IRAPs and that compliance with generally
applicable workplace safety standards was a sufficient baseline
requirement, the Department now disagrees with leaving such a
determination to the SRE, especially without the important safety
parameters requirements of the registered apprenticeship system. The
registered apprenticeship regulations require a ratio of apprentices to
journeyworkers, safe equipment and facilities for training and
supervision, and the provision of safety training on the job and in
related instruction. However, the registered apprenticeship regulations
do not prescribe how to meet these requirements, leaving sufficient
flexibility for implementation. This ensures a process for taking into
consideration both industry needs and apprentice safety that is not
present in the IRAP rule. The Department views this as the more
appropriate approach given that apprentices are learning on the job and
therefore benefit from enhanced training and protections.
2. Progressive Wages
It is a priority of the Department to grow opportunities to help
workers access family-sustaining jobs. Registered apprenticeship's
earn-as-you-learn model accomplishes this priority by providing for
progressively increasing wages for apprentices as they progress in
their apprenticeship experience, learning, and skills. In registered
apprenticeship, the graduated scale of wages and any compensation for
related instruction is set forth in the apprenticeship agreement
required for each apprentice. Not only is this type of wage progression
guaranteed per the terms of the apprenticeship agreement, but it also
serves as an important incentive to attract apprentices and sets them
on a path to potential lifetime earnings (including benefits) that,
according to research, exceed by more than $300,000 those who do not
complete a registered apprenticeship.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See, e.g., Mathematica Policy Research, ``An Effectiveness
Assessment and Cost-Benefit Analysis of Registered Apprenticeship in
10 States: Final Report'' (July 25, 2012), <a href="https://wdr.doleta.gov/research/FullText_Documents/ETAOP_2012_10.pdf">https://wdr.doleta.gov/research/FullText_Documents/ETAOP_2012_10.pdf</a>. The study cautions
against interpreting its results, which do not control for
unobservable skill or motivation, as having conclusively identified
the effects of registered apprenticeships on earnings. Moreover, the
estimates do not represent increments between registered
apprenticeships and IRAPs (the latter not having been implemented at
the time the study was conducted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In contrast, there is no such guaranteed wage progression for
apprentices of IRAPs--an apprentice could be earning the same wages
over the course of the apprenticeship, and any wage progression is
solely at the discretion of the IRAP. Because the IRAP regulation is
silent on one of the most valuable features of apprenticeship to
apprentices, there is no requirement for SREs to play any role in an
IRAP's wage-setting, other than to affirm compliance with applicable
laws, such as minimum wage. Although the IRAP rule is premised upon the
assumption that market forces and apprentice choice will drive wage
decisions, the Department notes that RAP wages are also influenced by
market forces and apprentice choice, including an apprentice's option
to enroll in a RAP where a progressive wage is required. The important
difference is the prioritization of wage increases commensurate with
skill increases, which is in line with the Department's priorities to
help workers access family-sustaining jobs and the idea that
apprentices should be paid a wage commensurate with the skills they
have attained.
3. Equal Employment Opportunity
The Department views equity and equal opportunity as essential to
the success of an apprenticeship program, and it notes its
responsibility under E.O. 13985, ``Advancing Racial Equity and Support
for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government,'' 86 FR
7009 (Jan. 20, 2021), to advance equity, civil rights, racial justice,
and equal opportunity. Such a responsibility necessitates action,
intentional infusion of equity into workforce development programs, and
critical thinking about how to reduce barriers to workforce entry. The
registered apprenticeship system's 29 CFR part 30 regulations
acknowledge that mere passive nondiscrimination is insufficient and
[[Page 62971]]
require affirmative steps to promote diversity and equity in
apprenticeship. 29 CFR 30.3, 30.4. Accordingly, the registered
apprenticeship system has structured and specific requirements
regarding equal opportunity, anti-harassment, affirmative action,
utilization analyses and goals, targeted recruitment, outreach and
retention, compliance, and enforcement. Through the equal opportunity
regulations at 29 CFR part 30, the registered apprenticeship system
provides enhanced opportunities for apprentices to access and succeed
in RAPs and gives sponsors tools to reduce barriers to equal
opportunity within their programs.
In contrast, the IRAP model simply requires programs to affirm
their adherence to applicable Federal, State, and local laws and
regulations pertaining to EEO. 29 CFR 29.22(a)(4). Requiring IRAPs to
do the bare minimum, especially when a model framework for EEO in
apprenticeship is already in place in 29 CFR part 30, is a disservice
to apprentices and apprenticeship programs, and contrary to the goals
of the Department to promote equity in apprenticeship. Although the
SREs do have minimal additional responsibilities to develop policies
requiring IRAP adherence to EEO law, facilitating such adherence, and
reflecting comprehensive outreach strategies to reach diverse
populations that may participate in IRAPs, the IRAP rule lacks specific
requirements and provides no framework for equity principles or goals.
29 CFR 29.22(i). The requirements of the IRAP model fail to ensure
meaningful action will be taken to expand equal employment opportunity
in apprenticeship.
4. Worker Empowerment
The Department generally thinks the relationship between workers
and employers must be balanced so workers have a voice in ensuring fair
and safe work conditions. For registered apprentices, there are many
avenues to realize worker empowerment. The apprenticeship agreement
plays a crucial role in articulating the standards of apprenticeship
and the terms and conditions of employment. The registered
apprenticeship agreement must contain specific terms, including a
statement of the occupation for which the apprentice is training, the
duration of the apprenticeship, the number of hours in the program to
include related instruction hours, the schedule of work processes, the
graduated scale of wages to be paid, the standards of the
apprenticeship program, and an EEO statement. 29 CFR 29.7. The
registered apprenticeship agreement must also contain information about
dispute resolution should a controversy or difference arise out of the
agreement, id., and must be accepted and recorded either by OA or an
SAA. 29 CFR 29.2. The requirement that registered apprenticeship
agreements include specific terms ensures the apprentices have
knowledge of their rights and responsibilities and empowers them to be
informed participants in the employment relationship.
Although IRAPs also contain a written apprenticeship agreement
requirement, each IRAP may determine which terms and conditions to
include as long as the agreement is consistent with the SRE's
requirements. Each SRE may determine its own requirements as it sees
fit, potentially creating a wide variety in apprenticeship agreements
across SREs and no requirement for a uniform set of terms and
conditions for apprentices. There is also no requirement to submit the
agreement to be accepted or recorded by the SRE. Without parameters,
this requirement contains little more than an honor system to ensure
apprentices have meaningful information about the terms and conditions
of their apprenticeship and how they can voice their concerns.
One of the key justifications of the 2020 rule was that the IRAP
model would help address a purported ``skills gap'' in the labor
market. While providing training to job seekers is a key component to
addressing any ``skills gaps'' or ``skills mismatches,'' evidence
suggests that training alone is not the answer. Employer investments in
workforce development, competitive and rising wages to attract and
retain workers, commitments to opportunity and diversity, and worker
empowerment are key factors to addressing industry labor
needs.<SUP>13 14</SUP> The well-established RAP model--with its role in
and focus on employer investment in training, specific equal employment
opportunity recruitment requirements and protections for apprentices,
as well as its requirement that a progressive wage (beyond the minimum
wage) be paid to apprentices during their apprenticeship reflecting
their acquisition of occupational and workplace competencies, and
worker empowerment and safety provisions--provides a more promising and
effective framework for addressing and closing persistent
inefficiencies in the labor market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Annelies Goger and Luther Jackson, ``The labor market
doesn't have a `skills gap'--it has an opportunity gap,'' Sept. 9,
2020, <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/09/09/the-labor-market-doesnt-have-a-skills-gap-it-has-an-opportunity-gap/">https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/09/09/the-labor-market-doesnt-have-a-skills-gap-it-has-an-opportunity-gap/</a>.
\14\ Kate Bahn, `` 'Skills gap' arguments overlook collective
bargaining and low minimum wages,'' May 9, 2019, <a href="https://equitablegrowth.org/skills-gap-arguments-overlook-collective-bargaining-and-low-minimum-wages/">https://equitablegrowth.org/skills-gap-arguments-overlook-collective-bargaining-and-low-minimum-wages/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conversely, the very deficiencies inherent to the IRAP model
discussed above--workplace safety, progressive wages, equal employment
opportunity, and worker empowerment--severely reduce the ability of
IRAPs to address any current or future labor shortages that might
exist. Job quality is key to recruiting, training, and retaining
workers in a specific occupation or industry.<SUP>15 16</SUP> Thus, the
lack of requirements for IRAPs to address these critical issues limits
their ability to help fulfill labor market demands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Livia Y. Lam, ``A Multiple Measures Approach to Workforce
Equity: How Improving Job Quality in Workforce Accountability Can
Help Close Equity Gaps,'' Center for American Progress, October 20,
2020, at: <a href="https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/reports/2020/10/20/491998/multiple-measures-approach-workforce-equity/">https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/reports/2020/10/20/491998/multiple-measures-approach-workforce-equity/</a>.
\16\ Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), ``Managing
for Employee Retention,'' 2017, at: <a href="https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/toolkits/pages/managingforemployeeretention.aspx">https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/toolkits/pages/managingforemployeeretention.aspx</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. The IRAP System is Redundant of the Registered Apprenticeship
System
One of the main justifications behind the development of IRAPs was
the necessity to grow and expand apprenticeship into industries and
occupations that have traditionally not used the registered
apprenticeship system because of the insufficient flexibility in
program requirements within RAPs to meet the varying needs of different
industries and the administrative burden posed by these requirements.
However, the premise that registered apprenticeship is too inflexible
to meet the needs of industry is fundamentally flawed and contrary to
the above-mentioned demonstrated success of registered apprenticeship
for industry and workers and its continued growth in expanding into new
industries and occupations. Although registered apprenticeship has
historically been associated with the construction sector, it has
successfully been adopted across a diverse range of industry sectors,
with significant growth in recent years.
The Department has used a variety of strategies to drive registered
apprenticeship growth beyond those industries historically associated
with registered apprenticeship. One strategy driving this expansion and
growth is the Industry Intermediaries concept, where the Department has
used contracted entities with specific industry expertise to further
the Department's efforts to
[[Page 62972]]
expand registered apprenticeship opportunities in high-growth sectors.
From 2016 to 2020, Department-contracted Industry Intermediaries
created 271 new RAPs in 232 high-demand occupations for a total of 867
employers. Of the occupations developed under these contracts, 37
percent were in the manufacturing sector, 15 percent were in the
healthcare sector, and 15 percent were in the transportation
sector.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ National Industry and Equity Apprenticeship Intermediaries
Fact Sheet, ``Advancing Registered Apprenticeship for Business and
Workers in the U.S.'' (Jan. 19, 2021), available at <a href="https://www.apprenticeship.gov/sites/default/files/Industry-and-Equity-Intermediary-Accomplishment-Fact-Sheet.pdf">https://www.apprenticeship.gov/sites/default/files/Industry-and-Equity-Intermediary-Accomplishment-Fact-Sheet.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another strategy that has helped expand registered apprenticeship
is the Department's 2015 American Apprenticeship Initiative (AAI),
which aimed to register new apprentices in high-growth and high-tech
industries, such as health care, IT, and advanced manufacturing,
especially from populations traditionally underrepresented in
apprenticeship, including women and people of color. AAI grantees,
which included labor unions, industry associations, local workforce
boards and nonprofit organizations, have successfully expanded the RAP
model into new industries and extended to more diverse populations. As
of June 2020, the 44 AAI grantees initiated 2,019 new programs and
registered 24,675 apprentices, of which 14,486 were from
underrepresented populations.\18\ This use of targeted investments and
intermediaries to extend registered apprenticeship to new industry
sectors and occupations, as well as underrepresented populations,
undermines the rationale for the IRAP system and underscores the
redundant and duplicative aspect of the IRAP model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ National Governors' Association, ``Registered
Apprenticeship Reimagined: Lessons Learned From the American
Apprenticeship Initiative'' (Nov. 9, 2020), available at <a href="https://www.nga.org/center/publications/registered-apprenticeship-reimagined">https://www.nga.org/center/publications/registered-apprenticeship-reimagined</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
More broadly, the expansion of registered apprenticeship into
``non-traditional'' industry sectors where IRAPs are operating and for
which SREs have been certified demonstrates that the IRAP effort is
superfluous and not a good use of government resources that could
support the proven activities already underway. Based on Federal
program data from 2019 and 2020, which were unavailable at the time the
IRAP rule was issued, the health care and social assistance industry
sector saw an 18-percent rise in the number of active RAPs.\19\
Similarly, the information industry sector saw a 31-percent increase in
the number of active RAPs during this same period, while the
manufacturing industry sector saw a 14-percent increase in the number
of active RAPs, as well. Within the same time frame, equally impressive
growth has taken place in the following industry sectors not
historically associated with the registered apprenticeship system:
Accommodation and food services (31 percent); arts, entertainment and
recreation (45 percent); finance and insurance (39 percent);
professional, scientific and technical services (41 percent) and
transportation and warehousing (19 percent).\20\ Based on the most
recent data, and in conjunction with historical data about registered
apprenticeship's steady growth, the Department is departing from the
IRAP rule's assertion that IRAPs are necessary for expansion of
apprenticeship into non-traditional occupations. Instead, the
Department is convinced that the registered apprenticeship system is
capable of effectively and efficiently expanding into non-traditional
occupations, while at the same time maintaining high-quality labor
standards. This expansion demonstrates that the design of the
registered apprenticeship system is capable of adapting successfully to
a wide range of industry needs and that registered apprenticeship's
requirements on industry set forth important parameters for the
successful growth of apprenticeship programs without being overly
burdensome.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ OA Data and Statistics, available at <a href="https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/apprenticeship/about/statistics/2020">https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/apprenticeship/about/statistics/2020</a>.
\20\ Federal Data: Apprenticeship Statistics by Industry for FY
2019 and FY 2020, available at <a href="https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/apprenticeship/about/statistics/2019">https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/apprenticeship/about/statistics/2019</a> and <a href="https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/apprenticeship/about/statistics/2020">https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/apprenticeship/about/statistics/2020</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department's actual experience administering the IRAP system
highlights the duplicative nature of the two systems. There is clear
overlap between the occupations that SREs were approved to recognize
IRAPs in and the occupations the Department has determined are
appropriate for the registered apprenticeship system. A majority of the
occupations in the IRAP system are occupations that have already been
deemed as apprenticeable under the registered apprenticeship system.
Similarly, the top five occupations in the IRAP system (machinist;
maintenance workers, machinery; manufacturing production technicians;
information security analysts; and web developers) all are currently
regarded as apprenticeable occupations and used within the registered
apprenticeship system. Moreover, comparing the approved occupations for
IRAP SREs with currently apprenticeable occupations in registered
apprenticeship shows a majority of the top 20 occupations recognized by
industry for training under the IRAP model have been determined
suitable under the registered apprenticeship system.\21\ The concurrent
recognition of these occupations as both IRAPs and registered
apprenticeship occupations is likely to lead to confusion and disparate
outcomes, particularly as it allows a single entity to simultaneously
operate as an SRE or IRAP and sponsor a RAP, with the IRAP allowed to
provide lower quality training and fewer worker protections. This
result is unquestionably a poor use of government resources because it
imposes duplicative costs to the government to support a redundant
program that may not be advancing the Department's mission and goals
for apprenticeship. Furthermore, it is likely to sow confusion among
prospective apprentices and employers, who will struggle to understand
how they should interact with these duplicative systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ OA Registered Apprenticeship Occupations, available at
<a href="https://www.apprenticeship.gov/apprenticeship-occupations">https://www.apprenticeship.gov/apprenticeship-occupations</a>; OA
Recognized Standards Recognition Entities, available at <a href="https://www.apprenticeship.gov/employers/industry-recognized-apprenticeship-program/approved-standards-recognition-entities">https://www.apprenticeship.gov/employers/industry-recognized-apprenticeship-program/approved-standards-recognition-entities</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. The Effect of the Department's Proposed Rescission of the IRAP Rule
As discussed above, the Department has determined that the
establishment of a duplicative and parallel IRAP system will not ensure
access to high-quality job skills and training to American workers,
while at the same time safeguarding the welfare of apprentices.
Accordingly, the Department believes that the IRAP system is not a
prudent use of Government resources, would diminish the quality and
coherence of American apprenticeship efforts, and would not allow the
Department to ensure that employers, prospective apprentices, or the
general public are effectively served. The Department also determined
that amending the IRAP rule would not solve any of these issues. As
discussed in detail above, registered apprenticeship provides for
apprentice safety and welfare and continues to grow apprenticeship
opportunities without sacrificing crucial requirements for quality or
worker protections. Amending the IRAP rule to align with the
Department's goals and priorities so
[[Page 62973]]
that it possesses more of the qualities of the registered
apprenticeship system would not serve the interests of employers and
apprentices given that they already have access to the registered
apprenticeship system. Further, the Department can better utilize its
resources and provide better service to the public by supporting and
strengthening one robust apprenticeship system that has been designed
to incorporate the needs of both industry and the workforce and has a
demonstrated record of successfully doing so.
The Department acknowledges this proposal would, if finalized,
immediately affect current SREs, IRAPs, and any apprentices
participating in IRAPs. The Department understands SREs devoted
resources to developing their applications and infrastructure necessary
to effectively operate for a period of 5 years, and IRAPs and their
apprentices may have been drawn to the program given the indication of
approval from the Department. However, the Department thinks the impact
of this proposal is limited given the total number of SREs and IRAPs.
Over the 9-month period between May 2020, when the IRAP rule became
effective, and February 2021, when the Department paused the
consideration of SRE applications, the Department received a total of
45 SRE applications, including from two organizations that resubmitted
applications. Of these applications, the Department ultimately
recognized 27 SREs.\22\ In turn, as of September 30, 2021, the
recognized SREs have only recognized a reported 175 IRAPs, with the
vast majority recognized by a single SRE.\23\ With respect to the
potential impact of this proposed rule on apprentices that are or may
become enrolled in IRAPs, because apprenticeship programs may operate
even without DOL recognition, IRAP apprentices would not be precluded
under this proposal from continuing their participation in such
training programs. Alternatively, apprentices enrolled in IRAPs may
elect instead to enroll in a RAP that provides training for their
desired occupation; in such instances, they may qualify for advanced
standing or credit in those registered programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Applications Received by the Department of Labor for
Standards Recognition Entities. Approved SREs published at <a href="https://www.apprenticeship.gov/employers/industry-recognized-apprenticeship-program/approved-standards-recognition-entities">https://www.apprenticeship.gov/employers/industry-recognized-apprenticeship-program/approved-standards-recognition-entities</a>.
\23\ According to the IRAP Program and Performance Reporting
System, as of September 30, 2021, of the 175 IRAPs approved, 165
were recognized by the same SRE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department considered other options with respect to the
currently recognized SREs or IRAPs, including a proposed ``sunset''
period during which SREs and IRAPs would operate for a set number of
years before the Department ceased its recognition, and recasting IRAPs
as Certified Work-Based Learning. However, in light of the concerns
discussed above, the Department believes that rescinding the
regulation, including the immediate cessation of recognition for
currently recognized SREs or IRAPs, is the best approach.
If this proposal is finalized, the Department will provide
technical assistance and support to SREs or IRAPs who are interested in
becoming program sponsors or intermediaries under the registered
apprenticeship system. Similarly, as a component of the Department's
technical assistance to SREs, the Department will provide SREs with
information and resources the SREs can share with any IRAP apprentices
who may seek placement in a RAP.
Although the Department recognizes that immediate rescission of the
rule, if finalized, will likely have minimal impact, the Department
seeks comments on how to address the effects of the proposed immediate
cessation of recognition on SREs, IRAPs, and IRAP apprentices,
including comments on the alternatives considered, but ultimately not
adopted, by the Department.
VI. Regulatory Analysis and Review
A. Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563
(Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review)
Under E.O. 12866, the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB)
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs determines whether a
regulatory action is significant and, therefore, subject to the
requirements of the E.O. and review by OMB. See 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4,
1993). Section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 defines a ``significant regulatory
action'' as an action that is likely to result in a rule that: (1) Has
an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely
affects in a material way a sector of the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State,
local, or tribal governments or communities (also referred to as
economically significant); (2) creates serious inconsistency or
otherwise interferes with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) materially alters the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user
fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or (4) raises novel legal or policy issues arising out of
legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth
in the E.O. Id. This proposed rule is an economically significant
regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866.
E.O. 13563 directs agencies to propose or adopt a regulation only
upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs; the
regulation is tailored to impose the least burden on society,
consistent with achieving the regulatory objectives; and in choosing
among alternative regulatory approaches, the agency has selected those
approaches that maximize net benefits. E.O. 13563 recognizes that some
benefits are difficult to quantify and provides that, where appropriate
and permitted by law, agencies may consider and discuss qualitatively
values that are difficult or impossible to quantify, including equity,
human dignity, fairness, and distributive impacts.
1. Preliminary Economic Analysis
E.O. 14016, ``Revocation of Executive Order 13801,'' instructed the
Director of OMB and the heads of executive departments and agencies to
``promptly consider taking steps to rescind any orders, rules,
regulations, guidelines, or policies, or portions thereof, implementing
or enforcing'' E.O. 13801. Accordingly, the Department identified for
review the IRAP rule published on March 11, 2020. The Department is
issuing this proposed rule because the Department has determined that a
single apprenticeship system, namely, the registered apprenticeship
system, would provide clearer messaging and more consistent outcomes
than two parallel apprenticeship systems that would likely lead to
disparate outcomes and incur duplicative costs.
In accordance with the regulatory analysis guidance articulated in
OMB Circular A-4 and consistent with the Department's practices in
previous rulemakings, this regulatory analysis focuses on the likely
consequences of the proposed rule. The Department anticipates that the
proposed rule would result in cost savings for SREs and IRAPs since
they would no longer need to comply with the provisions of the March
2020 rule.
The Department has estimated the cost savings of the proposed rule
relative to the existing baseline (i.e., 27 SREs and 175 IRAPs). The
analysis covers 10 years to ensure it captures the major cost savings
that are likely to accrue over time. The Department expresses the
quantifiable impacts in 2020 dollars and uses discount rates of
[[Page 62974]]
3 and 7 percent, pursuant to OMB Circular A-4. The Department also
considered an alternative baseline in which the Department's February
17th suspension of consideration of SRE applications was temporary and
would be removed. That analysis is discussed qualitatively in the Total
Cost Savings section below.
a. Number of SREs, IRAPs, and Apprentices
To calculate the annual cost savings, the Department first needed
to estimate the number of SREs and IRAPs over the 10-year analysis
period. The Department used the number of SREs (27) and the number of
IRAPs (175) as of September 30, 2021, for this analysis.
The Department does not have data on the number of apprentices per
IRAP because that information is not due from SREs until 45 days after
the end of FY 2021, which will be November 15, 2021. One calculation in
the March 2020 rule was based on the number of apprentices: IRAPs'
preparation and signing of written apprenticeship agreements, which was
estimated at 10 minutes per apprentice. Given the lack of data on the
number of apprentices, this cost savings estimate should be emphasized
as preliminary: If there are three apprentices per IRAP, which is the
median number per RAP, and signing the written apprenticeship agreement
requires 10 minutes per apprentice, then 175 IRAPs x 3 apprentices x 10
minutes x $121.08 hourly compensation adds $10,806 per year, which
would increase the cost savings estimate from $9.1 million (explained
below) to $9.2 million over 10 years.
b. Compensation Rates
The compensation rates used to quantify the cost savings of the
proposed rule are based on the compensation rates in the IRAP rule
published on March 11, 2020. The Department updated the compensation
rates with 2020 data. The Department anticipates that the bulk of the
workload for private sector workers would have been performed by
employees in occupations similar to those associated with the following
Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) codes: SOC 11-3131 (Training
and Development Managers) and SOC 43-0000 (Office and Administrative
Support Occupations).
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the mean
hourly wage rate for Training and Development Managers in May 2020 was
$60.54.\24\ For this analysis, the Department used a fringe benefits
rate of 46 percent \25\ and an overhead rate of 54 percent,\26\
resulting in a fully loaded hourly compensation rate for Training and
Development Managers of $121.08 [= $60.54 + ($60.54 x 0.46) + ($60.54 x
0.54)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ BLS, ``Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2020,''
available at <a href="https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes113131.htm">https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes113131.htm</a>.
\25\ BLS, ``Employer Costs for Employee Compensation'' (ECEC),
available at <a href="https://www.bls.gov/ncs/data.htm">https://www.bls.gov/ncs/data.htm</a>. Wages and salaries
averaged $26.22 per hour worked in 2020, while benefit costs
averaged $11.99, which is a benefits rate of 46 percent.
\26\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS),
``Guidelines for Regulatory Impact Analysis'' (2016), available at
<a href="https://aspe.hhs.gov/system/files/pdf/242926/HHS_RIAGuidance.pdf">https://aspe.hhs.gov/system/files/pdf/242926/HHS_RIAGuidance.pdf</a>. In
its guidelines, HHS states, as ``an interim default, while HHS
conducts more research, analysts should assume overhead costs
(including benefits) are equal to 100 percent of pre-tax wages.''
HHS explains that 100 percent is roughly the midpoint between 46 and
150 percent, with 46 percent based on ECEC data that suggest
benefits average 46 percent of wages and salaries, and 150 percent
based on the private sector ``rule of thumb'' that fringe benefits
plus overhead equal 150 percent of wages. To isolate the overhead
costs from HHS's 100-percent assumption, the Department subtracted
the 46-percent benefits rate that HHS references, resulting in an
overhead rate of approximately 54 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to BLS, the mean hourly wage rate for Office and
Administrative Support Occupations in May 2020 was $20.38.\27\ The
Department used a fringe benefits rate of 46 percent and an overhead
rate of 54 percent, resulting in a fully loaded hourly compensation
rate for Office and Administrative Support Occupations of $40.76 [=
$20.38 + ($20.38 x 0.46) + ($20.38 x 0.54)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ BLS, ``Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2020,''
available at <a href="https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes430000.htm">https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes430000.htm</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department estimated the compensation rate for a Program
Analyst in OA using the midpoint (Step 5) for Grade 13 of the General
Schedule, which is $55.75 in the Washington, DC, locality area.\28\ The
Department used a fringe benefits rate of 69 percent \29\ and an
overhead rate of 54 percent, resulting in a fully loaded hourly
compensation rate for Program Analysts of $124.32 [= $55.75 + ($55.75 x
0.69) + ($55.75 x 0.54)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Office of Personnel Management, ``General Schedule (GS)
Locality Pay Tables,'' available at <a href="https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/pdf/2020/DCB_h.pdf">https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/pdf/2020/DCB_h.pdf</a>.
\29\ Congressional Budget Office, ``Comparing the Compensation
of Federal and Private-Sector Employees, 2011 to 2015'' (Apr. 25,
2017), available at <a href="https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52637">https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52637</a>. The wages
of Federal workers averaged $38.30 per hour over the study period,
while the benefits averaged $26.50 per hour, which is a benefits
rate of 69 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Time Estimates
The hourly time burdens used to quantify the cost savings of the
proposed rule are based on the Department's time estimates in the IRAP
rule published on March 11, 2020. The following time burdens are annual
estimates.
Cost Savings Components for SREs
<bullet> Notifying the Administrator of any major change to processes
or programs: 10 hours (50 percent of SREs)
<bullet> Informing the Administrator of IRAP recognition, suspension,
or derecognition: 30 minutes
<bullet> Provision of data or information to the Administrator: 2 hours
(10 percent of SREs)
<bullet> Provision of written attestation to the Administrator: 10
minutes per IRAP
<bullet> Disclosure of the credentials that apprentices will earn: 30
minutes
<bullet> Quality control of IRAPs: 4 hours per IRAP
<bullet> Submission of performance data to the Administrator: 4 hours
per IRAP
<bullet> Making publicly available IRAP performance data: 2 hours per
IRAP
<bullet> Recordkeeping: 20 hours per IRAP
Cost Savings Components for IRAPs
<bullet> Submission of performance data to the SRE: 25 hours
Cost Savings Components for the Federal Government
<bullet> Compliance assistance reviews of SREs: 10 hours per SRE (5
percent of SREs)
<bullet> Maintenance of online application form and internal review
system: $125,000
<bullet> Maintenance of online resource for performance measures:
$245,909
<bullet> Maintenance of online resource for list of SREs and IRAPs:
$18,000
d. Total Cost Savings
[[Page 62975]]
Exhibit 1 shows the total estimated cost savings of the proposed
rule over 10 years (2022-2031) at discount rates of 3 percent and 7
percent.\30\ The proposed rule is expected to have first-year cost
savings of $1.3 million in 2020 dollars. Over the 10-year analysis
period, the annualized cost savings are estimated at $1.3 million at a
discount rate of 7 percent in 2020 dollars. In total, over the first 10
years, the proposed rule is estimated to result in cost savings of $9.1
million at a discount rate of 7 percent in 2020 dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ The 2022 start year accounts for the time involved in the
Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking process, with the final rule
expected to be published in 2022.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15NO21.013
The Department also contemplated including an alternative baseline
that assumed the Department's February 17th suspension of consideration
of SRE applications would be removed. If the suspension were to be
removed, there could be additional SREs and IRAPs in future years. OMB
Circular A-4 defines a no action baseline as ``what the world will be
like if the proposed rule is not adopted.'' If the world did not
include this proposed rule, but included the removal of the February
17th suspension as well as decision making by potential SREs in the
manner anticipated in the 2020 rule, it is possible that there would be
more than 27 SREs and 175 IRAPs in each year of the analysis period.
Given the potential temporary nature of the February 17th suspension,
some members of the public may believe there will be an opportunity to
participate in the program again in the absence of this proposed rule.
Under such a scenario, 27 SREs and 175 IRAPs may be only fractions of
the numbers of SREs and IRAPs that would come into existence, and
perhaps those numbers would continue to grow throughout the analysis
period. As such, this proposed rule would then prevent some of the
eventual effects of the 2020 rule.
The Department is unable, however, to provide a quantitative
analysis of this alternative baseline. The Department does not have a
way to accurately estimate the number of SREs or IRAPs that would be
established in the absence of this proposed rule and the removal of the
February 17th suspension. Specifically, the Department is unable to
estimate a reasonable growth rate for SREs over the analysis period or
a realistic number of IRAPs per SRE each year. Without these two key
data points, a quantitative analysis is not possible.
The Department believes that the numbers of SREs and IRAPs
estimated in the 2020 rule are not an appropriate source for
quantifying an alternative baseline in this proposed rule. Over the 9-
month period between May 2020, when the IRAP rule became effective, and
February 2021, when the Department paused the consideration of SRE
applications, data indicate that participation was far lower than what
was projected in the 2020 rule. To begin with, the number of SRE
applications was far fewer than the number anticipated in the 2020
rule. For the 2020 rule, the Department used the number of entities
that submitted grant applications under AAI grant program in FY 2016 as
a guidepost for estimating the number of SRE applications. It now seems
that this guidepost was unrealistic because millions of dollars were
awarded to each successful AAI grant application whereas similar grant
funds were not available to SREs. The lack of Federal funding may
largely explain the low number of SREs (27) and IRAPs (175) compared to
the numbers anticipated in the 2020 rule (203 SREs and 2,030 IRAPS in
Year 1).
While the estimated number of SRE applications in the 2020 rule was
based on the number of entities that submitted AAI grant applications,
the estimated number of IRAPs was not based on a specific source of
data because the IRAP system was a new concept in the United States.
Accordingly, the Department does not have a guidepost to realistically
estimate the number of IRAPs for an alternative baseline that assumes
the absence of this proposed rule and the removal of the February 17th
suspension.
The Department invites comments on the potential number of SREs and
IRAPs in the absence of this proposed rule and the removal of the
February 17th suspension. Without a reasonable way to estimate these
numbers and quantify the cost savings, benefits, and transfer payments,
the Department acknowledges that this proposed rule may have an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million or more; therefore, this rule has
been designated as an economically significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of E.O. 12866.
e. Nonquantifiable Effects
[[Page 62976]]
The Department proposes rescinding the IRAP rule and, instead,
refocusing efforts on expanding the registered apprenticeship system.
As explained in the previous sections, the registered apprenticeship
system is highly successful for industry. Industries that have adopted
RAPs have cited the standards, skillsets, and retention offered by
skilled workers associated with RAPs as advantageous to their bottom
line. In one survey, nearly three-fourths of surveyed employers stated
that registered apprenticeships drove increased worker
productivity.\31\ A skilled workforce is foundational to a strong
economy, and registered apprenticeship provides a proven avenue by
which to deliver talent development to various industry sectors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Urban Institute Research Report, ``The Benefits and
Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors' Perspective''
(June 12, 2009), available at <a href="https://www.urban.org/research/publication/benefits-and-challenges-registered-apprenticeship-sponsors-perspective">https://www.urban.org/research/publication/benefits-and-challenges-registered-apprenticeship-sponsors-perspective</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the demonstrated success of registered
apprenticeship as a workforce training model for industry, it has
proven to be highly beneficial to workers because of its emphasis on
high-quality training as well as apprentice safety and welfare. During
training, apprentices are guaranteed wage increases, and research shows
that registered apprenticeship completers earn over $300,000 (including
benefits) more over their lifetimes as compared with individuals who do
not complete a RAP.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See, e.g., Mathematica Policy Research, ``An Effectiveness
Assessment and Cost-Benefit Analysis of Registered Apprenticeship in
10 States: Final Report'' (July 25, 2012), <a href="https://wdr.doleta.gov/research/FullText_Documents/ETAOP_2012_10.pdf">https://wdr.doleta.gov/research/FullText_Documents/ETAOP_2012_10.pdf</a>. This report
categorizes reduced payments of unemployment insurance, welfare, and
food stamps as benefits (separate from productivity increases)
associated with registered apprenticeships; however, for purposes of
E.O. 12866 analysis, adding these effects would constitute double-
counting and they should instead be presented as an assessment of
who, other than workers themselves, receives some portion of
productivity benefits. Moreover, as noted earlier in this regulatory
preamble, the report does not speak to the relative effects of RAPs
and IRAPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Registered apprenticeship has successfully been adopted across a
diverse range of sectors, with significant growth in recent years. The
expansion of registered apprenticeship into ``non-traditional'' sectors
indicates that the IRAP effort may be superfluous and not a good use of
government resources that could support the proven activities of the
registered apprenticeship system.
2. Regulatory Alternatives
OMB Circular A-4 directs agencies to analyze alternatives if such
alternatives best satisfy the philosophy and principles of E.O. 12866.
Accordingly, the Department considered two regulatory alternatives.
Under the first alternative, the Department would allow the SREs and
any related IRAPs to operate with the Department's recognition for a
transitional period not to exceed the previously approved 5-year
period. As noted above, the approach of permitting the continued
recognition of SREs and any related IRAPs would continue to temporarily
retain a parallel system that does not ensure sufficient protections
for apprentices, would diminish Departmental resources available for
expansion of registered apprenticeship, and would generate confusion
among both entities interested in establishing apprenticeship programs
and the potential apprentices in such programs. This alternative would
result in lower cost savings over the 10-year analysis period than the
cost savings presented in Exhibit 1 because SREs and IRAPs would be
obligated to follow the provisions of the IRAP rule published on March
11, 2020, for a longer period of time. Therefore, the costs of the
March 2020 rule would accumulate for a longer duration and the cost
savings would be delayed.
Under the second alternative, the Department would recast IRAPs as
Certified Work-Based Learning. The Department considers the most
effective and efficient use of its resources is to oversee a national
system of registered apprenticeship that is more protective of the
welfare of apprentices and that has demonstrated its capacity to grow
and adapt across a range of industries and sectors. Similarly,
recasting IRAPs as a type of Certified Work-Based Learning would not
address the concerns identified in the discussions above regarding an
indirect and insufficient oversight role for the Department in IRAPs.
This alternative would also result in lower cost savings over the 10-
year analysis period than the cost savings presented in Exhibit 1
because SREs and IRAPs would incur costs under the revised program. The
Department cannot estimate the costs without details about the
provisions of such a program. The Department invites comments on these
or other possible alternatives with the goal of ensuring a thorough
consideration and discussion at the final rule stage.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act, Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, and Executive Order 13272 (Proper Consideration
of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking)
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. ch. 6
(as amended), the Department examined the regulatory requirements of
the proposed rule to determine whether they would have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As explained
in the E.O. 12866 preliminary economic analysis above, the proposed
rule is expected to lead to cost savings for IRAPs because these
entities would no longer be required to comply with the provisions of
the IRAP rule published on March 11, 2020. Cost savings for IRAPs would
primarily arise from no longer needing to submit performance data to
the SRE. In the March 2020 rule, the Department estimated that it would
take IRAPs approximately 25 hours per year to collect and provide the
relevant data. To estimate the cost savings per IRAP under this
proposed rule, the Department multiplied 25 hours by the hourly
compensation rate for Training and Development Managers ($121.08 per
hour). The first-year cost savings per IRAP is estimated at $2,829 at a
discount rate of 7 percent. The annualized cost savings per IRAP is
estimated at $3,027 at a discount rate of 7 percent.
As of September 30, 2021, the number of IRAPs recognized by SREs
stands at 175. Of the 175 IRAPs, 165 are in the health care industry;
specifically, the vast majority of the 165 IRAPs are associated with
hospitals and medical centers. As shown in Exhibit 2, the first-year
and annualized cost savings for IRAPs in the hospitals subsector are
not expected to have a significant economic impact (3 percent or more)
on small entities of any size.
[[Page 62977]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15NO21.014
Similarly, the proposed rule would result in cost savings for SREs.
The cost savings would arise from SREs no longer needing to perform the
activities listed in the E.O. 12866 preliminary economic analysis
above: Notifying the Administrator of any major change to processes or
programs; informing the Administrator of IRAP recognition, suspension,
or derecognition; provision of data or information to the
Administrator; provision of written attestation to the Administrator;
disclosure of the credentials that apprentices will earn; quality
control of IRAPs; submission of performance data to the Administrator;
making publicly available IRAP performance data; and recordkeeping. The
first-year cost savings per SRE is estimated at $13,099 at a discount
rate of 7 percent. The annualized cost savings per SRE is estimated at
$14,016 at a discount rate of 7 percent.
As of the date of this proposed rule, the Department has recognized
27 SREs. Only 5 of the 27 SREs have recognized IRAPs, and of those 5
SREs, only 1 so far has indicated that it has IRAP apprentices. This
particular SRE is unlikely to be considered a small entity based on its
annual revenue,\33\ which exceeds the Small Business Administration's
Small Business Size Standard of $16.5 million for professional
organizations (North American Industry Classification System code
813920).\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ IRS Form 990 filing data available from the Internal
Revenue Service, ``Tax Exempt Organization Search,'' <a href="https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos">https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos</a>.
\34\ U.S. Small Business Administration, ``Table of Small
Business Size Standards'' (Aug. 19, 2019), available at <a href="https://www.sba.gov/document/support--table-size-standards">https://www.sba.gov/document/support--table-size-standards</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, the Department certifies that the proposed rule would
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Moreover, any economic impact experienced by IRAPs or SREs
would be cost savings.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
As explained in the ``Background'' section above, the Department is
proposing to rescind subpart B, ``Standards Recognition Entities of
Industry-Recognized Apprenticeship Programs,'' from title 29 CFR part
29, the regulatory framework for the Department's recognition of SREs
and SREs' role in recognizing IRAPs.
As part of the implementation and rollout of the IRAP rule the
Department developed and received OMB approval for two information
collection requests (ICRs), an application form and a performance
report. The first active ICR is entitled ``Industry-Recognized
Apprenticeship Program Standards Recognition Entity Regulation and
Application'' (OMB Control Number 1205-0536) and includes an annual
approved burden of 141,819 responses and 285,310 hours. There is no
additional cost burden. The second active ICR is entitled ``IRAP
Program and Performance Report for Standards Recognition Entities''
(OMB Control Number 1205-0545) and includes an annual approved burden
of 12,447 responses and 111,118 hours. There is no additional cost
burden.
If a final rule rescinds subpart B, on the effective date of the
regulation, the Department will withdraw its recognition of SREs and
any SRE-recognized apprenticeship program would no longer be an IRAP as
described in subpart B. The Department will no longer use the
``Industry-Recognized Apprenticeship Program Standards Recognition
Entity Regulation and Application'' ICR and the ``IRAP Program and
Performance Report for Standards Recognition Entities'' ICR.
Upon publication of a final rule, DOL will submit requests to
discontinue both OMB Control Number 1205-0536 and OMB Control Number
1205-0545, eliminating all paperwork burden associated with the ICRs.
D. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This proposed rule, if finalized, does not have federalism
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the National Government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. Accordingly, E.O. 13132, Federalism,
requires no further agency action or analysis.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2
U.S.C. 1532, requires each Federal agency to prepare a written
statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed
agency rule that may result in $100 million or more in expenditures
(adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year by State, local, and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector.
[[Page 62978]]
This proposed rule, if finalized, does not exceed the $100-million
expenditure in any one year when adjusted for inflation, and this
rulemaking does not contain such a mandate. The requirements of title
II of UMRA, therefore, do not apply, and the Department has not
prepared a statement under the Act.
F. Executive Order 13175 (Indian Tribal Governments)
The Department has reviewed this proposed rule in accordance with
E.O. 13175 and has determined that it does not have tribal
implications. The proposed rule does not have substantial direct
effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 29
Apprenticeability criteria, Apprentice agreements and complaints,
Apprenticeship programs, Program standards, Registration and
deregistration, Sponsor eligibility, State apprenticeship agency
recognition and derecognition.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department proposes to
amend 29 CFR part 29 as follows:
PART 29--LABOR STANDARDS FOR THE REGISTRATION OF APPRENTICESHIP
PROGRAMS
0
1. The authority citation for part 29 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 9 U.S.C. 50; 40 U.S.C. 3145; 5 U.S.C. 301; 5 U.S.C.
App. P. 534.
Subpart A--[Amended]
0
2. Remove the designation of subpart A and the associated heading.
0
3. Amend Sec. 29.1 by:
0
a. Revising the section heading; and
0
b. In paragraph (b), removing the word ``subpart'' and adding the word
``part'' in its place.
The revision reads as follows:
Sec. 29.1 Purpose and scope.
* * * * *
Sec. 29.2 [Amended]
0
4. Amend Sec. 29.2 by:
0
a. In the introductory text, removing the word ``subpart'' and adding
the word ``part'' in its place;
0
b. In the definitions of Apprenticeship program and Registration
agency, removing the citation ``29 CFR part 29 subpart A, and part 30''
and adding the citation ``this part and 29 CFR part 30'' in its place;
and
0
c. In the definition of Technical assistance, removing the word
``subpart'' and adding the word ``part'' in its place.
Sec. 29.13 [Amended]
0
5. Amend Sec. 29.13 by:
0
a. In paragraph (a)(1), removing the citation ``29 CFR part 29 subpart
A, and part 30'' and adding the citation ``this part and 29 CFR part
30'' in its place;
0
b. In paragraph (b)(1), removing the citation ``29 CFR part 29 subpart
A'' and adding ``this part'' in its place;
0
c. In paragraphs (c) and (e) introductory text, removing the word
``subpart'' and adding the word ``part'' in its place; and
0
d. In paragraph (e)(4), removing the citation ``part 29 subpart A'' and
adding ``this part'' in its place.
Sec. 29.14 [Amended]
0
6. Amend Sec. 29.14 by:
0
a. In the introductory text, removing the citation ``part 29 subpart A,
and part 30'' and adding the citation ``this part and 29 CFR part 30''
in its place; and
0
b. In paragraphs (e)(1) and (i), removing the word ``subpart'' and
adding the word ``part'' in its place.
Sec. Sec. 29.3, 29.6, 29.10, and 29.11 [Amended]
0
7. In addition to the amendments set forth above, in 29 CFR part 29,
remove the word ``subpart'' and add in its place the word ``part'' in
the following places:
0
a. Section 29.3(b)(1), (g) introductory text, and (h);
0
b. Section 29.6(b)(2);
0
c. Section 29.10(a)(2); and
0
d. Section 29.11 introductory text.
Subpart B--[Removed]
0
8. Remove subpart B, consisting of Sec. Sec. 29.20 through 29.31.
Angela Hanks,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training, Labor.
[FR Doc. 2021-24786 Filed 11-12-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FR-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on November 15, 2021.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.