Rule2026-22680
Prohibiting Illegal Discrimination in Registered Apprenticeship Programs
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 6, 2026
Effective
January 5, 2027
Issuing agencies
Labor Department
Abstract
The Department of Labor (DOL or the Department) is issuing this final rule to remove the onerous and legally questionable affirmative action requirements that were previously imposed by the Department on Registered Apprenticeship program sponsors. This final rule also streamlines and simplifies nondiscrimination obligations for all program sponsors, while clarifying that sponsors are accountable for compliance with Federal and State nondiscrimination protections. It also makes conforming, technical changes to the Department's regulation that addresses Labor Standards for the Registration of Apprenticeship Programs.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 214 (Friday, November 6, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 214 (Friday, November 6, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 70164-70247]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-22680]
[[Page 70163]]
Vol. 91
Friday,
No. 214
November 6, 2026
Part III
Department of Labor
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
29 CFR Parts 29 and 30
Prohibiting Illegal Discrimination in Registered Apprenticeship
Programs; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 91 , No. 214 / Friday, November 6, 2026 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 70164]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
29 CFR Parts 29 and 30
[Docket No. ETA-2025-0006]
RIN 1205-AC21
Prohibiting Illegal Discrimination in Registered Apprenticeship
Programs
AGENCY: Employment and Training Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Labor (DOL or the Department) is issuing
this final rule to remove the onerous and legally questionable
affirmative action requirements that were previously imposed by the
Department on Registered Apprenticeship program sponsors. This final
rule also streamlines and simplifies nondiscrimination obligations for
all program sponsors, while clarifying that sponsors are accountable
for compliance with Federal and State nondiscrimination protections. It
also makes conforming, technical changes to the Department's regulation
that addresses Labor Standards for the Registration of Apprenticeship
Programs.
DATES: This final rule is effective January 5, 2027.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luke Murren, Acting Administrator,
Office of Policy Development and Research, U.S. Department of Labor,
Employment and Training Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW,
Room N-5641, Washington, DC 20210, Telephone: 202-693-3700 (voice)
(this is not a toll-free number). For persons with a hearing or speech
disability who need assistance using the telephone system, please dial
711 to access telecommunications relay services.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Preamble Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
II. Background and Purpose of the Revised Part 30 Regulation
A. Legal Authority to Promulgate Registered Apprenticeship
Regulations
B. Registered Apprenticeship: Opportunities for Expansion
C. Historical Background on Part 30 and on Prohibiting Illegal
Discrimination in Apprenticeship
D. Need for the Rulemaking: The Burdens and Challenges Imposed
on Sponsors by the Part 30 Regulation
E. Goals of the Revised Part 30 Regulation
III. Overview of the Revised Part 30 Regulation
A. Summary of the Final Rule's Provisions
B. The Role of Registration Agencies Under the Final Rule
C. Transition Timelines
IV. Public Comments Received on the Proposed Rule
A. General Description of Comments
B. Requests to Extend the Comment Period and Comments on Public
Participation
C. General Comments on the Proposed Rule
D. Comments on Regulatory History and Background of the Proposed
Rule
E. Comments on Legal Authority
F. Comments on the Department's Goals for the Rulemaking
G. Comments on the Proposal's Impacts on Women, Racial and
Ethnic Minorities, and Individuals With Disabilities
V. Section-by-Section Analysis of the Final Rule--Rescissions of
Current Part 30
A. Rescission of Equal Opportunity Standards for All Sponsors
B. Rescission of Affirmative Action Requirements
C. Rescission of Anti-Harassment Training Requirement and the
Provision Relating to Retaliation Against Apprentices
D. Rescission of Apprenticeship Selection Procedure Requirements
E. Rescission of Sponsor Recordkeeping Requirements
VI. Section-by-Section Analysis--Revised Part 30 Under the Final
Rule
A. Section 30. 1--Purpose and Applicability
B. Section 30.2--Definitions
C. Section 30.3--Nondiscrimination Standards Applicable to All
Sponsors
D. Section 30.4--Complaints
E. Section 30.5--Nondiscrimination Compliance Reviews and
Enforcement
F. Section 30.6--Reinstatement of Program Registration
G. Section 30.7--State Apprenticeship Agencies
H. Section 30.8--Exemptions
I. Section 30.9--Severability
J. Technical and Conforming Edits to Part 29
K. Final Rule Implementation
VII. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review),
13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and 14192
(Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation) and Subtitle E of the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act, Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, and Executive Order 13272 (Proper
Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking)
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Congressional Notification
E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
G. Executive Order 13175 (Indian Tribal Governments)
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
WIOA Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act
ADEA Age Discrimination in Employment Act
APA Administrative Procedure Act
BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics
DOL Department of Labor
EEO Equal Employment Opportunity
EEOC Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
ETA Employment and Training Administration
FCC Federal Communications Commission
FEPA Fair Employment Practices Agency
FY Fiscal Year
I. Executive Summary
This final rule, Prohibiting Illegal Discrimination in Registered
Apprenticeship Programs, removes burdensome requirements for Registered
Apprenticeship program sponsors contained in the regulation at 29 CFR
part 30, and replaces the part 30 regulation's complicated array of
apprenticeship-specific nondiscrimination requirements with a more
straightforward requirement that all Registered Apprenticeship program
sponsors comply with all Federal and State laws and regulations
prohibiting discrimination. In addition, the final rule provides
clarity to apprenticeship stakeholders regarding the appropriate forums
for advancing and remediating issues relating to alleged discrimination
in Registered Apprenticeship programs.
Under this final rule, Registered Apprenticeship program sponsors
will no longer be required to comply with the burdensome administrative
requirements contained in the part 30 regulation, which included a
general duty for all sponsors to engage in affirmative action and meet
equal employment opportunity (EEO) obligations. The part 30
regulation's general duty to engage in affirmative action included
mandates to designate an individual to manage the program's EEO policy,
to conduct anti-harassment training, and to post an equal opportunity
pledge, among other burdensome requirements. The final rule also
removes the burdensome and legally questionable regulatory mandate that
sponsors with five or more apprentices comply with more extensive
affirmative action requirements, which included conducting utilization
analyses and setting numerical goals for hiring apprentices based upon
their race, sex, and ethnicity. The Department expects that removing
these obligations will significantly reduce administrative burdens for
sponsors and will also support the growth of Registered Apprenticeship
programs, in alignment with the Department's and Administration's goals
and priorities.
In their place, this final rule substitutes a streamlined
requirement that all Registered Apprenticeship program sponsors comply
fully with all applicable Federal and State laws and regulations
prohibiting illegal
[[Page 70165]]
discrimination. This requirement, along with a revised regulatory
framework for discrimination-related complaints, provides needed
clarity to apprenticeship stakeholders on the most appropriate and
effective course of action for apprentices to raise and seek
remediation of discrimination-related issues. Finally, the final rule
includes a requirement that any State seeking new or continued
recognition from the Department's Office of Apprenticeship (OA) as a
State Apprenticeship Agency (SAA) must establish State laws and
regulations that conform to the revised part 30 regulation, so that
Registered Apprenticeship programs throughout the National
Apprenticeship System are subject to a consistent set of requirements
related to nondiscrimination in apprenticeship.
II. Background and Purpose of the Revised Part 30 Regulation
A. Legal Authority To Promulgate Registered Apprenticeship Regulations
The National Apprenticeship Act (NAA) (also known as the Fitzgerald
Act), 50 Stat. 664,\1\ was enacted by Congress in 1937. Among other
things, the NAA authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Labor to
``formulate and promote the furtherance of labor standards necessary to
safeguard the welfare of apprentices, to extend the application of such
standards by inclusion thereof in contracts of apprenticeship, to bring
together employers and labor for the formulation of programs of
apprenticeship, [and] to cooperate with State agencies engaged in the
formulation and promotion of standards of apprenticeship.'' 50 Stat.
664.\2\ The NAA forms the basis of the Department's legal authority to
oversee the National Apprenticeship System and develop and advance
labor standards, in conjunction with apprenticeship stakeholders
throughout industry, labor, and State and local jurisdictions, for
Registered Apprenticeship programs. Pursuant to this statutory
authority, the Department has designated OA, within the Department's
Employment and Training Administration (ETA), as the office responsible
for conducting oversight, establishing rules and policies related to
Registered Apprenticeship, and promoting the success and expansion of
the Registered Apprenticeship model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 29 U.S.C. 50.
\2\ 29 U.S.C. 50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To implement the aims of the NAA, OA has promulgated regulations,
found at 29 CFR parts 29 and 30, to formalize labor standards that all
Registered Apprenticeship programs must meet, and establish processes
to conduct National Apprenticeship System oversight in coordination
with State and local jurisdictions. The Department's legal authority to
promulgate regulations related to Registered Apprenticeship, as well as
the scope and content of such regulations, is rooted in the NAA. Under
such authority, the Department must also periodically revisit the
governing regulations at 29 CFR parts 29 and 30 in light of evolving
economic conditions, changes impacting the labor market, or other
developments impacting workforce development and apprenticeship.
The regulation at 29 CFR part 29 (part 29) implements the NAA's
statutory directive to the Department to establish labor standards for
Registered Apprenticeship programs and safeguard the welfare of
apprentices. The first version of a regulation that set forth standards
of apprenticeship was issued by the Department in 1977, and the last
major revision to the part 29 regulations was issued in 2008. The part
29 regulation, and the labor standards that it established, serve as
the primary regulatory framework for Registered Apprenticeship
programs. The part 29 regulatory requirements for Registered
Apprenticeship programs are intended to allow sponsors of such programs
to tailor programs to meet their workforce needs while maintaining the
high quality that has characterized Registered Apprenticeship for
decades.
The regulation at part 30 requiring nondiscrimination and equality
of opportunity in Registered Apprenticeship programs was first issued
by the Department in 1963, and was subsequently updated by the
Department in 1971, 1978, and 2016. Across these iterations, the part
30 regulation evolved from a prohibition against discrimination (also
described as a requirement for sponsors to select apprentices ``solely
on the basis of their qualifications compared to those of other
applicants''), to include various other requirements for sponsors and
State agencies. For sponsors, additional requirements imposed by the
part 30 regulation included: developing and posting a policy committing
to equal opportunity; conducting anti-harassment training; providing a
written notice to apprentices informing them of their right to file
discrimination complaints and the process for doing so; and (for those
Registered Apprenticeship programs enrolling five or more apprentices)
conducting utilization analyses as part of their affirmative action
plans and inviting apprentices to voluntarily disclose their disability
status. The part 30 regulation also included a requirement for State
agencies to develop a ``State EEO plan'' in order to seek or maintain
recognition as an SAA, among other requirements.
Acting on the Department's authority to promulgate apprenticeship
regulations under the NAA, the Department issued a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Prohibiting Illegal Discrimination in
Registered Apprenticeship Programs in the Federal Register on July 2,
2025, (90 FR 28947) as the first step in a transparent process to
update the part 30 regulation.\3\ This first step of the rulemaking
process for Federal agencies, which is governed by the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA), as amended, at 5 U.S.C. 553, supports transparent
policymaking by allowing the Department to publish its proposed
approach to updating the regulation and explain its rationale for the
proposed changes, and by allowing the public to examine, assess, and
provide public comments in response to the Department's proposal. In
the NPRM, the Department proposed to update and significantly
streamline the part 30 regulation to return to a more straightforward
nondiscrimination requirement for Registered Apprenticeship program
sponsors and clarify the most appropriate and effective processes and
forums for raising and remediating issues related to alleged illegal
discrimination in Registered Apprenticeship programs. The Department
assessed public comments on its proposal and reexamined its rationale
and goals for the rulemaking in light of the views, arguments, and data
shared by public commenters, in developing this final rule in
accordance with the APA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The Department's NPRM can be found at <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/07/02/2025-12317/prohibiting-illegal-discrimination-in-registered-apprenticeship-programs">https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/07/02/2025-12317/prohibiting-illegal-discrimination-in-registered-apprenticeship-programs</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Registered Apprenticeship: Opportunities for Expansion
For nearly a century, the Department has supported the
administration of Registered Apprenticeship programs and overseen the
National Apprenticeship System. Registered Apprenticeship is a proven
workforce development strategy that combines paid on-the-job learning
(OJL) and related instruction, providing tangible benefits to employers
and career-seekers alike. Registered Apprenticeship enables employers
to design training programs that meet their workforce development
needs, empowers apprentices to advance their careers
[[Page 70166]]
through structured training that develops critical occupational skills
and competencies and ultimately leads to an apprentice becoming
proficient in an occupation. What began as a training strategy for the
skilled trades has evolved and expanded to include a wider range of
occupations across industries, including growth sectors such as
information technology, health care, and financial services.
At the end of fiscal year (FY) 2025, according to OA data on
Registered Apprenticeship programs nationwide, 26,628 active Registered
Apprenticeship programs provided training to more than 700,000
apprentices.\4\ These programs provide training in more than 1,000
occupations determined to be ``apprenticeable'' \5\ across industries
ranging from advanced manufacturing and construction to education,
financial services, information technology, and health care. The number
of apprentices has grown steadily over the past decade; the total
number of active apprentices at the end of FY 2025 represented a 77%
increase from the 395,764 active apprentices in FY 2016. Since 2016,\6\
the Department has expanded its role in administering the National
Apprenticeship System to include targeted investments to support
Registered Apprenticeship growth. These investments have grown from
around $90 million in FY 2016 to $185 million in FY 2021, $235 million
in FY 2022,\7\ and $285 million in FYs 2023, 2024, 2025, and 2026.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Data discussed in this paragraph are available to the public
on OA's website, ``Apprenticeship--Data and Statistics,'' <a href="https://www.apprenticeship.gov/data-and-statistics">https://www.apprenticeship.gov/data-and-statistics</a>.
\5\ Part 29 defines an ``apprenticeable'' occupation as an
occupation that must involve skills customarily learned through
structured, systematic OJL, must be clearly identified and commonly
recognized throughout an industry, must involve the progressive
attainment of skills that would require the completion of at least
2,000 hours of OJL to attain, and must require a related instruction
component to supplement OJL. See 29 CFR 29.4, <a href="https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-29/subtitle-A/part-29#29.4">https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-29/subtitle-A/part-29#29.4</a>.
\6\ Prior to 2016, the Department invested around $30 million
per year to support Registered Apprenticeship. Since 2016, these
investments have steadily increased and diversified, and are
supplemented by State funds supporting the Registered Apprenticeship
expansion goal. See the Urban Institute's analysis of strategic
investment in Registered Apprenticeship, ``Strategic Investments to
Expand Apprenticeships in the US,'' <a href="https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/2025-03/Strategic_Investments_to_Advance_Apprenticeships_in_the_US.pdf">https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/2025-03/Strategic_Investments_to_Advance_Apprenticeships_in_the_US.pdf</a>.
\7\ Congressional Research Service, ``Registered Apprenticeship:
Federal Role and Recent Federal Efforts,'' Feb. 7, 2025, <a href="https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45171#_Toc190349619">https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45171#_Toc190349619</a>.
\8\ H.R.7148--119th Congress (2025-2026): Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2026.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the steady growth of the National Apprenticeship System,
the Department recognizes that Registered Apprenticeship's impact on
the U.S. economy, overall, remains limited. Registered Apprenticeship
is underutilized as a workforce development solution in the United
States when compared to the impact of apprenticeship in other developed
nations. In the United States, apprentices comprise a significantly
smaller share of the overall workforce than in other countries with
strong and established apprenticeship systems (such as Australia,
Canada, Germany, and the United Kingdom).\9\ Given this
underutilization of apprenticeship in the United States, the Department
is determined to address factors that serve to limit the accelerated
expansion and utilization of the model, including removing burdensome
regulatory requirements like the complex and legally questionable set
of requirements contained in the existing part 30 regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Keith Rolland, ``Apprenticeships and their potential in
the U.S.,'' Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, Winter 2015,
<a href="https://www.philadelphiafed.org/community-development/workforce-and-economic-development/apprenticeships-and-their-potential-in-the-us">https://www.philadelphiafed.org/community-development/workforce-and-economic-development/apprenticeships-and-their-potential-in-the-us</a>
(citing a presentation by Professor Robert I. Lerman of the Urban
Institute, which noted that apprentices constituted only 0.2% of the
U.S. labor force, compared with 2.2% in Canada, 2.7% in Great
Britain, and 3.7% in Australia and Germany). See also Robert I.
Lerman, ``Proposal 7: Expand Apprenticeship Opportunities in the
United States,'' The Hamilton Project of the Brookings Institution,
2015, at p. 3, <a href="https://www.hamiltonproject.org/assets/legacy/files/downloads_and_links/expand_apprenticeship_opportunities_united_states_lerman.pdf">https://www.hamiltonproject.org/assets/legacy/files/downloads_and_links/expand_apprenticeship_opportunities_united_states_lerman.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the Department is supportive of efforts to expand Registered
Apprenticeship into new sectors and occupations where the training
model is not currently widespread, the preponderance of Registered
Apprenticeship programs remain within the skilled trades. In 2026, OA's
data on apprenticeship participation by industry indicates there are
nearly 270,000 apprentices in Registered Apprenticeship programs in the
construction sector, a significant plurality compared to other
industries.\10\ This concentration of programs in the skilled trades
limits Registered Apprenticeship's potential economy-wide impact and
contributes to the false narrative that this training model is only
suitable for that sector. Registered Apprenticeship's combination of
structured OJL and related instruction is a proven training strategy
that has consistently benefited both employers and career-seekers and
can be adapted across industries (including growth sectors like
information technology and healthcare).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ DOL, ``Apprenticeship--Data and Statistics,'' <a href="https://www.apprenticeship.gov/data-and-statistics/apprentices-by-state-dashboard">https://www.apprenticeship.gov/data-and-statistics/apprentices-by-state-dashboard</a> (last visited June 26, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Registered Apprenticeship model has significant potential to
meet the workforce development needs of more employers and provide more
apprentices with opportunities to develop their careers, and as such,
the Department views the expansion of the model as a pathway to greater
economic prosperity in the United States. In a 2023 report (updated in
February 2026), the U.S. Chamber of Commerce analyzed economic trends
in job openings, labor force participation, and other labor market
indicators.\11\ This analysis showed that over the past two decades,
job openings have increased, on average, while the number of unemployed
workers has decreased, resulting in a persistent shortage of workers
available to fill open positions. The analysis shows that while the gap
between job openings and available workers has evened out following
economic shocks and disruptions related to the COVID-19 pandemic (when
unemployment spiked to 23 million unemployed workers in 2020), State-
level economic data indicates that some States face significant
challenges in filling job openings. South Dakota, for example, had 41
available workers for every 100 open jobs, and nationwide, only ten
States report a surplus of available workers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ U.S. Chamber of Commerce, ``Understanding America's Labor
Shortage,'' Nov. 21, 2023, <a href="https://www.uschamber.com/workforce/understanding-americas-labor-shortage">https://www.uschamber.com/workforce/understanding-americas-labor-shortage</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In general, labor force participation has been on the decline for
the past two decades, due to a range of factors including retirements,
an aging workforce, and reliance on means-tested public benefits.
Further, employers increasingly point to a mismatch in the skills they
need for their workforce and the skills possessed by job seekers when
describing challenges in filling open positions. Surveys and analyses
of hiring trends indicate that, while many employers have open
positions and are seeking to hire employees, they struggle to fill
these positions because they struggle to find candidates that possess
the skills they need. One recent analysis estimates a potential
shortage of approximately 5.25 million workers with education and
training beyond high school through 2032, including projected shortages
in several occupations that have historically relied on work-based
training.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Georgetown University Center on Education and the
Workforce, Falling Behind: How Skills Shortages Threaten Future Jobs
(2025), available at <a href="https://cew.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/cew-falling_behind-fr.pdf">https://cew.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/cew-falling_behind-fr.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 70167]]
The Department sees Registered Apprenticeship as a critical
strategy for increasing job seekers' skills and empowering employers to
design training programs that develop in-demand skill sets. Registered
Apprenticeship programs' training plans are based on industry training
standards, meaning that industry leaders have input into the skills and
competencies needed for an occupation. Sponsors of Registered
Apprenticeship programs use these industry-derived inputs in designing
programs that fit their specific needs (or the needs of employers who
participate in the program). During the past two decades, the
Registered Apprenticeship model has expanded into industries beyond the
skilled trades, but still accounts for a small share of the overall
labor force that lags far behind other advanced economies.\13\ The
Department views Registered Apprenticeship as a successful strategy for
helping more employers meet their workforce development needs, a view
that is more pronounced and relevant in the labor market of 2026, when
job openings increasingly require higher levels of technical and
specialized skills. As such, the Trump Administration has made the
expansion of Registered Apprenticeship a top priority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ A white paper discussing the potential to expand Registered
Apprenticeship states that apprentices accounted for just 0.3% of
the labor force in the United States in 2020, far below rates of
apprentice makeup of the labor force in other advanced economies
that utilize the model. Robert I. Lerman, ``The State of
Apprenticeship in the US: A Plan for Scale,'' Apprenticeships for
America, July 2022, <a href="https://apprenticeshipsforamerica.org/resources/afa-publications/19/the-state-of-apprenticeship-in-the-us-a-plan-for-scale">https://apprenticeshipsforamerica.org/resources/afa-publications/19/the-state-of-apprenticeship-in-the-us-a-plan-for-scale</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Registered Apprenticeship stakeholders, including those with
established programs and those interested in starting programs, have
pointed to the administrative burdens and direct costs of starting and
operating a program as factors that limit the expansion and uptake of
the model.\14\ While Federal and State funds have helped mitigate these
challenges, stakeholders still report impediments, including compliance
with the administrative requirements found in Federal and State
regulation. The Department has determined that substantially reducing
the regulatory burdens that were imposed upon program sponsors by the
part 30 regulation is an indispensable prerequisite for achieving the
Department's ongoing goal of expanding Registered Apprenticeship to
meet the needs of the labor market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Bhavani Arabandi and Leslee Haisma, ``Strategic Investments
to Advance Apprenticeships in the US,'' The Urban Institute, Mar.
25, 2025, <a href="https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/2025-03/Strategic_Investments_to_Advance_Apprenticeships_in_the_US.pdf">https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/2025-03/Strategic_Investments_to_Advance_Apprenticeships_in_the_US.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department's determination to update the part 30 regulation
with this final rule also aligns with the Administration's priorities
for the Department and Registered Apprenticeship. On January 31, 2025,
in the first days of his Administration, President Trump signed E.O.
14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, which directed
Federal agencies to identify opportunities to review and revise or
rescind any regulations that impose undue burdens on Americans and
American businesses, with the goal of increasing flexibility for
businesses and accelerating economic prosperity.\15\ The President also
issued E.O. 14278, Preparing Americans for High-Paying Skilled Trade
Jobs of the Future, which directed Federal agencies to prioritize
investments and develop strategies to support workforce development,
and specifically instructed the Departments of Labor, Education, and
Commerce to develop a plan to achieve 1,000,000 active apprentices in
Registered Apprenticeship programs.\16\ The Department views this final
rule rescinding the burdensome and legally questionable elements of the
part 30 regulation as a critical step towards meeting the
Administration's directives, growing Registered Apprenticeship's
footprint in the broader economy, and supporting economic prosperity
for employers and job seekers in the modern labor market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ E.O. 14192, ``Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,''
Jan. 31, 2025, <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/02/06/2025-02345/unleashing-prosperity-through-deregulation">https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/02/06/2025-02345/unleashing-prosperity-through-deregulation</a>.
\16\ E.O. 14278, ``Preparing Americans for High-Paying Skilled
Jobs of the Future,'' Apr. 23, 2025, <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/04/28/2025-07369/preparing-americans-for-high-paying-skilled-trade-jobs-of-the-future">https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/04/28/2025-07369/preparing-americans-for-high-paying-skilled-trade-jobs-of-the-future</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Historical Background on Part 30 and on Prohibiting Illegal
Discrimination in Apprenticeship
In issuing this final rule, the Department has determined that it
can fulfill the NAA's statutory mandate to ``safeguard the welfare of
apprentices'' by simply requiring that sponsors comply with already
applicable Federal and State employment nondiscrimination laws. The
importance of establishing clarity and consistency in the laws and
policies governing nondiscrimination in Registered Apprenticeship
programs is best understood by tracing the evolution of the part 30
regulation, the pertinent provisions of applicable Federal
nondiscrimination laws, and relevant Supreme Court decisions relating
to the constitutionality of group-based preferences generally.
The original version of the 29 CFR part 30 regulation \17\ (issued
by the Department in December 1963) barred Registered Apprenticeship
program sponsors from engaging in discrimination against apprentices on
the basis of race, color, creed, or national origin in all phases of
apprenticeship, stipulated that the selection of apprentices by
programs be made ``solely on the basis of their qualifications compared
to those of other applicants,'' and provided for the deregistration of
apprenticeship programs that failed to comply with those mandates.\18\
In effect, the Department's issuance of the 1963 part 30 regulation
prohibiting illegal discrimination by Registered Apprenticeship
programs formulated a new minimum standard of apprenticeship designed
to safeguard the welfare of apprentices, one that was later
supplemented by the establishment of additional labor standards of
apprenticeship (at 29 CFR part 29) concerning, among other things, the
payment of progressive wages and the provision of safe working
environments to apprentices. However, it is important to note that
neither the 1963 part 30 regulation nor its later iterations (in 1971,
1978, and 2016) provided apprentices with meaningful, individualized
remedies (such as make-whole relief) to address instances of illegal
discriminatory conduct against such persons by a program sponsor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See 28 FR 13775 (Dec. 18, 1963).
\18\ This potential deregistration sanction against sponsors who
are found to have engaged in program-wide discriminatory conduct
against apprentices on the basis of protected characteristics has
been retained in all subsequent iterations of the part 30
regulation, including the latest version contained in this final
rule. As a Registration Agency's grant of registration to an
apprenticeship program serves as an official recognition of that
program's overall quality and represents the conferral of a valuable
governmental benefit upon the program sponsor, the Department
maintains that the potential deregistration of an apprenticeship
program is an appropriate sanction against those sponsors that have
been shown to operate their programs in a discriminatory manner and
that have failed to address or rectify such illegal conduct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The absence of such individualized remedies for illegal
discrimination against apprentices under the part 30 regulation,
however, was addressed in the following year, when Congress enacted the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 257 (the Act). Title VII of the Act
(which applies to employers with 15 or more employees, among other
covered
[[Page 70168]]
entities) prohibits employment discrimination against individuals on
the basis of their race, color, religion, national origin, and sex. In
particular, section 703(d) of the Act states that ``[i]t shall be an
unlawful employment practice for any employer, labor organization, or
joint labor-management committee controlling apprenticeship or other
training or retraining, including on-the-job training programs to
discriminate against any individual because of his race, color,
religion, sex, or national origin in admission to, or employment in,
any program established to provide apprenticeship or other training.''
\19\ Section 706(g) of the Act further authorizes a wide range of
remedies for employees (including apprentices) who have experienced
discrimination at the hands of a covered entity based upon their race,
color, religion, sex, or national origin.\20\ The Act also established
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), a specialized
Federal agency vested by Congress with the authority to receive and
investigate complaints from job applicants and employees (including
apprentices) alleging violations of Title VII (as well as alleged
violations of other Federal employment discrimination statutes
subsequently enacted by Congress).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(d).
\20\ 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Significantly, the text of Title VII contains no provision
requiring employers or apprenticeship programs to adopt a compulsory,
nonremedial scheme of group-based preferences (such as affirmative
action arrangements) in hiring or employment that takes into
consideration the race, color, religion, sex, or national origin of job
applicants.\21\ The absence of such a general mandate in Title VII is
highlighted by the inclusion (at section 703(j) of the Act \22\) of a
proscriptive rule of statutory construction specifically governing the
provisions of Title VII. Section 703(j) stipulates, in relevant part,
that nothing contained in Title VII shall be interpreted to require any
employer, employment agency, labor organization, or joint labor-
management committee subject to the title ``to grant preferential
treatment'' to any individual or to any group based on the race, color,
religion, sex, or national origin of such individual or group in order
to address an imbalance which may exist in the demographic composition
of an employer's or other covered entity's work force or membership,
including those individuals ``admitted to, or employed in, any
apprenticeship or training program,'' as compared to the demographic
composition ``in any community, State, section, or other area, or in
the available work force in any community, State, section, or other
area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ During the lengthy floor debate preceding the Senate's
passage of the bill (H.R. 7152) that became the Act, Senator Edmund
Muskie of Maine defended the Title VII provisions of the
legislation, noting that the measure ``seeks to afford to all
Americans equal opportunity in employment without discrimination.
Not equal pay. Not `racial balance.' Only equal opportunity.''
Senator Muskie further stated that ``[d]iscrimination in this bill
means just what it means anywhere: a distinction in treatment given
to different individuals because of their race.'' 110 Cong. Rec.
12617 (1964). Senator Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota, the floor
manager of the bill in the Senate, maintained during the debate that
``Title VII prohibits discrimination. In effect, it says that race,
religion, and national origin are not to be used as the basis for
hiring and firing. Title VII is designed to encourage hiring on the
basis of ability and qualifications, not race or religion.'' 110
Cong. Rec. 6549 (1964).
\22\ 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(j).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In effect, the language of section 703(j) precludes governmental
entities, such as Federal courts and relevant Federal administrative
agencies, from interpreting Title VII's provisions in such a way as to
require an employer or an apprenticeship program subject to the Act to
grant preferential treatment to individuals or groups in hiring and
employment based upon their race, color, religion, sex, or national
origin for the purpose of achieving or maintaining demographic
``balance'' in that employer's or apprenticeship program's workforce.
However, in those limited instances where a court finds that an
employer or apprenticeship program has intentionally engaged in
illegal, discriminatory employment practices under Title VII, the court
has the discretion under section 706(g) of the Act to impose a narrowly
tailored, time-limited affirmative action plan to remedy such
discriminatory conduct. See Loc. 28 of Sheet Metal Workers' Int'l Ass'n
v. E.E.O.C., 478 U.S. 421, 444-45 (1986) (plurality opinion); id. at
483 (Powell, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment)
(finding that the District Court had acted within the remedial
authority under section 706(g) in establishing a numerical membership
goal based on the percentage of nonwhites in the relevant labor pool
where the union had repeatedly and egregiously violated Title VII and
ignored prior judicial orders).
Taken together, the foregoing provisions of Title VII established a
comprehensive statutory framework under which Congress outlawed all
employment discrimination in apprenticeship and training programs
covered by the Act based upon race, color, religion, sex, or national
origin; provided effective remedies to individual apprentices who were
subjected to such forms of illegal discrimination by covered employers
and apprenticeship programs; precluded interpreting Title VII to
require the utilization of nonremedial, group-based preferences by
covered apprenticeship and training programs to address imbalances in
the demographic composition of a program's workforce; and established a
Federal agency (the EEOC) with the statutory authority and subject-
matter expertise to investigate discrimination complaints by
apprentices and to identify violations of Title VII by covered
apprenticeship programs. The express inclusion of apprentices and
apprenticeship and training programs within the scope of Title VII's
statutory protections demonstrates that Congress was concerned about
the prevalence of discrimination in these programs in the early 1960s,
and was intentional in enacting legislation specifically prohibiting
program sponsors from engaging in such egregious employment
practices.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Congressional concern about discrimination in
apprenticeship programs led to the convening of hearings on the
topic a few years before the enactment of Title VII. See ``Equal
Opportunity in Apprenticeship Programs: Hearings Before the Special
Subcommittee on Labor of the House Committee on Education and
Labor,'' 87th Congress, 1st Session, Aug. 21, 22, and 23, 1961,
<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=mSy_Rm9wF7oC&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false">https://books.google.com/books?id=mSy_Rm9wF7oC&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1971, subsequent to the enactment of Title VII, the Department
modified the part 30 regulation by adding sex as a protected category
with respect to nondiscrimination by program sponsors; this particular
amendment effectively aligned the text of part 30 with the protected
nondiscrimination categories that were established by Congress in Title
VII. However, the 1971 version of the part 30 regulation also
introduced and imposed upon apprenticeship programs enrolling five or
more apprentices a compulsory, nonremedial affirmative action
requirement of indefinite duration, and mandated the establishment of
numerical hiring goals by such programs in the selection of apprentices
from minority groups.\24\ Clearly, the Department's 1971 issuance of a
regulation mandating the establishment by such apprenticeship programs
of a permanent system of nonremedial, nonvoluntary, group-based
preferences in the selection of apprentices was fundamentally at odds
with the unambiguous policy direction charted by Congress in sections
703(d) and (j) of Title VII regarding apprenticeship: namely, that all
employment discrimination against
[[Page 70169]]
apprentices based upon their race, color, religion, sex, or national
origin is illegal, and that the use of group-based preferences to
adjust demographic imbalances which may exist in an apprenticeship
program's workforce must never be required (unless such preferences are
temporarily imposed by a court to remedy proven instances of manifest,
intentional discriminatory conduct by a program). In a broader sense,
however, the Department's regulatory imposition of affirmative action
requirements for certain Registered Apprenticeship programs in the 1971
part 30 regulation--and the retention of these requirements in the 1978
and 2016 versions of the regulation--effectively substituted the policy
preferences of an agency of the administrative state for the considered
legislative judgments of the nation's elected representatives in
delineating the appropriate scope and content of Federal employment
nondiscrimination laws and policies relating to apprenticeship.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See 36 FR 6810 (Apr. 8, 1971).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court of the United States handed
down a decision in a landmark case involving the use of race-based
preferences in university admissions, Students for Fair Admissions,
Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. 181 (2023)
(SFFA). In SFFA, the Supreme Court held that the use of such racial
preferences by Harvard and the University of North Carolina in their
admissions processes violated the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Several NPRM commenters
mischaracterized the extent to which the Department relied upon the
decision in SFFA in proposing to rescind the race-, sex-, and
ethnicity-based affirmative action provisions contained in part 30. To
be clear, the Department did not and does not claim that SFFA's holding
regarding race-based admissions in higher education compels the
rescission of part 30's affirmative action provisions. Nevertheless,
the Department considers the Supreme Court's decision in SFFA to be
relevant to this rulemaking insofar as it signals the Court's apparent
willingness to revisit the constitutionality of race-based selection
and admissions procedures that it had previously upheld in earlier
decisions. In his SFFA opinion striking down these types of
preferences, Chief Justice Roberts opined that ``[e]liminating racial
discrimination means eliminating all of it,'' 600 U.S. at 206, and
further observed that the Court has ``time and time again forcefully
rejected the notion that governmental actors may intentionally allocate
preferences to those `who may have little in common with each other but
the color of their skin,' '' id. at 220 (quoting Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S.
630, 647 (1993)). These categorical and pointed expositions of
nondiscrimination and equal protection principles by the Chief Justice
in SFFA--as well as similar viewpoints expressed by other justices in
their concurring opinions--certainly do not augur well for the Court's
future sanctioning of mandatory, nonremedial race-, ethnic-, and sex-
based affirmative action efforts in Registered Apprenticeship.
Recognizing that government-mandated, group-based affirmative
action schemes such as those contained in the 1971, 1978, and 2016
versions of the part 30 regulation ``violate the text and spirit of our
longstanding Federal civil-rights laws,'' President Trump issued E.O.
14173, ``Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based
Opportunity,'' on January 21, 2025.\25\ Among other things, section 2
of E.O. 14173 directed ``all executive departments and agencies to
terminate all discriminatory and illegal preferences, mandates,
policies, programs, activities, guidance, regulations, enforcement
actions, consent orders, and requirements.'' Noting that longstanding
Federal civil rights laws such as Title VII ``protect individuals from
discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national
origin'' and serve ``as a bedrock supporting equality of opportunity
for all Americans,'' E.O. 14173 affirmed that the President of the
United States has ``a solemn duty to ensure that these laws are
enforced for the benefit of all Americans.'' The issuance of this final
rule by the Department prohibiting all illegal discrimination in
Registered Apprenticeship programs fulfills President Trump's directive
in E.O. 14173; moreover, it demonstrates appropriate respect for, and
deference to, the nondiscrimination policies relating to apprenticeship
that were enacted by Congress as part of Title VII of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See 90 FR 8633 (Jan. 31, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In revising the content and scope of the part 30 regulation, the
Department has determined that the affirmative action provisions
described above are administratively burdensome and likely unlawful.
Moreover, the Department is convinced that affirmative action schemes
tend to promote the development of pernicious and divisive group-based
preferences within our society, thereby undermining the goal of
ensuring equality of opportunity for every American participating in
the workforce. Accordingly, in issuing this final rule, the Department
affirms that all applicants seeking admission to a Registered
Apprenticeship program should be evaluated and selected strictly on the
basis of individual merit and demonstrated potential, and that a
person's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin must never be
considered by a sponsor as a basis for either rejecting or granting
preferential treatment to anyone seeking admission to a Registered
Apprenticeship program.
D. Need for the Rulemaking: The Burdens and Challenges Imposed on
Sponsors by the Part 30 Regulation
The Department has known for some time that, as its Task Force on
Apprenticeship Expansion reported, ``many employers choose to establish
apprenticeship programs outside of the registered apprenticeship
program, in part because of the paperwork and process involved in
registering a program.'' Apprenticeship Programs, Labor Standards for
Registration, Amendment of Regulations, 85 FR 14294, 14295 (Mar. 11,
2020). The Department has determined that this final rule updating the
part 30 regulation is necessary to accomplish the Department's and
Administration's goals of eliminating unnecessary and burdensome
regulatory requirements and accelerating the expansion of Registered
Apprenticeship. The part 30 regulation contains the type of onerous
regulatory requirements targeted by the Administration's deregulatory
directive contained in E.O. 14192; in particular, the Department has
identified the affirmative action requirements of the part 30
regulation as illustrative of the complicated, burdensome, and
ineffective regulations that Federal agencies are directed to rescind
or revise under the E.O.
Accordingly, the Department has determined that revising the part
30 regulation is necessary to discontinue the regulatory imposition of
a legally questionable, nonremedial, group-based preference scheme for
certain Registered Apprenticeship program sponsors. Moreover, the
Department has determined that this final rule is necessary to achieve
cost savings for Registered Apprenticeship stakeholders and reduce the
cost and administrative burden of establishing and maintaining
Registered Apprenticeship programs. As outlined in the Regulatory
Impact Analysis (RIA) accompanying this final rule, over a 10-year
period, Registered Apprenticeship stakeholders stand to save more than
$1 billion on costs related to compliance with the part 30
[[Page 70170]]
regulation, including developing and maintaining affirmative action
programs and complying with other part 30 requirements. The E.O.
directing Federal agencies to identify opportunities for increased
regulatory flexibility established the potential for financial relief
for the regulated community as a criterion for targeting burdensome
regulations. Eliminating the costs of compliance with the part 30
regulation further informs the Department's determination that this
final rule's significant revisions to the part 30 regulation are
necessary.
E. Goals of the Revised Part 30 Regulation
The fundamental aims of this final rule are threefold: (1) to
simplify sponsors' obligations with respect to nondiscrimination in
apprenticeship by affirming the applicability and sufficiency of
existing Federal and State laws governing nondiscrimination in the
workplace; (2) to rescind the regulatory, nonremedial affirmative
action mandate that the Department has imposed upon program sponsors
since 1971--a mandate that the Department is concerned would not
survive legal challenge and that was plainly inconsistent with the
policies underlying the statutory, apprenticeship-related,
nondiscrimination provisions of Title VII applicable to many of these
same sponsors; and (3) to reduce the regulatory and administrative
burdens on Registered Apprenticeship program sponsors--burdens that
could inhibit the accelerated establishment and expansion of such vital
workforce development programs--by removing all onerous, conflicting,
duplicative, or unnecessary requirements found in the part 30
regulation.
The Legal and Practical Challenges Imposed Upon Program Sponsors by the
Affirmative Action Provisions of the Part 30 Regulation
Alleviating the legal and practical challenges imposed on program
sponsors by the affirmative action provisions of the part 30 regulation
is a primary objective of the Department's final rule. As stated in the
foregoing section, the part 30 regulation's affirmative action mandate
for certain apprenticeship programs imposed an onerous administrative
burden upon these program sponsors and is inconsistent with this
Administration's efforts to enforce merit-based opportunity, as the
requirements may induce these sponsors to engage in the unequal and
illegal treatment of individual apprentices (as well as applicants for
apprenticeship) based upon their race, sex, or ethnicity.
In the public comments submitted to the Department in response to
the NPRM, several commenters discounted or glossed over the significant
and self-evident administrative burdens that the affirmative action
provisions of the part 30 regulation imposed upon certain program
sponsors, particularly those that operate small- and medium-sized
enterprises. These commenters opined that the affirmative action
provisions of the part 30 regulation imposed no undue burdens, simply
requiring certain sponsors (i.e., those that employ five or more
apprentices) to identify imbalances in the demographic composition of
the sponsor's apprenticeship workforce, to set ``aspirational'' hiring
goals based upon that analysis, and to make ``good faith'' efforts to
address such imbalances, while simultaneously adhering to the general
prohibition on making apprenticeship hiring decisions based upon an
applicant's race, ethnicity, or sex. These commenters, however, failed
to either recognize or acknowledge that the part 30 regulation's
nondiscrimination and affirmative action provisions, taken together,
imposed fundamentally contradictory and irreconcilable legal mandates
upon apprenticeship programs.
The internally inconsistent regulatory requirements contained in
the part 30 regulation are illustrated by examining the content of the
affirmative action provisions of that regulation at Sec. 30.4. While
Sec. 30.4(a)(5) states that the ``commitments made in an affirmative
action program are not intended and must not be used to discriminate
against any qualified applicant or apprentice'' on the basis of race,
color, religion, sex, disability, age or national origin, Sec.
30.4(a)(2) admonishes sponsors that ``if women, individuals with
disabilities, or individuals from a particular minority group . . . are
not being admitted into apprenticeship at a rate to be expected given
their availability in the relevant labor pool, the sponsor's
affirmative action program must include specific, practical steps
designed to address any barriers to equal opportunity that may be
contributing to this underutilization.'' Such ``practical steps'' will
frequently involve the establishment of ``utilization goals'' based
upon an individual's race, sex, and ethnicity to address such
demographic imbalances in the apprenticeship program's workforce (see
Sec. 30.4(d)).
The fundamental policy premise underlying the affirmative action
provisions contained in the part 30 regulation was that ``absent
discrimination, over time a sponsor's apprenticeship program,
generally, will reflect the sex, race, ethnicity, and disability
profile of the labor pools from which the [apprenticeship] sponsor
recruits and selects.'' See 29 CFR 30.4(a)(2). This premise was and is
constitutionally dubious, however, and the Department's concomitant
regulatory requirement of setting utilization goals in the hiring of
apprentices based upon the race, sex, and ethnicity of a program
applicant had the effect of inducing program sponsors to meet such
numerical targets. The mandating of such numerical hiring goals,
combined with the prospect of apprenticeship program deregistration for
failing to take ``good faith efforts'' to meet such goals, plainly
incentivized employers to engage in legally questionable, group-based
preferential hiring practices in order to prevent an administrative
finding by the Department that they had failed to engage in such
affirmative action efforts.
The part 30 regulation (at 29 CFR 30.5(b)) further stipulated that
sponsors with 5 or more apprentices enrolled in their programs conduct,
at least once every 3 years, detailed demographic and utilization
analyses to assess and address the existence of imbalances with respect
to certain demographic groups enrolled in their programs. By requiring
the permanent, ongoing conduct of such analyses by certain program
sponsors--and potentially requiring the establishment of group-based
numerical hiring goals based upon the results--this regulatory
provision constituted a mandate that such sponsors not only strive to
achieve, but also continuously maintain, a demographic ``balance'' in
their apprenticeship programs based upon race, sex, and ethnicity. Such
a regulatory purpose, however, was and is plainly contrary to the
fundamental policy thrust of Title VII, as demonstrated by the text of
section 703(j) of the Act (discussed supra) and by the following
passage contained in an interpretative, joint memorandum drafted by
Senators Joseph Clark of Pennsylvania and Clifford Case of New Jersey
that was addressed to their Senate colleagues at the time of the floor
debate on H.R. 7152 (the bill that was later enacted by Congress as the
Act): ``There is no requirement in Title VII that an employer maintain
a racial balance in his work force. On the contrary, any deliberate
attempt to maintain a racial balance, whatever such a balance may be,
would involve a violation of Title VII because maintaining such a
balance
[[Page 70171]]
would require an employer to hire or refuse to hire on the basis of
race . . .'' 110 Cong. Rec. 7213 (1964). This joint statement by
Senators Clark and Case neatly encapsulates the inescapable legal and
practical dilemmas faced by Title VII-covered Registered Apprenticeship
programs that attempted to comply in good faith with the open-ended,
compulsory, nonremedial, and legally questionable affirmative action
requirements that were contained in the part 30 regulation.
Accordingly, by rescinding the affirmative action requirements
contained in the part 30 regulation, this final rule relieves
Registered Apprenticeship program sponsors from vexing legal and
practical dilemmas, while ensuring that an individual's admission to a
Registered Apprenticeship program is made on a nondiscriminatory basis
and solely on the basis of their qualifications compared to those of
other applicants. The Department is confident that the provision of
such regulatory relief to a large segment of program sponsors will
accelerate the establishment and expansion of Registered Apprenticeship
programs, resulting in a more skilled and productive American
workforce.
Alleviating Undue Regulatory Burdens for Registered Apprenticeship
Stakeholders
The Department has determined that the changes to the part 30
regulation codified in this final rule serve the Department's ongoing
policy goal of expanding the Registered Apprenticeship model and its
imprint on the national economy, a goal which aligns with the
Administration's directive to the Department to expand Registered
Apprenticeship and to achieve and surpass 1 million active apprentices.
The part 30 regulation included a wide range of requirements that
imposed administrative and financial burdens on Registered
Apprenticeship program sponsors, and the Department expects that the
rescission of these requirements will have a significant impact on
Registered Apprenticeship program expansion. In particular, the
Department expects that the rescission of the general obligation to
engage in affirmative action for all sponsors, and the affirmative
action program requirement for programs with five or more apprentices,
will attract new sponsors to the National Apprenticeship System and
encourage existing sponsors to expand their programs by substantially
reducing the administrative burden necessary to establish and maintain
a Registered Apprenticeship program.
E.O. 14192 directed Federal agencies to identify and rescind
regulations that impose significant administrative or financial burdens
(including on American businesses). The burdensome administrative
requirements of the part 30 regulation began impacting Registered
Apprenticeship programs from their very inception, even before they are
registered with a Registration Agency. Registration of a program
depends on compliance with the requirements at parts 29 and 30, and
sponsors must review both parts to understand what elements they need
to develop or commit to at the program development stage. Under the
part 30 regulation, all prospective program sponsors were required to
identify their process for the selection of apprentices (per Sec.
30.10); identify staff responsible for overseeing the program's
commitment to equal opportunity (per Sec. 30.3(b)(1)); develop and
disseminate an equal opportunity policy, including posting the Equal
Opportunity pledge in the program's standards and at sites where
apprentices are trained (per Sec. 30.3(b)(2)); and plan for and
address various other requirements, all before their program was even
registered. These requirements presented challenges for prospective
sponsors new to the system in designing Registered Apprenticeship
programs that satisfied all of the requirements contained in parts 29
and 30.
In Registered Apprenticeship, compulsory affirmative action
programs were the clearest example of regulatory requirements that
imposed significant administrative and financial burdens on the
regulated community, without providing tangible benefits to either the
regulated entities, the individuals they serve, or the Federal
Government. Under the part 30 regulation, all sponsors had a general
duty to engage in affirmative action. In addition, sponsors with five
or more apprentices were required to develop and adhere to affirmative
action programs, including creating and updating a written document
that memorializes the affirmative action program (per Sec. 30.4(e)).
The part 30 regulation required sponsors to include in their written
affirmative action program, and adopt as an ongoing operational
practice, a utilization analysis examining race, sex, and ethnicity,
utilization goals for race, sex, and ethnicity; a utilization analysis
and goal for individuals with disabilities; targeted outreach,
recruitment, and retention policies; ongoing review of personnel
policies; and annual reminders to apprentices to voluntarily disclose
their disability status. These requirements were detailed at Sec. Sec.
30.4 through 30.9 and 30.11 of the part 30 regulation.
Developing and maintaining an affirmative action program was a
significant undertaking for Registered Apprenticeship program sponsors
under the existing part 30 regulation, and OA provided significant
technical assistance to both prospective and existing programs to
explain these requirements. As affirmed by commenters in the public
comments received in response to the Department's NPRM, some commenters
reported investing significant administrative and financial resources
in-house (or even externally, with consultants or outside legal
assistance) to train staff, conduct the required analyses objectively
and accurately, and address any legal issues related to apprentice
recruitment, hiring, and retention policies. The development of an
affirmative action program has been a resource-intensive undertaking
for many sponsors (even with the 2-year timeframe from the point of
program registration that new sponsors were allowed to develop the plan
at Sec. 30.4(e)(1)(ii)), a mandate which significantly complicated the
efforts of sponsors in establishing and maintaining their
apprenticeship programs. Many sponsors also faced ongoing and
significant administrative burdens related to establishing and
maintaining affirmative action programs, including conducting the
required analyses, and updating their written plan every time the
sponsor completes such analyses.
Aside from the foregoing administrative elements of developing and
maintaining affirmative action programs, the part 30 regulation imposed
regulatory burdens on Registered Apprenticeship program sponsors by
dictating key aspects of their recruitment, hiring, and retention
policies through utilization analyses that incentivized them to
consider arbitrary aspects of applicants' backgrounds--namely, their
group-based demographic characteristics. In the case of individuals
with disabilities, the requirement even extended to setting a fixed
percentage utilization goal that sponsors were charged with meeting,
which created an even more prescriptive framework that infringed on a
sponsor's freedom to make hiring decisions based purely on their
business and workforce needs.
Several commenters advocated for the retention of the existing part
30 regulation, asserting that its requirements were instrumental in
raising rates of participation in
[[Page 70172]]
Registered Apprenticeship programs by women and minority groups.
However, as detailed later in this preamble, the Department maintains
that the correlation posited by these commenters between post-2016
participation outcomes for certain demographic groups and the part 30
regulation's affirmative action requirements is inconclusive. Moreover,
such statistical inferences do not alter the fundamental and
inescapable reality that compulsory, nonremedial, group-based
preferences and affirmative action schemes are inherently
discriminatory--and therefore legally suspect--because they treat
individuals differently based upon their race, sex, or ethnicity.
Accordingly, any arguments advanced to justify affirmative action
arrangements that are based upon the general notion of achieving and
maintaining greater demographic ``balance'' or ``diversity'' in the
apprenticeship workforce are not only contrary to the principle of
hiring individuals solely on the basis of merit and without reference
to their ancestry or group identity, but are also unlikely to withstand
legal scrutiny by the courts. Even a noted proponent of affirmative
action based upon race, Professor Randall Kennedy of the Harvard Law
School, has candidly acknowledged that ``[r]acial affirmative action
does distinguish between people on a racial basis. It does
discriminate. It does redistribute resources. It does favor preferred
racial categories of candidates . . . It does generate stigma and
resentment. These issues cannot be hidden for long behind verbal tricks
(emphasis in original).'' \26\ Similarly, any system of group-based
hiring preferences that makes distinctions among individuals based upon
their sex or ethnicity is inherently discriminatory in its purpose and
effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Randall Kennedy, For Discrimination: Race, Affirmative
Action, and the Law (Pantheon Books, New York, 2013), pp. 18-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In issuing this final rule prohibiting illegal discrimination in
Registered Apprenticeship programs, the Department seeks to ensure that
a candidate's admission to such a training program is based solely upon
their individual merit and their demonstrated potential for success.
Accordingly, such an approach necessitates the rescission of all of the
part 30 regulatory provisions that imposed affirmative action
requirements on sponsors (such as those setting numerical, nonremedial
hiring goals in the selection of apprentices based upon an individual's
race, sex, ethnicity, religion, or national origin), as such mandates
are contrary to the fundamental goal of guaranteeing genuine equality
of opportunity for each and every American who participates in the
workforce. At a time when the accelerated expansion of Registered
Apprenticeship training is needed to equip American workers of all
backgrounds with the occupational skills they need to succeed in a
competitive global marketplace, it is essential that the Department
rescind such burdensome and legally vulnerable regulatory provisions
that could effectively inhibit the growth of this proven workforce
development model.
III. Overview of the Revised Part 30 Regulation
A. Summary of the Final Rule's Provisions
This final rule rescinds or significantly revises the burdensome
requirements of the part 30 regulation and replaces them with a more
straightforward Federal standard for nondiscrimination in Registered
Apprenticeship. The final rule explains how Registration Agencies will
monitor and enforce program sponsors' compliance with the revised part
30 regulation. The final rule also changes requirements for SAAs
related to the part 30 regulation and clarifies the Department's
expectation that Registered Apprenticeship program sponsors must not be
subject to inhibitive or contradictory nondiscrimination requirements
in apprenticeship laws or regulations across States. With this final
rule, the Department eliminates the apprenticeship-specific framework
for EEO and nondiscrimination contained in the part 30 regulation.
Under the part 30 regulation as revised by this final rule, program
sponsors are still bound by a firm nondiscrimination requirement that
clearly incorporates applicable Federal and State laws and regulations
prohibiting illegal discrimination on the basis of race, color,
religion, national origin, sex, age, genetic information, or
disability. Under this final rule, Registered Apprenticeship program
sponsors are no longer bound by a separate, apprenticeship-specific,
and administratively burdensome nondiscrimination framework.
This final rule's purpose and applicability section, at 29 CFR
30.1, lays out the Department's intent for the part 30 regulation going
forward--to establish a ``uniform Federal standard prohibiting illegal
discrimination against apprentices (including applicants for
apprenticeship)'' and to clarify the scope of enforcement and
compliance assistance by Registration Agencies (either OA or an SAA).
Section 30.1 also clarifies that the part 30 regulation applies to all
sponsors of Registered Apprenticeship programs, whether registered by
OA or an SAA. It eliminates the prior part 30 regulation's Sec.
30.1(c) on the regulation's ``relationship to other laws,'' which is
covered under the revised Sec. 30.3. The final rule also rescinds
definitions specific to the part 30 regulation and instead clarifies
that definitions contained in the part 29 regulation (at 29 CFR 29.2)
also apply to part 30. The prior part 30 regulation's definition
section contained definitions already established in the part 29
regulation, or definitions specific to the prior part 30 regulation's
requirements that are being rescinded in this final rule.
This final rule establishes the streamlined and clarified
nondiscrimination requirement for all Registered Apprenticeship program
sponsors at 29 CFR 30.3. The updated Sec. 30.3 language requires that
Registered Apprenticeship program sponsors must comply with all
applicable Federal and State laws prohibiting illegal discrimination on
the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age (40 or
older), genetic information, or disability. The Department notes that
these protected characteristics align with the Federal
nondiscrimination protections contained in Title VII of the Act and
subsequent nondiscrimination statutes enacted by Congress, including
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA),\27\ the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA),\28\ and title II of the
Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008.\29\ This section
also lays out, at a high level, the consequences of a failure to comply
with this nondiscrimination requirement, which include enforcement
actions up to and including deregistration of the Registered
Apprenticeship program. Under Sec. 30.3, apprentices and applicants
for apprenticeship are protected from discrimination ``with respect to
any benefit, term, or condition of employment associated with an
apprenticeship.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ 29 U.S.C. ch. 14.
\28\ 42 U.S.C. ch. 126.
\29\ 42 U.S.C. ch. 21F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This final rule eliminates the EEO requirements applicable to all
sponsors contained in part 30 regulation at Sec. 30.3, as well as the
regulation's affirmative action program requirements which are
referenced at Sec. 30.3 and elaborated on at Sec. Sec. 30.4 through
30.9 and 30.11. These sections included a description of the
[[Page 70173]]
rule's prohibition on discrimination and discrimination standards and
defenses; the general duty to engage in affirmative action applicable
to all sponsors; the requirement to develop and disseminate an equal
opportunity policy and post an Equal Opportunity pledge; universal
outreach and recruitment requirements applicable to all sponsors; a
prohibition on harassment, intimidation, and retaliation specific to
apprenticeship; and the requirement for sponsors with five or more
apprentices to establish demographic utilization goals (when
appropriate) and maintain an affirmative action program.
This final rule eliminates the part 30 regulation's requirement (at
Sec. 30.11) that sponsors invite apprentices to voluntarily disclose
their disability status upon enrollment in the program and annually
thereafter. Under this final rule, however, apprentices are not
precluded from voluntarily disclosing their disability status to
Registered Apprenticeship program sponsors and are encouraged to do so,
especially if they need to request reasonable accommodation related to
their disability. In rescinding the part 30 regulation's affirmative
action program requirements, the Department also eliminates the
requirement that Registered Apprenticeship program sponsors conduct
utilization analyses for individuals with disabilities and pursue a
utilization goal for such persons established by the Administrator. The
final rule also rescinds the part 30 regulation's requirements for
sponsors related to the procedure for the selection of apprentices (at
Sec. 30.10), the recordkeeping requirements related to the part 30
regulation (at Sec. 30.12), and the apprenticeship-specific
prohibition against intimidation and retaliation (at Sec. 30.17).
The final rule updates the part 30 regulation's section on
complaints to clarify that complaints alleging illegal discrimination
against apprentices should be referred to the EEOC or another relevant
enforcement agency with the jurisdiction and expertise to adequately
investigate and potentially remedy the issue. Under current practice,
apprentices may submit complaints alleging instances of discrimination
or other violations of part 30 requirements through ETA Form 9039 to
the Registration Agency. In practice, Registration Agencies then
forward complaints to the most relevant nondiscrimination enforcement
agency, including the EEOC, the U.S. Attorney General, or a State-level
Fair Employment Practices Agency (FEPA). The part 30 regulation
contained a requirement for Registration Agencies to conduct
investigations and provide written notice of findings to the respondent
and the complainant, along with other regulatory requirements outlining
who can file complaints, what information must be included in the
complaint, a requirement for sponsors to provide written notice to
apprentices of their right to file complaints, and a requirement for
the Registration Agency to ``attempt to resolve the matter quickly . .
. whenever appropriate'' (at Sec. 30.14(c)(2)).
The revised part 30 regulation's section on complaints, at Sec.
30.4 of this final rule, removes the investigative requirements for
Registration Agencies and the notice requirement for program sponsors.
The final rule establishes a simpler and less duplicative process that
recognizes that the investigation and adjudication of complaints
alleging illegal discrimination should be conducted by the appropriate
investigative and enforcement agency. The revised section on complaints
at Sec. 30.4 of this final rule states that Registration Agencies in
receipt of complaints alleging illegal discrimination against
apprentices will ``immediately'' refer the complainant to the EEOC, the
U.S. Attorney General, a State FEPA, or another appropriate enforcement
entity. In accordance with this change to the part 30 regulation, the
Department is also rescinding ETA Form 9039.
The part 30 regulation, as finalized in this rulemaking, also
revises the process for Registration Agencies to assess compliance with
part 30 requirements. The section on nondiscrimination compliance
reviews and enforcement, at Sec. 30.5 of this final rule, revises the
current part 30 regulation's section on EEO compliance reviews (at
Sec. 30.13) to align with the content of the updated part 30
regulation and its streamlined nondiscrimination in apprenticeship
requirement for program sponsors. Section 30.5 of this final rule
clarifies that Registration Agency reviews for part 30 compliance will
occur when a program is assessed for compliance with the part 29
regulation. The final rule's revised compliance review and enforcement
section stipulates that a Registration Agency may initiate enforcement
actions against a sponsor for failing to comply with the final rule's
nondiscrimination requirement at Sec. 30.3 when a final determination
of a violation of an applicable nondiscrimination law (without any
remaining right to appeal) has been made by an enforcement agency or
court with jurisdiction over the matter and the authority to issue such
final determinations.
This revision aligns with the change in the complaints section that
eliminates the Registration Agency's duplicative role in investigating
and adjudicating instances of alleged illegal discrimination against
apprentices. Registration Agency staff, whether employed by OA or an
SAA, lack the subject-matter background, expertise, and jurisdictional
authority to investigate or adjudicate potential violations of Federal
or State nondiscrimination law that FEPAs or courts possess. This final
rule therefore returns this function and responsibility to the agencies
and courts that do possess such authority. To provide additional
clarity on the compliance framework for the part 30 regulation, the
Department has added a provision in this final rule that requires
sponsors to disclose to the Registration Agency any instances when a
relevant enforcement entity or court has made a final determination
that an applicable nondiscrimination violation has occurred with
respect to an apprentice or applicant for apprenticeship in their
Registered Apprenticeship program. This addition in the final rule is
responsive to public comments that requested additional clarity on the
compliance framework and will promote transparency and accountability
regarding Registered Apprenticeship programs' adherence to applicable
nondiscrimination laws.
Section 30.5(c) of this final rule stipulates that the Registration
Agency may work with a sponsor who is the subject of a final
determination from an enforcement entity or court to develop a
compliance action plan, in alignment with any remedies prescribed by
the enforcement entity or court. A sponsor's failure to adhere to such
compliance action plans may lead to additional enforcement actions,
including the suspension of the sponsor's right to register new
apprentices or the initiation of full deregistration proceedings (as
described in the part 29 regulation at Sec. 29.8). In addition to
requiring sponsors to disclose any final determinations to the
Registration Agency, the Department has added a provision requiring
sponsors to disclose to the Registration Agency any remedies prescribed
by the enforcement entity or court that issued the final determination.
Section 30.6 of this final rule carries forward the reinstatement
of the program registration section of the part 30 regulation (at Sec.
30.16). This section allows programs that have been deregistered
pursuant to a violation of
[[Page 70174]]
the part 30 nondiscrimination requirement to present evidence in
support of reinstatement and permits Registration Agencies to reinstate
programs in instances where such evidence is determined to be adequate.
This final rule also includes significant revisions to the part 30
regulation's requirements for SAAs, which are contained in Sec. 30.7
of this final rule. This section stipulates that, within 1 year of the
effective date of this final rule, State agencies seeking to obtain or
maintain recognition as an SAA must submit a State plan for
nondiscrimination in apprenticeship that demonstrates that the State's
laws, regulations, policies, and operational procedures specific to
nondiscrimination or equal opportunity in apprenticeship conform to the
requirements of the part 30 regulation. In this final rule, the
Department updated the language at Sec. 30.7 based, in part, on public
comments received on the NPRM, which proposed that States' laws and
regulations conform only to the part 30 regulation. To better align
with the Department's intention to create a more uniform set of
requirements for all Registered Apprenticeship programs as set forth in
the NPRM, this final rule clarifies that State laws and regulations
must conform to the part 30 Federal standard, and that the Department
will only assess State laws and regulations specific to
nondiscrimination or equal opportunity in apprenticeship for conformity
with part 30.
A primary goal motivating the Department's determination to update
the part 30 regulation is the establishment of a uniform Federal
standard for nondiscrimination in apprenticeship. Registered
Apprenticeship stakeholders, particularly those with a national or
multi-regional interest and operational imprint, have long requested
that the Department promote a more coherent National Apprenticeship
System, where Registered Apprenticeship stakeholders are not faced with
conflicting or contradictory requirements depending on where their
program operates. The Department has determined that establishing a
uniform Federal standard for nondiscrimination in apprenticeship serves
this goal and will work with States to identify discrepancies in
nondiscrimination requirements for apprenticeship stakeholders that
must be resolved under this final rule's requirement that State laws
and regulations conform to the Federal standard in the part 30
regulation.
Section 30.7 of this final rule requires States seeking new or
continued recognition as a SAA to submit their State laws and
regulations in a State plan for nondiscrimination in apprenticeship and
lays out the required elements and the Department's process for
reviewing State plans. To determine whether the State plan conforms to
the part 30 regulation, the Department will consider whether the
State's laws and regulations include nondiscrimination or equal
opportunity elements that constitute a separate, State-level legal or
regulatory compliance framework specific to apprenticeship, and whether
such laws and regulations would serve to restrict the growth and impact
of Registered Apprenticeship in the State by imposing administrative
barriers, excessive costs, or requirements that conflict with Federal
or State nondiscrimination laws. OA will review State laws and
regulations on a case-by-case basis and will provide technical
assistance to States as needed to identify which elements of State laws
and regulations do or do not conform to the Federal part 30 regulation.
The Department's decision to modify the regulatory language
proposed in the NPRM to require that State laws and regulations
``conform to'' (rather than ``conform only to'') the part 30 regulation
aligns with the existing regulatory language found in the part 29
regulation governing labor standards for Registered Apprenticeship
programs and the recognition of SAAs. Specifically, this change aligns
with the regulatory language at 29 CFR 29.13(a)(1), which provides that
States' apprenticeship laws and regulations ``conform to'' the
requirements of the part 29 regulation. At Sec. 29.13(a)(5), the part
29 regulation requires that States submit ``a description of policies
and operating procedures which depart from or impose requirements in
addition to those prescribed in [the part 29 regulation].'' The
Department will apply this same approach in determining whether State
laws and regulations pertaining specifically to nondiscrimination or
equal opportunity in apprenticeship conform to the Federal
nondiscrimination in apprenticeship standard in this final rule. State
plans for nondiscrimination in apprenticeship must conform to the
revised part 30 regulation's prohibition on illegal discrimination
stated at Sec. 30.3, and must also describe any laws, regulations, or
policies that depart from or impose additional requirements on
Registered Apprenticeship program sponsors, including any
apprenticeship-specific equal employment laws or regulations. Examples
of nonconforming State laws or regulations include any laws or
regulations that establish unlawful compulsory, nonremedial group-based
preference schemes for sponsors, such as affirmative action programs,
or laws or regulations that establish burdensome restrictions or
administrative requirements specific to apprenticeship that could
restrict or inhibit the growth of Registered Apprenticeship programs or
that may conflict with the nondiscrimination requirements contained in
this final rule and in applicable Federal laws.
This final rule retains the exemptions provision from the part 30
regulation, redesignating the provision as Sec. 30.8 of this final
rule. This provision allows sponsors to request exemptions from the
part 30 regulation, ``or any part thereof,'' in writing, to the
Registration Agency, which may grant exemptions for good cause. The
provision also stipulates that SAAs must receive approval from the
Department before granting any exemptions to program sponsors in their
State. Finally, the final rule adds a severability provision (at Sec.
30.9). This provision stipulates that, should a court of competent
jurisdiction find that any provision of the revised part 30 regulation
is invalid, the finding will not impact any other provision of the
regulation.
B. The Role of Registration Agencies Under the Final Rule
The Department expects that this final rule will significantly
reduce administrative burdens for both Registered Apprenticeship
program sponsors and Registration Agency staff. The Department
recognizes that Registration Agency staff expertise is rooted in
analyzing labor standards for Registered Apprenticeship programs and
providing technical assistance to program sponsors. The prior
requirements of the 2016 version of the part 30 regulation introduced
an entirely separate set of issues that required a distinct expertise--
namely, the ability to provide technical assistance and oversight on
affirmative action programs and nondiscrimination and EEO matters. The
removal of these requirements in this final rule allows Registration
Agency staff to focus on the issues they know best--supporting quality
across all Registered Apprenticeship programs--and leaves the
investigation and adjudication of issues pertaining to
nondiscrimination and EEO to the agencies and courts that do possess
the appropriate expertise and jurisdiction.
The revised part 30 regulation requires that all sponsors of
Registered Apprenticeship programs adhere to applicable Federal and
State laws and
[[Page 70175]]
regulations prohibiting illegal discrimination. This streamlined
nondiscrimination requirement applies with respect to both apprentices
and applicants to an apprenticeship program, and covers any benefit,
term, or condition of employment associated with an apprenticeship.
Registration Agencies must begin enforcing this requirement on the
effective date of this final rule. Such enforcement will primarily
occur through program reviews, and a review for compliance with the
revised part 30 regulation will occur when the Registration Agency
conducts program reviews for compliance with the part 29 regulation.
Registered Apprenticeship programs will be deemed out of compliance
with the revised part 30 regulation only if a final determination of a
violation of an applicable nondiscrimination law against an apprentice
or an applicant to an apprenticeship program, without any remaining
right to appeal, is made by an enforcement agency or court with
jurisdiction over the matter.
To support accountability and transparency, the Department added a
provision to this final rule requiring sponsors to disclose any final
determinations from a relevant enforcement entity or court regarding
violations of applicable nondiscrimination law with respect to an
apprentice or applicant for apprenticeship to the Registration Agency,
as well as any remedies provided by such entities. To further support
awareness of any such final determinations regarding Registered
Apprenticeship programs, the Department recommends that Registration
Agencies consider establishing Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) or
other arrangements with these governmental enforcement agencies to
maintain awareness of any final determinations concerning
nondiscrimination violations against apprentices or applicants to an
apprenticeship program by Registered Apprenticeship programs in their
State. Registration Agencies may also consider contacting such
enforcement agencies when a program comes up for review to identify any
instances of final determinations concerning nondiscrimination
violations.
When such a final determination has been issued, the Registration
Agency may work with the program sponsor in question to develop a
compliance action plan to address and remedy the issue. Any such plans
must align with any remedies prescribed by the enforcement entity or
court that issued the final determination. The Department's addition of
a disclosure requirement in this final rule is intended to facilitate
alignment of compliance action plans with the remedies for
nondiscrimination violations prescribed by relevant enforcement
entities. Under this final rule, the Registration Agency must monitor
the sponsor's progress in implementing the compliance action plan and
remediating the issue. If the Registration Agency determines that the
sponsor is not following or implementing the compliance action plan,
the Registration Agency may initiate enforcement actions, including
suspension of the right to register new apprentices or the initiation
of deregistration proceedings. This framework ultimately reflects a
more efficient and fair approach to addressing instances of illegal
discrimination in Registered Apprenticeship that incorporates the
expertise, transparency, and due process protocols associated with
enforcement entities or courts with jurisdiction over such matters.
Under this final rule, Registration Agencies will no longer
investigate complaints alleging instances of illegal discrimination in
Registered Apprenticeship programs and will instead forward any such
complaints they receive to the relevant enforcement agency or court.
These entities include the EEOC, State-level FEPAs or their
equivalents, the U.S. Attorney General, or another appropriate
enforcement entity. Registration Agency staff are not equipped to
conduct such investigations, which require legal interpretations of
both the substance of the alleged complaint as well as any relevant
nondiscrimination laws or regulations.
Finally, SAAs, the State agencies recognized to perform the
functions of Registration Agencies under 29 CFR 29.13, must submit
State plans for nondiscrimination in apprenticeship that show their
State's laws, regulations, and policies pertaining specifically to
nondiscrimination or equal opportunity in apprenticeship conform to the
revised Federal part 30 regulation. With this final rule, the
Department requires any State seeking new or continued recognition as
an SAA to revise any aspects of State law, regulation, or policy
pertaining specifically to nondiscrimination or equal opportunity in
apprenticeship that do not conform to the Federal part 30 regulation.
This includes repealing, rescinding, or revising any such laws,
regulations, or policies that undermine the goals of this rulemaking,
such as overly burdensome requirements that may impede Registered
Apprenticeship expansion or requirements specific to nondiscrimination
or equal opportunity in apprenticeship that are inconsistent with
existing Federal or State nondiscrimination laws. The Department
expects that the Federal standard established in this final rule will
promote the expansion and success of Registered Apprenticeship programs
nationwide, and the Department will examine State laws and regulations
pertaining specifically to nondiscrimination or equal opportunity in
apprenticeship to verify that any additional State-level requirements
do not impose undue burdens on sponsors and do not adversely impact
efforts to expand Registered Apprenticeship.
C. Transition Timelines
This final rule is effective on January 5, 2027, 60 days from its
publication in the Federal Register. Registered Apprenticeship program
sponsors must comply with the final rule's streamlined
nondiscrimination requirement by this date, and Registration Agencies
must assess programs' compliance with this final rule starting on the
final rule's effective date. The Department determined that this
compliance timeline would be feasible because sponsors were already
required to comply with applicable Federal and State nondiscrimination
requirements, which is retained as the core nondiscrimination
requirement at Sec. 30.3 of this final rule. State agencies seeking
new or continued recognition as an SAA must submit State plans for
nondiscrimination in apprenticeship that conform to the final rule
within 1 year of the final rule's effective date. The Department will
provide technical assistance to all Registered Apprenticeship
stakeholders, including program sponsors and SAAs, on all aspects of
this final rule, including its transition timelines and the process for
requesting extension for good cause.
IV. Public Comments Received on the Proposed Rule
A. General Description of Comments
The Department received 372 public comment submissions, which
included a form letter campaign that accounted for 311 comments, and 56
unique comments. Additionally, five comments were duplicates or not
related to the subject of this rulemaking. The commenters represented a
range of stakeholders from the public, non-profit, and private sectors.
Public sector commenters included State and local government agencies
and elected officials. Non-profit sector commenters included think
tanks, advocacy groups, national and local labor unions,
[[Page 70176]]
professional associations, and trade associations. Private sector
commenters included employers, employer associations, and program
sponsors. The Department also received comments from individuals and
anonymous commenters. Below, the Department addresses general comments
on the proposed rule and the rulemaking process, and the section-by-
section discussion of this final rule (sections V and VI) addresses
comments about the specific regulatory changes the Department proposed
in the NPRM.
B. Requests To Extend the Comment Period and Comments on Public
Participation
Requests for Comment Period Extension
Comments: A commenter requested that the Department extend the
comment period for the proposed rule by 30 days to ensure that
interested parties have a meaningful opportunity to participate in the
rulemaking process. Another commenter requested a 45-day extension of
the comment period to allow them to develop more comprehensive and
well-supported commentary in support of the proposed rule.
Department Response: The Department maintains that the 60-day
comment period for public comments on the NPRM afforded stakeholders
and any interested members of the public with sufficient time and
opportunity to review the Department's proposal and rationale and
develop critical public comments. The Department notes that the 60-day
comment period aligns with the length of the comment period established
for its previous NPRM, National Apprenticeship System Enhancements (89
FR 3118, Jan. 17, 2024), which was a longer and more complex rule that
proposed additional regulatory requirements alongside rationale for
such additions. The Department further notes that a 30-day comment
period is generally considered to be the minimum period sufficient to
provide the public with a meaningful opportunity to comment on a
Federal agency rulemaking, and that Federal agencies often adhere to
this minimum timeframe. The Department's 60-day comment period for this
rulemaking is twice the length of this generally adhered to minimum
timeframe under the APA. Accordingly, the Department rejected requests
to extend the comment period and communicated this decision to public
commenters by posting a response letter to the public docket for the
NPRM indicating that the Department had received, and was rejecting,
requests to extend the comment period. This response provided
stakeholders with notice on the Department's decision with respect to
the comment period early in the comment period and affirmed that
commenters must submit their comments by September 2, 2025, as
communicated in the NPRM.
Comments on Public Participation and Other Concerns
Comments: A commenter expressed concern that the Department is
issuing overlapping regulations at an aggressive pace, and that this
makes it difficult for the public to provide meaningful assessments of
the proposals. The commenter recommended pausing the current suite of
regulatory efforts and taking time to assess their collective impact if
implemented, including by conducting a community impact assessment.
Similarly, another commenter expressed concern about the cumulative
impact of these rulemakings on women.
A commenter requested that the Department extend the comment period
for the proposed rule, particularly because the Department issued six
proposed rules on July 1 and 2, and stakeholders for those rules
significantly overlap; the commenter reasoned that this timing
undermines stakeholders' ability to assess and respond to the
proposals. The commenter recommended that the Department double the
length of the comment periods for each rule, or stagger their deadlines
to be no less than 21 days apart.
A commenter opposed the Department's statement that it ``reserves
the right to redact or refrain from posting sensitive information,
libelous, or otherwise inappropriate comments, including those that
contain obscene, indecent, or profane language; that contain threats or
defamatory statements; or that contain hate speech.'' The commenter
reasoned that terms like ``hate speech'' and ``inappropriate comments''
are vague and provide officials with too much discretion over what
commentary to publish, and that the First Amendment protects such
expression anyway.
Department Response: The Department maintains that the 60-day
comment period provided Registered Apprenticeship stakeholders with
ample time and opportunity to provide comprehensive reactions and
criticisms to its proposal to revise the part 30 regulation, and is in
keeping with the Department's practice of providing 60 days to comment
on apprenticeship NPRMs. The Department does not consider the issuance
of other NPRMs unrelated to the Registered Apprenticeship regulations
as sufficient rationale for extending the comment period for this
rulemaking, and rejected requests to extend the comment period beyond
the 60 days communicated in the NPRM early in the comment period for
this rulemaking.
The Department's statement that it reserves the right to redact
certain sensitive, libelous, or inappropriate information in posting
public comments reflects longstanding practice that is motivated by
several factors, including the need to redact personally identifiable
information or other sensitive personal information. In addition, while
commenters are free to submit comments that include profane or indecent
language, the Department is not obligated to post any such language
publicly. While the Department favors transparency in the rulemaking
process and has sought to establish transparency, as appropriate,
throughout the process, such comments are not suitable for public
posting and do not advance the public discourse on the proposal.
C. General Comments on the Proposed Rule
General Support
Comments: The Department received several general comments in
support of the proposed rule from public commenters, with some
commenters agreeing with the Department's assertions in the NPRM that
revising the part 30 regulation would reduce administrative burdens on
Registered Apprenticeship program sponsors and stimulate growth
throughout the National Apprenticeship System. Supportive commenters
argued that eliminating the part 30 regulation's affirmative action
requirements would make Registered Apprenticeship more attractive for
prospective program sponsors, especially for smaller businesses and
other stakeholders who view the extensive and complicated part 30
regulation as a barrier to entry into the National Apprenticeship
System.
Some supportive commenters remarked that the part 30 regulation may
have fostered discriminatory race-and sex-based preferences in
Registered Apprenticeship programs and expressed appreciation for the
Department's proposal to move to a merit-based system. Some commenters
characterized the proposal as a needed step towards achieving equal
opportunity in Registered Apprenticeship by removing what they referred
to as race-and sex-based mandates, with one commenter suggesting that
employers in their
[[Page 70177]]
industry were already incentivized to recruit inclusively due to
business needs or economic factors like labor shortages. Some
commenters supportive of the proposal also appreciated that, under the
Department's proposal to remove documentation and reporting
requirements related to affirmative action programs, sponsors would be
free to focus on developing quality training programs that serve the
needs of both employers and apprentices.
Department Response: The Department appreciates the comments
received in support of the proposed rule and the Department's objective
to streamline and align part 30 with existing Federal nondiscrimination
laws. The Department agrees with commenters who asserted that the
proposed rule would reduce unnecessary administrative burdens on
program sponsors, and with commenters who supported the Department's
goal of establishing a robust, merit-based framework for all qualified
Americans to enroll in an apprenticeship program.
The Department is committed to reducing duplicative or overlapping
requirements that fail to directly serve the National Apprenticeship
System. The Department agrees with commenters who agreed that
apprenticeship stakeholders should focus on the development of strong,
skills-based apprenticeship programs that effectively serve both
employers and apprentices. The Department further agrees with the
observation made by one commenter that competitive labor market
conditions found in a number of industries, including construction,
already necessitate broad recruitment from the available talent pool,
independent of regulatory reporting mandates. The Department concurs
that a streamlined regulatory framework that eliminates the requirement
to establish affirmative action plans, among other things, will allow
sponsors to focus on program quality.
General Opposition
Comments: The Department received comments opposing the proposed
rule, including some commenters who urged the Department to withdraw
the proposed rule. Some commenters generally argued that the
Department's proposal would undermine progress in expanding access to
Registered Apprenticeship for underrepresented groups. Some commenters
who opposed the proposed rule urged the Department to maintain the EEO,
affirmative action, or other requirements contained in the part 30
regulation, asserting that these requirements have made a difference in
increasing access to Registered Apprenticeship for underrepresented
groups. Some commenters urged the Department to focus more of its
efforts on implementing and enforcing the requirements contained in the
part 30 regulation to maximize their impact.
Department Response: The Department considered all public comments
received in response to the NPRM and acknowledges that some commenters
opposed the proposal and urged the Department to retain or strengthen
the part 30 regulation. As explained later in this final rule's
section-by-section discussion, the Department maintains that data on
demographic trends in Registered Apprenticeship is inconclusive with
respect to the correlation between the extensive EEO and affirmative
action requirements contained in the part 30 regulation and any
increases in participation by certain demographic groups. More
fundamentally, however, the Department maintains that any arguments
advanced to justify the retention of requirements intended to increase
diversity in Registered Apprenticeship are contrary to the underlying
purpose of this rulemaking, which is to ensure that apprentices are
hired and retained based solely on the basis of individual merit
without consideration of their race, sex, or ethnic origin. This final
rule also reflects the Department's position that establishing a clear,
consistent nondiscrimination standard for Registered Apprenticeship
program sponsors provides a more legally sound and practical framework
to support equal access to apprenticeship opportunities for all
qualified individuals.
General Comments on the Department's Rationale
Comments: Commenters provided general reactions to the Department's
rationale for the proposal, with some commenters arguing that the
Department had overstated or exaggerated the administrative burdens
associated with the part 30 regulation. Other commenters asserted that
the proposal would increase the prevalence of illegal discrimination in
Registered Apprenticeship, and that the Department was incorrect in
asserting that the proposal would clarify and strengthen
nondiscrimination requirements in Registered Apprenticeship. Some
commenters asserted that the proposal would restrict growth in
Registered Apprenticeship by removing affirmative action requirements
contained in the part 30 regulation, which the commenters described as
a necessary tool for establishing widespread and equitable access to
Registered Apprenticeship. One commenter critical of the proposal
argued that the Department sought to return to a ``bygone era'' when
discrimination was permissible and prevalent in Registered
Apprenticeship.
Department Response: The Department does not agree with commenters
who asserted that the NPRM overstated the administrative burden
associated with the part 30 regulation. The Department's conclusion
that the current regulatory framework imposes significant compliance
costs on program sponsors, as communicated in the NPRM and reinforced
in this final rule, is supported by ongoing analysis of empirical data,
including the economic analysis required under the rulemaking process.
The Department's conclusion that the part 30 regulation imposes
excessive administrative burdens on program sponsors is also supported
by OA's experience overseeing the administration of Registered
Apprenticeship programs. The Department has received consistent
feedback from sponsors and other apprenticeship stakeholders on the
administrative burden imposed by the part 30 regulation, including in
the public comments received in response to the NPRM. Registered
Apprenticeship stakeholders have consistently noted that program
sponsors must dedicate substantial staff time and resources to meet the
extensive requirements of the part 30 regulation.
Further, the Department maintains that some requirements contained
in the part 30 regulation may have improperly induced sponsors to hire
an apprentice based solely on their race, sex, or other demographic
characteristics. The Department has determined that establishing a
clearer and more concise nondiscrimination requirement for all
Registered Apprenticeship programs aligns the apprenticeship
regulations more closely with Federal nondiscrimination laws, and that
clarifying and simplifying regulatory compliance requirements for
program sponsors will support the expedited growth of Registered
Apprenticeship programs.
The Department firmly rejects some commenters' characterizations of
the proposal as a return to a ``bygone era'' that permitted
discrimination and maintains that this final rule does not weaken the
prohibition on illegal discrimination for all Registered Apprenticeship
programs. It is the Department's position that this final
[[Page 70178]]
rule reaffirms and reinforces a prohibition on illegal discrimination
by aligning the final part 30 regulation with established Federal
nondiscrimination law.
General Impacts on Registered Apprenticeship Programs
Comments: Several commenters expressed concern that the proposed
rule would undermine Registered Apprenticeship programs' efforts to
diversify programs and extend equal opportunities for all demographic
groups. One of these commenters argued that Registered Apprenticeship
programs can be a powerful tool for promoting economic mobility and
establishing greater equity in the workplace, and warned that removing
requirements to establish affirmative action plans would undo decades
of progress in remediating discrimination and improved labor market
outcomes for diverse groups. One commenter expressed concern that the
Department's proposal would eliminate their ability to market their
program to demographic groups that are underrepresented in their
program, which would shrink the available talent pool and restrict
apprenticeship growth.
Other commenters expressed concern about the impact of the proposed
rule on their specific programs, including one commenter who discussed
the proposal's potential impact on educator apprenticeship programs.
The commenter stated that all students should have access to teachers
who they relate to, who affirm their identities, and who teach with an
understanding of the cultural context of their lives. The commenter
added that when the teaching workforce is homogenous, students may feel
invisible, which harms their learning outcomes. Another commenter
asserted that the proposed rule would restrict active and expansive
recruitment efforts that address gaps in the educator workforce.
Department Response: The Department considered commenters' feedback
on the potential impact of the proposed rule on existing Registered
Apprenticeship programs and appreciates the opportunity to respond to
such comments in this final rule. The Department agrees with commenters
who asserted that Registered Apprenticeship is a pathway to greater
economic mobility and career development for all qualified individuals.
The Department does not agree that updating the part 30 regulation to
remove burdensome requirements for program sponsors will undermine
Registered Apprenticeship's efficacy or success as a strategy for
career development and improved economic mobility. The Department
emphasizes that Registered Apprenticeship opportunities will remain an
attractive and comprehensive professional development solution and
career path for all qualified individuals under this final rule.
Further, the Department expects that reducing regulatory burdens for
program sponsors will facilitate the expansion of the Registered
Apprenticeship model and increased opportunities for career seekers.
This final rule does not preclude Registered Apprenticeship program
sponsors from engaging in recruitment efforts that fit their business
needs, so long as such efforts do not constitute illegal discrimination
in violation of Federal or State nondiscrimination laws and the
streamlined nondiscrimination requirement for all sponsors at Sec.
30.3 of this final rule.
The Department acknowledges the important role that educator
apprenticeship programs can play in fortifying the teaching workforce.
The Department's final rule does not prohibit sponsors from engaging in
lawful recruitment efforts. Program sponsors, including those operating
educator apprenticeship programs, should retain significant flexibility
to design lawful outreach and recruitment strategies. The Department
maintains that reducing prescriptive Federal mandates for all
Registered Apprenticeship program sponsors, including those in the
education sector, will provide program sponsors with greater
flexibility in the design of their programs, including the structuring
of outreach and recruitment strategies that best serve a sponsor's
workforce needs.
General Comments on Economic Impacts
Comments: Some commenters cautioned that the proposed rule could
undermine participation in Registered Apprenticeship programs and
obstruct progress towards achieving the Trump administration's goal of
reaching 1 million active apprentices. One commenter added that the
proposed rule would derail innovative recruitment strategies in
apprenticeship and worsen the labor shortage in the construction
industry. Another commenter maintained that research shows that
workforce diversity, inclusion, and emotional intelligence are
essential for innovation, and warned that the proposed rule could
exacerbate labor shortages, especially in the construction industry,
and undermine U.S. global competitiveness. Similarly, another commenter
expressed concern that the proposed changes would create a less robust
pipeline to fill broadband jobs during a period of major expansion of
fiber-optic infrastructure.
Department Response: The Department does not agree with commenters
who asserted that updating the part 30 regulation to remove affirmative
action and other requirements will reduce participation in Registered
Apprenticeship programs. The Department expects that this final rule
will have the opposite effect, and that significantly revising the part
30 regulation by removing burdensome requirements for program sponsors
will drive expansion of the system. As such, this final rule aligns
with and supports the Administration's ambitious goals to expand
Registered Apprenticeship, along with other Administration directives
(such as the directive to reduce regulatory burdens contained in E.O.
14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation).
The Department also disagrees with the concern expressed by some
commenters that the rule will exacerbate labor shortages, including in
the construction industry. To the contrary, the Department expects that
this final rule will support the expansion of both existing and new
Registered Apprenticeship programs, including those in the construction
sector, by eliminating administrative burdens that serve as a barrier
to entry and an ongoing drain on administrative resources for program
sponsors. As such, the Department does not agree with the commenter who
suggested that the Department's proposal would undermine U.S. global
competitiveness. It is the Department's position that this final rule
will strengthen Registered Apprenticeship by replacing ineffective,
administratively burdensome, and likely unlawful affirmative action
requirements with a clearer and more concise nondiscrimination
requirement. The Department expects that eliminating these requirements
in favor of a system that prioritizes merit and employer needs will
strengthen U.S. businesses and bolster U.S. global competitiveness.
General Comments on Recommended Alternatives
Comments: Some commenters provided alternative suggestions to the
changes proposed in the NPRM, including simplifying the regulations and
compliance requirements or establishing a more concise set of EEO
requirements. One commenter supportive of the Department's proposal to
streamline nondiscrimination requirements suggested that the
[[Page 70179]]
Department consider funding incentives for sponsors who hire
apprentices from underrepresented groups, stating that this approach
would expand access to talent pools and maintain regulatory compliance.
Department Response: The Department appreciates that commenters
suggested alternative approaches to streamline the part 30 regulation,
and notes that this final rule aligns with commenters who generally
suggested that the Department should simplify nondiscrimination
requirements in the Federal regulations governing Registered
Apprenticeship. The Department further notes that establishing
financial incentives for sponsors to hire apprentices from
underrepresented groups is outside the scope of this final rule,
fundamentally at odds with the policy priorities of the Administration
and the Department, and potentially violates Federal law by
incentivizing race-based selections.
D. Comments on Regulatory History and the Background of the Proposed
Rule
Comments Regarding General History of Apprenticeship EEO Regulations
Comments: Several commenters provided remarks on the Department's
discussion of the history of the Registered Apprenticeship regulations,
including the part 30 regulation. Some commenters said that since 1937,
when the NAA was passed into law, the Department's apprenticeship
regulations have evolved, with a consistent focus on implementing the
NAA's directive to safeguard apprentice welfare. These commenters
argued that the proposed rule threatens to undermine this core
objective for the Department. The commenters added that EEO efforts
became a major component of the Department's role in protecting
apprentices' welfare due to a long history of racial and sex
discrimination. The commenters stated that the Department's oversight
and enforcement of regulatory requirements was central to the
Department's success in protecting apprentice welfare, citing research
that the commenter described as finding that weak oversight in the
1960s led to discrimination against Black apprentices with limited
consequences. The commenters added that the existing regulations
provide the Department with important regulatory tools for safeguarding
the welfare of apprentices, ensuring that apprentices are positioned to
succeed, and supporting an apprenticeship system that reflects the
breadth of workers and communities across the United States.
Another commenter added that early activism and executive actions,
specifically President Kennedy's 1963 E.O. 1114, was a ``directive for
the Federal government to require nondiscrimination in
apprenticeships.'' The commenter asserted that affirmative action in
apprenticeship programs has been key to addressing exclusion in the
trades, especially for young adults and youth with disabilities. A
commenter criticized the Department's goal of restoring the original
focus and purpose of the 1963 version of the regulation, reasoning that
the 1963 version did not prohibit discrimination based on sex,
including pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions, which
the commenter stated was both rampant and lawful at that time. A
different commenter stated that the most recent update to the part 30
regulation, finalized in 2016, expanded protected categories to align
with current employment discrimination law and employed a graduated
enforcement approach.
Another commenter also described the historical development of 29
CFR parts 29 and 30, agreeing with others that part 30 was initially
established in 1963 in response to E.O.s 10925 and 11114. However, the
commenter stated that since that time, employment law has matured with
the passage of Title VII of the Act, the ADEA, and the ADA, among other
laws. The commenter reasoned that, given these significant changes, it
is appropriate to revisit whether the standards imposed by part 30 are
necessary and whether they create unnecessary barriers to participation
in Registered Apprenticeship.
Department Response: The Department agrees with commenters who
noted that employment law has matured since the part 30 regulation was
initially promulgated in 1963, and that subsequent developments in the
legal framework for prohibiting discrimination in employment justify
the Department's proposal to revisit elements of the part 30 regulation
that may be duplicative or that may conflict with the existing set of
such laws. The Department notes that President Kennedy's memorandum
directive to the Secretary of Labor on June 4, 1963, (Statement on
Equal Employment Opportunity in Federal Apprenticeship and Construction
Programs) was implemented by the issuance of the first iteration of the
part 30 regulation (Nondiscrimination in Employment and Training) on
December 18, 1963 (28 FR 13775). However, the 1963 version of the part
30 regulation did not mandate that Registered Apprenticeship programs
establish nonremedial, compulsory affirmative action plans. As
described earlier in the preamble to this final rule, the Department
takes the position that affirmative action programs in apprenticeship
are inherently discriminatory, and therefore likely unlawful.
The Department disagrees with the commenter that characterized the
Department's proposal as an effort to restore the 1963 version of the
part 30 regulation, which did not protect against discrimination based
on sex, pregnancy, or childbirth. Under this final rule, the part 30
regulation does prohibit discrimination on such bases because it
requires compliance with all Federal nondiscrimination laws, including
Title VII. Further, the Department's role in providing technical
assistance, which one commenter characterized as an important tool for
protecting apprentice welfare, will continue under the final rule.
General Comments on the Department's Implementation of the Part 30
Regulation
Comments: A commenter asserted that the current regulations have
not been more effective because the Department adopted a prolonged,
phased approach to implementing the regulation's requirements. The
commenter asserted that the Department failed to fully phase in such
requirements, noting that sponsors were not required to fully implement
the changes finalized in the 2016 version of the part 30 regulation
until their first compliance reviews, with the first compliance reviews
reflecting updated part 30 requirements occurring after January 18,
2019. The commenter stated that, because those reviews occur on a 5-
year cycle, some sponsors may not have had their first review until
2024 (and further noting that in some SAA States, compliance was
delayed even further.)
The same commenter argued that the Department's implementation
efforts were inadequate for numerous reasons, including what the
commenter described as insufficient funding to implement the regulation
and OA's consistent failure to request adequate funding from Congress.
The commenter asserted that training for the Department's staff was
limited, and updates to OA's staff manual were slow, as were the
Department's efforts to make a data analysis tool available for the
utilization analyses required under the regulation. The commenter
asserted that OA's staff's efforts to implement the part 30 regulation
were diverted due to the Department's pursuit of an alternative
[[Page 70180]]
apprenticeship model during the first Trump Administration. The
commenter further noted that Circulars and Bulletins that conflicted
with the part 30 regulation remained published for years, and that the
Department failed to provide conforming templates for elements like
selection procedures to clarify the regulation's requirements for
program sponsors. The commenter also asserted that the Department was
slow to review States' required EEO plans, remarking that even now,
some States have failed to adopt conforming EEO plans.
Another commenter supportive of the existing part 30 regulation's
requirements agreed that stakeholder education regarding the part 30
regulation's requirements only began recently, and suggested that
increases in the number of females and African Americans in the trades,
while promising, may have been more substantial had there been greater
investment in oversight and enforcement of the current regulations.
A different commenter said that their Registered Apprenticeship
program had diligently implemented the requirements of the part 30
regulation, and that the regulation's requirements were helpful in
identifying a wider talent pool for recruitment. However, the commenter
added that they understand the Department's decision to revisit the
regulations due to the changing landscape in nondiscrimination law, and
acknowledged the Department's efforts to reduce regulatory complexity
and streamline the program registration process.
Department Response: The Department disagrees with commenters'
assertions that OA had failed to fully implement the part 30 regulation
in a timely or practical manner. The Department's 2016 final rule
establishing the most recent version of the part 30 regulation
contained different compliance timelines for distinct provisions of the
final rule, and the Department clearly communicated such timelines to
program sponsors in the final rule and in technical assistance provided
to sponsors and SAAs. OA staff did receive extensive training on the
part 30 regulation, and OA developed several resources to support
sponsor awareness and compliance with the regulation's numerous and
complex requirements.
Ultimately, the Department strongly disagrees with commenters'
assertions that implementation failures undermined the effectiveness of
the part 30 regulation. As one commenter conceded, sufficient time has
passed since the rule became effective for every sponsor to have
undergone at least one compliance review. The Department does agree
that sponsors and SAAs have experienced significant challenges in
complying with the part 30 regulation, and it attributes such
challenges to the complex and burdensome nature of the regulation.
Moreover, the requirement that sponsors adopt a form of affirmative
action predated the 2016 version of the part 30 regulation. In the
Department's view, there is no empirical evidence to suggest that the
effectiveness of the affirmative action requirements contained in any
version of the part 30 regulation has been adversely impacted by the
Department's implementation of such regulations.
E. Comments on Legal Authority
1. General Comments on the Department's Legal Authority
Comments: A few commenters argued that the proposed rule would not
satisfy the NAA's requirement that the Department promote labor
standards necessary to safeguard the welfare of apprentices. These
commenters asserted that the NAA charges the Department with
establishing standards stricter than those applicable to the general
workforce and that the proposed rule's limitations on Registration
Agencies' investigative and enforcement authority would reduce
apprentices' access to timely remedies. One commenter further argued
that the NAA requires the Department to balance employer burden against
apprentice protections, and that the proposed rule would deter sponsors
from maintaining such protections. The same commenter added that the
proposed rule would undermine the extensive network of labor-management
programs designed to increase apprenticeship participation.
Department Response: The Department has determined that it has the
authority under the NAA to promulgate this regulation. The NAA ``is
written in very broad terms'' and ``contains a wide grant of authority
to the Secretary of Labor.'' Gregory Elec. Co. v. U.S. Dep't of Labor,
268 F. Supp. 987, 991 (D.S.C. 1967). The NAA, in relevant part,
requires that the Department formulate and promote the furtherance of
labor standards necessary to safeguard the welfare of apprentices. The
NAA does not dictate that the Department follow a specific approach and
does not prescribe specific steps to safeguard the welfare of
apprentices.
The Department maintains that requiring program sponsors to
establish race-, ethnicity-, sex-, or disability-based utilization
goals, engage in affirmative action based upon protected
characteristics, or conduct employer-initiated inquiries into
disability status does not safeguard the welfare of apprentices.
Pursuing demographic balancing or proportional representation within
apprenticeship programs, in fact, threatens the welfare of apprentices
in that it undermines equal opportunity for all apprentices and
applicants.
As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, the race- and sex-based
affirmative action provisions of the prior regulation raise serious
constitutional concerns. Those provisions required covered sponsors to
conduct utilization analyses based on race, ethnicity, and sex,
establish utilization goals when underutilization was identified, and
undertake affirmative measures designed to address demographic
disparities. At the very least, these provisions trigger heightened
scrutiny under the Constitution's equal-protection principles. The
Department declines to exercise its authority in a way that
incentivizes sponsors to impermissibly consider protected
characteristics when making employment decisions.
The Department exercises its authority in line with the policy
choices expressed by Congress in other Federal civil rights statutes.
Congress has enacted comprehensive nondiscrimination laws governing
employment, including Title VII, and has expressly limited the reach of
some of those statutes to employers meeting specified coverage
thresholds. For example, Title VII generally applies only to employers
with fifteen or more employees. The Department is reluctant to construe
the NAA's vague and open-ended delegation as authorizing the Department
to impose obligations on small employers that Congress expressly chose
to exempt from nondiscrimination statutes. Furthermore, when Congress
intends to authorize or require affirmative action based on protected
characteristics, it generally does so expressly. See, e.g., section 503
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.\30\ Even assuming the NAA could be
construed to authorize such requirements, the Department declines to
exercise that authority and instead respects Congress's policy judgment
regarding the scope and applicability of Federal employment-
discrimination obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ 29 U.S.C. 793.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department has also explained below in this preamble that part
30's affirmative action requirements create significant tension with
Title VII's substantive protections. Such
[[Page 70181]]
requirements encouraged race- and sex-based employment practices that
conflict with Title VII's plain text prohibiting employment decisions
motivated by race, color, religion, sex, or national origin and that do
not fit comfortably within the narrow, judicially created exemption for
affirmative action. The Department is reluctant to exercise the NAA's
general grant of authority to maintain a regulatory scheme that creates
substantial tension with Title VII.
Similarly, the disability-related provisions of the prior
regulation created tension with the ADA. The prior regulation required
sponsors to invite applicants and apprentices to disclose disability
status upon enrollment and annually thereafter and required covered
sponsors to pursue a nationwide disability utilization goal established
by the Department. Section 102(d) of the ADA, however, prohibits
employer-initiated inquiries concerning disability status of applicants
and permits such inquiries of employees only in narrow, specified
circumstances.\31\ The Department is reluctant to exercise the NAA's
general grant of authority to broadly require employer-initiated
disability inquiries that are restricted under the ADA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See 42 U.S.C. 12112(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At bottom, the Department should exercise its authority under the
NAA to formulate and promote only labor standards that are consistent
with Federal statutes. That means the Department should not impose
nondiscrimination obligations on small businesses that Congress
expressly exempted, require sponsors to take action to meet race- and
sex-based goals that would be unlawful under Title VII, or mandate
employer-initiated inquiries of disability status that would run afoul
of the ADA's restrictions on such inquiries.
The Department also disagrees with commenters who claim the NAA
requires that the Department prescribe a heightened standard that is
different from existing laws that are applicable to the general public.
Rather, the Department has a wide grant of authority to determine the
approach necessary to safeguard the welfare of apprentices. As set
forth in the preamble to this final rule and in the section-by-section
discussion of the changes to specific provisions, the Department
determined that the revisions to the current part 30 will safeguard the
welfare of apprentices by aligning with existing legal authorities in
Federal and State law, ensuring that apprenticeship programs remain
aligned with the full scope of civil rights protections. Enforcement
agencies such as the EEOC and State FEPAs possess greater expertise in
discrimination law and broader authority to provide individualized
relief, including make-whole relief, than Registration Agencies.
Accordingly, relying on those enforcement mechanisms, rather than a
duplicative apprenticeship-specific process, will better protect
apprentices who experience unlawful discrimination.
The Department also disagrees with the commenter that asserted that
the proposed rule contradicts the labor-management provisions of the
NAA. The NAA, in relevant part, directs the Department to bring
together employers and labor for the formulation of programs of
apprenticeship. As set forth in the preamble of this final rule and in
the section-by-section analysis of the revisions to the current part
30, the Department has determined that the elimination of redundant,
and likely illegal, requirements and the reduction of administrative
burden will further the expansion and growth of the National
Apprenticeship System. Specifically, this final rule, contrary to the
commenter's assertion, promotes, rather than inhibits, the convening of
employers and labor to establish apprenticeship programs by lowering
barriers and associated burdens, consistent with the NAA.
2. Administrative Procedure Act
Comments: One commenter argued that the NPRM is unlawful or
violates the APA. Another commenter argued that the NPRM relies on
unsubstantiated problems, such as concerns about ``reverse
discrimination'' or pressures for sponsors to discriminate under the
2016 regulations. A commenter stated that, in contrast to the prior
rulemaking in 2016--which they said did review apprenticeship data and
analyze national labor force data to justify changes to the
regulation--the Department did not include any examples, a quantitative
analysis, or a factual record to support its claims under the NPRM. For
example, one commenter stated they were unable to find any examples of
recent EEOC charges brought against employers for discriminating
against White males in apprenticeship programs, construction jobs, or
trades jobs, while there are numerous examples of such cases concerning
discrimination against racial minorities. Another commenter asserted
that data demonstrates that discrimination against women and racial
minorities is still a real concern. This commenter further stated that
the Department ignored relevant available data and case law that did
not align with the arguments presented under the proposed rule.
Given these perceived issues, a commenter argued that the NPRM
failed to meet the APA standard that regulatory actions must examine
the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for the
action, including a rational connection between the facts found and the
choice made. Another commenter asserted that the NPRM lacks sufficient
data or a factual record, and therefore violates the APA's arbitrary
and capricious standard, and does not satisfy the APA requirements for
notice-and-comment rulemaking designed to ensure that the Department
has made an informed decision.
Department Response: As emphasized earlier in this preamble, the
Department takes the position that while program sponsors should be
held accountable for findings of illegal discrimination against
apprentices, the affirmative action provisions contained in the part 30
regulation do not prevent such discrimination, and, in fact, may induce
such discriminatory conduct by sponsors. The Department did not refer
to the concept of ``reverse discrimination'' in the preamble to the
NPRM; moreover, the Department's position, consistent with that of the
EEOC, is that there is no such thing as ``reverse'' discrimination;
there is only discrimination and workers are protected from such
discrimination under the Constitution and nondiscrimination laws
regardless of their race, ethnicity, or sex.\32\ As some commenters
noted, when the Department issued the 2016 version of part 30, the
preamble to the rule that appeared in the Federal Register stated that
Department had ``analyzed participant demographics in apprenticeship
programs . . . and the demographics of the national labor force'' and
had determined that ``notable disparities exist in apprenticeship
participation and completion.'' 81 FR 92028 (Dec. 19, 2016). However,
those comparative analyses of the prevalence of certain demographic
groups in the national apprenticeship workforce and in the broader
national labor force were incapable of establishing that such
demographic ``disparities'' were caused by, or were proof of,
discriminatory conduct by particular program sponsors. Rather, these
analyses were undertaken to support the Department's stated
[[Page 70182]]
policy goals at the time of ``[i]ncreasing diversity'' in Registered
Apprenticeship programs generally (81 FR 92027, Dec. 19, 2016) and of
addressing the ``underutilization of historically disadvantaged worker
groups in apprenticeship.'' 81 FR 92035 (Dec. 19, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ EEOC, ``What You Should Know About DEI-Related
Discrimination at Work,'' Question 4, <a href="https://www.eeoc.gov/wysk/what-you-should-know-about-dei-related-discrimination-work#_ednref7">https://www.eeoc.gov/wysk/what-you-should-know-about-dei-related-discrimination-work#_ednref7</a>
(last visited June 26, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, in issuing this final rule, the Department has determined
that the prior regulatory effort in part 30 to increase overall
demographic diversity in Registered Apprenticeship programs through the
establishment by certain apprenticeship programs of compulsory, group-
based numerical hiring goals--while also seeking to protect individual
apprentices in those programs against illegal employment discrimination
on the basis of race, sex, and ethnicity--imposed distinct and
fundamentally irreconcilable mandates on certain sponsors. Moreover,
the Department maintains that the obligation to set such apprenticeship
hiring goals in the existing and previous versions of part 30 were
inherently discriminatory and legally questionable because they induced
program sponsors to treat individuals differently based upon their
group-based demographic identities. Therefore, the Department's prior
analysis as to the prevalence of overall, global demographic
disparities among certain groups enrolled in Registered Apprenticeship
programs ought not be used to justify the retention of the compulsory,
burdensome, and legally questionable affirmative action requirements
contained in the existing part 30 regulation.
As some commenters noted, maintaining utilization goals that
classify apprentices on the basis of race, ethnicity, and sex may
induce sponsors to consider these protected bases as factors in their
employment decisions. The Department's concern about discrimination is
not unsubstantiated, as a commenter asserted. Rather, it is
substantiated by the text of the regulations. The absence of formal
complaints against sponsors for engaging in unlawful preferential
treatment neither disproves the existence of such treatment nor
undermines the Department's position that the part 30 affirmative
action provisions incentivize sponsors to use improper governmental
racial classifications in their selection decisions. See Lutheran
Church-Missouri Synod v. F.C.C., 154 F.3d 487, 492 (D.C. Cir. 1998)
(rejecting the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)'s argument that
strict scrutiny should not apply to its EEO regulations because there
was no evidence that a regulated entity had engaged in racial hiring,
stating that ``such an evidentiary obligation would turn equal
protection analysis inside out.''). The developing case law regarding
affirmative action also makes such classifications more vulnerable to
challenge than they have been in the past. See, e.g., Vitolo v. Guzman,
999 F. 3d 353 (6th Cir. 2021) (invalidating a program under the
American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 that disbursed funding to restaurant
owners on the basis of the applicants' race and sex); Mid-Am. Milling
Co., LLC v. United States Dep't of Transportation, No. 3:23-CV-00072-
GFVT, 2024 WL 4267183, at *7 (E.D. Ky. Sept. 23, 2024) (citing to SFFA
and finding that Plaintiffs were likely to succeed in their claim that
the Department of Transportation's use of race and sex-based
presumptions in the preferential award of Federal highway and transit
funds violated the Constitution's guarantee of Equal Protection),
opinion clarified, No. 3:23-CV-00072-GFVT, 2024 WL 4635430 (E.D. Ky.
Oct. 31, 2024); Ultima Servs. Corp. v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 683 F.
Supp. 3d 745, 764 (E.D. Tenn. 2023).
Regarding the Department's decision to rely on external enforcement
agencies to investigate allegations of illegal discrimination against
apprentices, the Department maintains that this will result in more
thorough investigations and more tailored, individualized remedies for
apprentices who experience illegal discrimination. In the nearly 10
years since part 30 was last updated, the Department has determined
that OA's limited expertise in nondiscrimination law and its inability
to provide individual remedies prevents it from effectively remedying
unlawful discrimination. The Department's reference in the NPRM to a
lack of complaints and enforcement actions under the existing part 30
was not meant to convey that there is no discrimination. Instead, in
the Department's view, the scarcity of complaints and enforcement
actions related to part 30 suggests that the apprentice-specific
enforcement scheme administered by the Department has provided little
relief to apprentices outside of what is otherwise available through
FEPAs, especially since the Department's usual practice has been to
refer any complaints alleging illegal discrimination to the EEOC.
Because of the lack of effective enforcement, growing legal risks,
and sponsor compliance costs under the current part 30, the Department
has concluded that it is inappropriate to maintain this race- and sex-
based approach to nondiscrimination in apprenticeship. Instead, the
Department contends that a more streamlined approach will help expand
apprenticeships for all workers and return the enforcement of
nondiscrimination laws to the agencies properly equipped for the task.
By accounting for these considerations in its determination that the
current part 30 regulation is no longer ``necessary to safeguard the
welfare of apprentices,'' \33\ the Department has clearly provided a
``reasoned explanation for the change,'' satisfying the APA's
requirements. Cboe Glob. Markets, Inc. v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 155
F.4th 704, 716 (D.C. Cir. 2025) (quoting Encino Motorcars, LLC v.
Navarro, 579 U.S. 211, 221 (2016)); see also Mozilla Corp. v. Fed.
Commc'ns Comm'n, 940 F.3d 1, 55-56 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (upholding the
FCC's adoption of a ``light-touch'' policy for governing internet
rather than maintaining a utility-style regulation where the FCC
determined that the harms the prior Order ``was designed to prevent did
not require the prior Order's regulatory measures but could instead be
mitigated--at a lower cost--with transparency requirements, consumer
protection, and antitrust enforcement measures'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ 29 U.S.C. 50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Comments on the Department's Goals for the Rulemaking
1. Ensuring Apprenticeship Regulations Comply With Nondiscrimination
Law
Comments on the Department's Interpretation of Students for Fair
Admissions v. Harvard
Comments: Some commenters stated that the Department misinterpreted
the Supreme Court's decision in SFFA in justifying the rescission of
the current part 30 regulations. These commenters reasoned that SFFA
held only that race cannot be explicitly considered as a factor in
individual higher education admissions decisions and did not address
race-neutral measures or outreach efforts in employment or training
contexts and, therefore, the Department's claim that the part 30
regulations ``closely resemble'' policies struck down by the Court is
false.
Commenters further argued that part 30 is distinguishable from the
type of affirmative action addressed in SFFA because part 30 expressly
prohibits selection preferences and also prohibits using quotas in the
context of apprenticeship programs, requiring only the establishment of
aspirational goals. Some commenters asserted that, under part 30,
Registered Apprenticeship program sponsors may be sanctioned for
falling short of the established target. A
[[Page 70183]]
couple of commenters also maintained that the Department did not offer
evidence that program sponsors were using protected characteristics in
hiring decisions.
One commenter opined that Registered Apprenticeship program
outreach is not ``zero sum,'' like the admissions processes addressed
in the SFFA decision, in that there are frequent occasions when
employer-demand outpaces the number of applicants requiring outreach,
and nothing in the SFFA decision would prevent labor training programs
from expanding selection pools by deploying targeted outreach as one
strategy for growth. This commenter stated that the need for joint
apprenticeship and training committees (JATCs) to engage in successful
outreach, recruitment, and retention programs is underscored by the
reality of acute, nationwide labor shortages for skilled labor in the
construction industry. Another commenter cited to cases that it claimed
upheld broad recruitment efforts like those conducted under part 30
because such measures function only to bring more candidates into
consideration while remaining race-neutral in the selection of
candidates.
Although the above commenters disagreed with the Department's use
of SFFA to support this rulemaking, other commenters who favored the
revision and streamlining of part 30 agreed with the Department's
position that SFFA is relevant, noting that the Constitution prohibits
actions that discriminate on the basis of race unless such measures are
narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. These
commenters cited several Supreme Court decisions, including the SFFA
ruling, which they said clarified that race-preferential educational
programs are illegal unless they satisfy the ``twin protections'' of
the Equal Protection Clause. Another commenter noted that in the SFFA
decision the court held that race-conscious admissions policies violate
the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that
existing regulations that establish a race-conscious preference would
not survive legal challenge. Yet another commenter stated that the
existing part 30 regulations require ``arbitrary line drawings''
related to ``race'' and ``national origin'' designations which have
been rejected by the Supreme Court.
Department Response: Commenters who suggested SFFA's reasoning is
cabined to the higher education context are mistaken. While SFFA was
decided in the context of university admissions, the decision rests on
longstanding and enduring equal-protection principles that predate and
extend well beyond that context, and it reaffirmed that race-based
governmental decision-making is presumptively invalid absent an
exceedingly narrow justification. The Department cited SFFA in the NPRM
precisely because it reaffirmed these bedrock equal-protection
principles. 90 FR 28950, 28955 (July 2, 2025). Indeed, the Supreme
Court recently relied upon SFFA outside the higher education context to
reiterate that ``the general rule [is] that the Constitution almost
never permits the Federal Government or a State to discriminate on the
basis of race. Such discrimination triggers strict scrutiny'' under the
Constitution's equal-protection guarantee. Louisiana v. Callais, 146 S.
Ct. 1131, 1152 (2026) (quoting SFFA, 600 U.S. at 207).
Lower courts have likewise relied on equal-protection principles
articulated in SFFA to halt or strike down race-based governmental
programs in a variety of contexts. See, e.g., Mid-Am. Milling Co., LLC
v. United States Dep't of Transportation, No. 3:23-CV-00072-GFVT, 2024
WL 4267183, at *7 (E.D. Ky. Sept. 23, 2024) (citing to SFFA and finding
that Plaintiffs were likely to succeed in their claim that the
Department of Transportation's use of race and sex-based presumptions
in the preferential award of Federal highway and transit funds violated
the Constitution's guarantee of Equal Protection), opinion clarified,
No. 3:23-CV-00072-GFVT, 2024 WL 4635430 (E.D. Ky. Oct. 31, 2024);
Ultima Servs. Corp. v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 683 F. Supp. 3d 745, 764
(E.D. Tenn. 2023) (citing SFFA and finding that the race-based
presumption used by the Small Business Administration (SBA) and the
Department of Agriculture in determining eligibility for preferencing
in Federal contract awards failed strict scrutiny).
Contrary to some commenters' assertions, the constitutional
relevance of SFFA does not depend upon whether apprenticeship programs
are analogous to university admissions programs. The question is
whether the government has employed racial classifications or induced
race-based decision-making. The affirmative action provisions of the
current part 30 regulation do exactly that. The regulation requires
covered sponsors to conduct utilization analyses based on race and
ethnicity, determine whether particular racial or ethnic groups are
``underutilized,'' establish race- and ethnicity-based utilization
goals, and undertake affirmative measures designed to address such
underutilization.
Although provisions in part 30 prohibit discrimination on the basis
of race, sex, and ethnicity, the regulation's race-based provisions
conflict with that legitimate mandate. Long before SFFA, courts
repeatedly held that governmental policies pressuring or encouraging
regulated entities to consider race in hiring, promotion, assignment,
or other employment decisions constitute racial classifications
attributable to the government. See, e.g., Monterey Mechanical Co. v.
Wilson, 125 F.3d 702, 710-13 (9th Cir. 1997); Lutheran Church--Missouri
Synod v. FCC, 141 F.3d 344, 351-54 (D.C. Cir. 1998); MD/DC/DE
Broadcasters Ass'n v. FCC, 236 F.3d 13, 19-20 (D.C. Cir. 2001). A
racial classification must survive strict scrutiny, meaning it must be
narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling governmental interest. SFFA,
600 U.S. at 206. Sex-based classifications may be sustained only if
they satisfy intermediate scrutiny--they must serve an important
governmental objective and are substantially related to the achievement
of that objective. Vitolo, 999 F.3d at 364 (citation modified).
As stated in the NPRM, the affirmative action provisions currently
found at 29 CFR 30.5(d) require covered sponsors to establish specific
numerical goals exclusively for the inclusion of women and racial and
ethnic minorities in the program. Contrary to the commenters'
assertion, the fact that part 30 requires setting ``utilization goals''
instead of ``quotas'' does not render these provisions race-neutral. It
simply does not matter ``whether a government hiring program imposes
hard quotas, soft quotas, or goals. Any one of these techniques induces
an employer to hire with an eye toward meeting the numerical target. As
such, they can and surely will result in individuals being granted a
preference because of their race.'' Lutheran Church, 141 F.3d at 354.
Nor does it matter that Sec. 30.4(a)(2) suggests that the race-based
regulations are needed to achieve a demographic balance that would
exist ``absent discrimination.'' 29 CFR 30.4(a)(2). As Chief Justice
Roberts explained nearly twenty years ago: ``The way to stop
discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the
basis of race.'' Parents Involved in Cmty. Schs. v. Seattle Sch. Dist.
No. 1, 551 U.S. 701, 748 (2007). That is because governmental actions
that create `` `[d]istinctions between citizens solely because of their
ancestry, are by their very nature odious to a free people whose
institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality.' '' Callais,
146 S. Ct.
[[Page 70184]]
1131, 1152 (quoting SFFA, 600 U.S. at 208).
Under the existing part 30, sponsors are also required to engage in
outreach targeted to specific groups, as well as other burdensome
activities when women or racial or ethnic minorities are
underrepresented. Thais targeted outreach based on race, ethnicity, and
sex, however, is legally vulnerable. See MD/DC/DE Broadcasters Ass'n v.
F.C.C., 236 F.3d 13, 20 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (disagreeing with the premise
that ``preferential recruiting `disadvantag[es] no one' '' and
subjecting the affirmative recruiting requirement to strict scrutiny).
This focus on ``utilization'' and race- or sex-based responses to such
underutilization undermines the justification that these goals and
targeted efforts are meant to achieve EEO for all apprentices. Cf.
Monterey Mech. Co. v. Wilson, 125 F.3d 702, 711 (9th Cir. 1997) (system
where contractors must subcontract percentages of work to minority or
female owned subcontractors or show good faith effort to comply with
the non-rigid ``goals'' is a racial classification under the Equal
Protection Clause).
The premise underlying part 30's affirmative action provisions was
that ``absent discrimination, over time a sponsor's apprenticeship
program, generally, will reflect the sex, race, ethnicity, and
disability profile of the labor pools from which the sponsor recruits
and selects.'' 29 CFR 30.4(a)(2). This premise, however, is flawed
because ``[i]t is completely unrealistic to assume that unlawful
discrimination is the sole cause of people's failing to gravitate to
jobs and employers in accord with the laws of chance.'' See Watson v.
Fort Worth Bank & Trust, 487 U.S. 977, 992 (1988). Section 30.4(a)(2)'s
``completely unrealistic'' premise also places unconstitutional
pressure on sponsors to reach these goals. ``The very term
`underrepresentation' necessarily implies that, if such a situation
exists, the [employer] is behaving in a manner that falls short of the
desired outcome. The regulations pressure [employers] to maintain a
workforce that mirrors the racial breakdown of their `metropolitan
statistical area.' '' Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod v. F.C.C., 141
F.3d 344, 352 (D.C. Cir. 1998). The presence of a numerical goal,
combined with the threat of deregistration for failing to take ``good
faith efforts'' to meet those goals, incentivizes sponsors to engage in
preferential hiring to avoid a finding that they have not engaged in
such efforts. Cf. Sussman v. Tanoue, 39 F. Supp. 2d 13, 26 (D.D.C.
1999) (finding that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's
affirmative action program need not be reviewed under strict scrutiny
because the office administering the affirmative action program ``had
no authority comparable to the threat of extended government audit,
license denial, and forfeiture which the Court of Appeals found would
inevitably convert a potential concern about under-representation on
the part of the FCC and the licensee into a hiring preference'').
To survive strict scrutiny, the Department would need to show that
the race-based provisions of part 30 serve a compelling state interest.
The Supreme Court's ``precedents have identified only two compelling
interests that can satisfy that standard.'' Callais, 146 S. Ct. at 1152
(quoting SFFA, 600 U.S. at 207). The first is ``avoiding imminent and
serious risks to human safety in prisons,'' Id., which plainly has no
application here. The second is ``remediating specific, identified
instances of past discrimination that violated the Constitution or a
statute.'' Id.; see also City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S.
469, 497 (1989). Generalized assertions of societal or industrywide
discrimination are insufficient to meet this standard, however; there
must be specific instances of past intentional discrimination in which
the Federal Government itself was an active or passive participant. Id.
at 498-500; see also Vitolo v. Guzman, 999 F.3d 353, 361 (6th Cir.
2021).
For the Department to impose the requirement to adopt race- and
ethnicity-based utilization goals on all sponsors, the Department would
need to show specific instances of its own participation in the
discrimination, rather than that it is seeking to rectify general
societal inequities. See Wygant v. Jackson Bd. of Educ., 476 U.S. 267,
275 (1986) (citing Hazelwood School District v. United States, 433 U.S.
299, 308 (1977) for the proposition that the Court focuses ``on prior
discrimination as the justification for, and the limitation on, a
State's adoption of race-based remedies''). The Department cannot meet
this standard as the past rulemaking record for part 30 has not
identified any such instances of past discrimination.
Furthermore, the utilization goals required by existing Sec. 30.6
lack narrow tailoring, as their application has no clear end, applies
regardless of occupation or industry, and the default data used to set
the goal is the respective group's representation in the civilian labor
force, a statistic that bears little relationship to any individual's
interest in and qualifications for an apprenticeship. See Rothe Dev.
Corp. v. Dep't of Def., 545 F.3d 1023, 1036 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
(identifying the ``relationship of the stated numerical goals to the
relevant labor market'' as a factor in determining narrow tailoring).
Similarly, the existing part 30 sex-based goals and related affirmative
action requirements are likely to trigger intermediate scrutiny, which
they are unlikely to survive. The government must show that the favored
sex ``actually suffer[ed] a disadvantage'' caused by discrimination in
a particular field or context that the policy is designed to remedy to
establish an important interest. Mississippi Univ. for Women v. Hogan,
458 U.S. 718, 727-29 (1982). Statistical disparities between workforce
composition and labor-market availability, standing alone, are
insufficient to demonstrate an important governmental objective to
remedy discrimination. See Vitolo, 999 F.3d at 364 (citing Craig v.
Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 200-04 (1976)). Absent evidence that women
suffered intentional discrimination in each of the specific trades or
occupations subject to regulation, sex-based classifications in the
form of goals cannot be justified as remedial measures. Id. at 365. For
the same reasons that the race- and ethnicity-based goals are unlikely
to demonstrate narrow tailoring, the sex-based goals are also unlikely
to be found to be substantially related to the goal of remedying
discrimination.
Given the constitutional infirmities created by the affirmative
action provisions, the Department chooses to devote its resources to
more supportable methods of expanding Registered Apprenticeship
opportunities. If sponsors found certain elements of their affirmative
action programs, such as their outreach or recruitment activities, to
be helpful, they are free to continue those practices to the extent
they are lawful. The Department is choosing, however, to no longer
require such practices of sponsors. As discussed below, there are more
effective and legally sound methods for protecting the welfare of
apprentices.
Comments on Part 30's Conflict With Title VII
Comments: A couple of commenters stated that, in the NPRM, the
Department incorrectly argued that the part 30 regulations violate
Title VII, and critiqued the Department's citation of the Ames v. Ohio
Department of Youth Services as an inaccurate basis for some of the
claims made by the Department in the NPRM. The commenters argued that
existing regulations do not alter terms or conditions of employment
[[Page 70185]]
based on race, ethnicity, or sex, and simply require organizations to
set aspirational goals which courts have permitted while prohibiting
programs from making discriminatory employment decisions. The
commenters maintained that the Ames decision determined that the
standard for all plaintiffs bringing suits under Title VII should be
the same regardless of whether they are a member of a historically
disadvantaged group, and did not address the legality of race and sex
neutral measures such as those required by part 30. One of these
commenters stated that DOL also claims that affirmative action
requirements in existing regulations cause employers to engage in
disparate treatment based on race, sex, and ethnicity, but does not
provide any evidence to support this claim. One commenter stated that
multiple court rulings have found that affirmative action plans similar
to the regulations in part 30 are permissible under Title VII. Another
commenter also argued that the Department's reliance on Ames is
inappropriate, reasoning that the decision focused on burden-shifting
standards in individual employment disputes, and adding that the Court
did not rule on the legality of proactive outreach, nonbinding
affirmative action plans, or utilization goals in federally
administered training programs.
A different commenter maintained that the existing regulations are
in tension with Title VII because they require non-exempt program
sponsors to take actions that Title VII prohibits. The commenter urged
DOL to incorporate these rationales in the final rule.
A couple of commenters remarked that the proposed rule would align
with several Administration E.O.s. One commenter stated that the
proposed rules logically follows from President Trump's January 21,
2025, E.O. 14173, ``Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-
Based Opportunity,'' and the reasoning underlying it.
Department Response: The Department maintains that the part 30
race-, ethnicity-, and sex-based affirmative action provisions are
vulnerable to challenge under both the Constitution, for the reasons
discussed above, and under Title VII. As E.O. 14173 makes clear,
Federal civil rights laws, including Title VII, ``serve as a bedrock
supporting equality of opportunity for all Americans'' and illegal
race- and sex-based preferences violate these laws. The Department
agrees with the commenter that its rescission of the 2016 version's
race-, ethnicity-, and sex-based utilization goals is consistent with
Title VII and the principles articulated in E.O. 14173.
Commenters, however, have mischaracterized the Department's
reliance on Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth. The Department does not
claim that the Ames decision invalidates the existing part 30
affirmative action provisions as violative of Title VII. The Department
cited Ames for the general proposition that, under both Title VII and
the Equal Protection Clause, equal opportunity must extend to all
apprentices, not just historically disadvantaged groups. Ames held that
Title VII's disparate-treatment provision prohibits discrimination
against any individual, thus ``establishing the same protections for
every `individual'--without regard to that individual's membership in a
minority or majority group.'' 605 U.S. at 309-10 (2025); see also
McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transp. Co., 427 U.S. 273, 280 (1976)
(holding that Title VII prohibits discrimination against non-minority
individuals ``upon the same standards'' as minority individuals).
However, part 30's affirmative action requirements encourage
preferential treatment of certain groups, specifically racial
minorities and women. 29 CFR 30.4(a), 30.5(d). Cf. Lutheran Church, 141
F.3d at 354 (race-based employment goals induce preferential treatment
based on race). The holding in Ames increases the likelihood that a
non-minority or male plaintiff could successfully sue a sponsor
claiming that the sponsor improperly took race, ethnicity, or sex into
account in making employment decisions pursuant to the part 30
affirmative action provisions. Ames v. Ohio Dep't of Youth Servs., 605
U.S. 303, 310 (2025) (``Our case law thus makes clear that the standard
for proving disparate treatment under Title VII does not vary based on
whether or not the plaintiff is a member of a majority group.'').
Even without the Ames holding, a lawsuit by a non-minority
litigants alleging disparate treatment may be meritorious. Part 30's
requirement for program sponsors to establish and take action to meet
race- and sex-based goals conflicts with the plain text of section
703(a)(2) of the Act,\34\ which makes it an unlawful employment
practice to ``classify'' employees or applicants in a manner that
deprives or tends to deprive individuals of employment opportunities
because of race, color, sex, or national origin. The Civil Rights Act
of 1991 amended Title VII (at section 703(m) \35\) to broaden this
prohibition by providing that an unlawful employment practice is
established when race, color, religion, sex, or national origin was
even ``a motivating factor'' for an employment practice, even if other
factors also motivated, or even drove, the decision. Title VII thus
adopts a broad prohibition on race- and sex-based employment practices
that, on its face, bars affirmative action measures to meet numeric
goals based on those characteristics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a)(2).
\35\ 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(m).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notwithstanding the plain statutory text, the Supreme Court has
construed Title VII to permit race- or sex-based affirmative action
only in extremely narrow circumstances. See United Steelworkers v.
Weber, 443 U.S. 193 (1979); Johnson v. Transp. Agency, Santa Clara
Cnty, Cal., 480 U.S. 616 (1987). Subsequent Supreme Court decisions
call into question the continued viability of the Weber-Johnson
framework. See, e.g., Louisiana v. Callais, 146 S. Ct. 1131 (2026);
Ames v. Ohio Dep't of Youth Servs., 605 U.S. 303 (2025); SFFA, 600 U.S.
181 (2023); and Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557, 579 (2009). While the
framework is a judge-made doctrine that interprets Title VII atextually
``to permit what its language read literally would prohibit,'' Johnson,
480 U.S. at 647 (O'Connor., J. concurring), the Department nonetheless
assumes that Weber-Johnson remains controlling precedent.
Under the Weber-Johnson framework, an employer may voluntarily
adopt a race- or sex-based measure to address a manifest imbalance in
traditionally segregated job categories, provided that the measure is
remedial in purpose, temporary in duration, and does not employ quotas
or inflexible goals or unnecessarily trammel the interests of non-
beneficiaries. Weber, 443 U.S. at 208; Johnson, 480 U.S. at 638. Such
programs must be designed to eliminate the effects of past
discrimination or segregation, not to maintain racial or sex balance
for its own sake. Johnson, 480 U.S. at 639-40. As the Eighth Circuit
explained: ``An affirmative action policy is valid [under Title VII] if
the policy is remedial and narrowly tailored to meet the goal of
remedying the effects of past discrimination.'' Humphries v. Pulaski
Cnty. Special Sch. Dist., 580 F.3d 688, 695 (8th Cir. 2009). It is
often difficult for an employer to establish compliance with the strict
limitations of Weber and Johnson; those who attempt such a path and
fail necessarily violate Title VII with the practice in question.
To comply with the current part 30's affirmative action
regulations, a covered sponsor must establish race- and sex-based
employment goals and undertake related affirmative measures. The
[[Page 70186]]
Department is concerned that such practices do not fit within the
Weber-Johnson framework--and certainly not generally across sponsors
nationwide. As explained above, part 30's race- and sex-based
requirements are not remedial: sponsors must undertake good faith
efforts to meet, achieve, or approach proportional representation in
terms of race and sex, not to specifically remedy manifest imbalances
in a traditionally segregated job category. Nor are the requirements
temporary: they have existed for decades, and unless rescinded,
sponsors would continue to be subject to these regulations on an
indefinite basis.
``[T]he existence of an affirmative action plan . . . when combined
with evidence that the plan was followed in an employment decision is
sufficient to constitute direct evidence of unlawful discrimination
unless the plan is valid'' under Weber-Johnson. Frank v. Xerox Corp.,
347 F.3d 130, 137 (5th Cir. 2003) (quoting Bass v. Bd. of Cnty.
Comm'rs, 256 F.3d 1095, 1110 (11th Cir. 2001)). Many sponsors' actions
taken to comply with part 30's affirmative action regulations would not
consistently satisfy the demanding Weber-Johnson framework and could
therefore constitute direct evidence of unlawful discrimination in
violation of Title VII. Part 30's utilization goals and related
requirements thus compel regulated sponsors to adopt race- and sex-
based employment practices that would be, in many cases, unlawful under
Title VII. The Department should exercise its authority under the NAA
to formulate and promote labor standards that are consistent with
Federal law, rather than standards that create tension with Federal
law.
Comments on the Application of Executive Order 14168
Comments: A commenter stated that the DOL fails to acknowledge that
E.O. 14168 defies settled Title VII case law. The commenter asserted
that in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, 590 U.S. 644 (2020), the
Supreme Court held that discrimination based on gender identity is a
form of sex discrimination protected by Title VII, and as Executive
Orders cannot override Supreme Court case law, Bostock remains the law
of the land. A group of commenters stated that DOL inaccurately
describes prevailing Title VII legal standards by claiming that the
proposed elimination of sexual orientation as a category of prohibited
discrimination is required to reflect ``existing legal authorities'' or
``the current statutory language and legal standards governing
nondiscrimination.'' The group of commenters asserted that, in the
Bostock ruling, the Supreme Court recognized that Title VII's
prohibitions on discrimination on the basis of sex also bars
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
One commenter expressed different interpretations of the Bostock
ruling and its implications. This commenter asserted that while some
claim that the Bostock decision prohibits discrimination based on
sexual orientation and gender identity, it does not. The commenter
argued that in Bostock, the Court did not adopt a new protected basis
of sexual orientation, transgender status, or gender identity in Title
VII, but rather its holding and analysis was tied to what it viewed as
a form of sex discrimination. The commenter further stated that the
Court did not address the broad scope of conduct associated with sexual
orientation or gender identify, and therefore it is inappropriate for
DOL to impose nondiscrimination requirements based on these
characteristics. The commenter concluded that, accordingly, the
proposed rule would bring regulations into compliance with Federal
nondiscrimination laws. Another commenter stated that rescinding the
reference to ``gender identity'' that appears at 29 CFR 30.3(b)(5) and
(c) of the current regulations comports with President Trump's E.O.
14168 ``Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring
Biological Truth to the Federal Government,'' which directed Federal
agencies to modify regulations or policies that use the terms
``gender'' and ``gender identity.''
Department Response: The Department is removing all apprenticeship-
specific nondiscrimination requirements, including references to sexual
orientation and gender identity as specified protected bases under part
30, as mandated by E.O. 14168. E.O. 14168 directs agencies to ``enforce
laws governing sex-based rights, protections, opportunities, and
accommodations to protect men and women as biologically distinct
sexes'' and to ``remove all statements, policies, regulations, forms,
communications, or other internal and external messages that promote or
otherwise inculcate gender ideology[.]'' The Department therefore
proposed to remove references to gender identity.
The Department disagrees with commenters who contend that these
revisions improperly narrow the protections afforded by Federal
nondiscrimination law. Commenters' objections rest on a
misunderstanding of both the purpose and effect of this rulemaking.
This final rule does not amend or limit the substantive protections
afforded by Title VII or any other Federal or State nondiscrimination
law. Rather, it rescinds the apprenticeship-specific nondiscrimination
framework previously contained in part 30 and replaces it with a
straightforward requirement that program sponsors comply with all
applicable Federal and State laws prohibiting illegal discrimination.
Under revised Sec. 30.3, sponsors remain fully subject to all
applicable nondiscrimination requirements imposed by Federal and State
law, and apprentices retain whatever protections those laws provide.
The Department acknowledges commenters' reliance on Bostock.
Nothing in this final rule purports to alter the legal effect of
Bostock or to resolve questions concerning the scope of Title VII. The
Department is not revising Title VII, nor is it exercising authority to
define the substantive reach of that statute. Those questions remain
governed by applicable law and are properly resolved by the other
agencies and Federal courts charged with enforcing and interpreting
Federal nondiscrimination statutes.
Accordingly, the Department has determined that it is unnecessary
to maintain apprenticeship-specific regulatory provisions that
separately enumerate particular protected categories or otherwise
establish an independent nondiscrimination regime for Registered
Apprenticeship programs. Instead, the final rule adopts a uniform
standard requiring compliance with all applicable Federal and State
nondiscrimination laws. To the extent those laws prohibit particular
forms of discrimination, program sponsors remain bound by those
requirements. To the extent those laws are interpreted, amended, or
otherwise modified in the future, sponsors' obligations will change
accordingly without requiring further amendments to part 30.
The Department therefore disagrees that the removal of
apprenticeship-specific references to particular protected categories
narrows the substantive protections available to apprentices. The final
rule neither expands nor contracts the protections afforded under
Federal and State nondiscrimination laws. Rather, it eliminates a
duplicative apprenticeship-specific regulatory framework and returns
responsibility for interpreting and enforcing those laws to other
agencies and courts that possess the relevant statutory authority and
expertise.
[[Page 70187]]
2. Streamlining Enforcement, Eliminating Duplicative Frameworks, and
Aligning Apprenticeship Requirements with Federal Laws
General Comments About Streamlining Requirements
Comments: Some commenters expressed support for the Department's
proposal to streamline EEO requirements for Registered Apprenticeship
programs. These commenters stated that the current regulations at 29
CFR part 30 impose unique EEO obligations on Registered Apprenticeship
programs that have resulted in significant confusion, operational
challenges, and compliance costs, potentially deterring the
establishment of new apprenticeship programs and the growth of existing
ones. One commenter concluded that compliance with existing
nondiscrimination laws is sufficient.
Another commenter expressed support for DOL's efforts to harmonize
the Department's rules for Registered Apprenticeship programs with
nondiscrimination laws, arguing that the Department's proposed
revisions are necessary to resolve the consequences of overlapping or
unclear jurisdictional mandates.
However, one commenter asserted that the proposed rule risks
increasing employer burden by shifting responsibility for EEO
requirements to the ``already overburdened'' EEOC and other State
agencies. The commenter maintained that employers consistently report
that navigating multiple State-specific rules is more onerous than
following a single Federal standard.
Department Response: The Department appreciates the various
commenters' support for the rule's streamlined and uniform approach to
EEO and nondiscrimination requirements. The Department agrees that the
requirements imposed under the existing rule were onerous, excessive,
and impeded the goal of apprenticeship expansion. Accordingly, the
Department maintains that this final rule fulfills the Administration's
directive in E.O. 14192 to eliminate regulations that impose costs,
create confusion, hamper innovation, or otherwise restrain economic
growth and opportunities for Americans.
The Department disagrees that the final rule increases compliance
burdens by shifting responsibility to the EEOC or State agencies. Those
agencies and the laws they administer govern sponsors regardless of
whether part 30 exists. This rule does not create any new obligations
under Federal or State nondiscrimination laws, nor does it create any
new enforcement mechanisms. Rather, it eliminates a separate
apprenticeship-specific compliance and enforcement regime that operated
alongside existing Federal and State civil-rights laws. To the extent
the commenter is concerned about multiple layers of regulation and
bureaucracy, the final rule reduces, rather than increases, those
layers by removing an additional apprenticeship-specific framework
while leaving in place the generally applicable nondiscrimination laws
that already govern sponsors.
3. E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation
Comments: A commenter supported the proposed rule changes, arguing
that the changes would provide numerous benefits, including reducing
regulatory burdens, decreasing stakeholder confusion, providing
clarity, and encouraging more apprenticeship program participation, and
aligning with President Trump's executive orders on deregulation,
merit-based opportunity, and preparing Americans for skilled trade
jobs. Another commenter expressed support for the proposed rule's
revisions to 29 CFR parts 29 and 30, stating that these changes would
remove a duplicative set of regulations on program sponsors and
employers, and eliminate requirements for an unnecessarily complex
array of goals, analyses, outreach, and annual reviews. A separate
commenter concurred with the proposed removal of duplicative and
outdated requirements.
A commenter maintained that it is essential to ensure that
participating employers are not overburdened by reporting requirements
and that employers can protect proprietary information, including trade
secrets, program outlines, and other sensitive materials. The commenter
urged the Department to consider broader improvements to the
apprenticeship registration process and remove unnecessary
administrative barriers and simplify the bureaucratic requirements for
small and midsize employers. Specifically, the commenter recommended
avoiding ``government-centric language'' that is not aligned with
workplace operations, as well as delivering technical assistance
through experienced practitioners, rather than static manuals and
checklists.
Other commenters, however, disagreed with the Department's
assertion that the part 30 regulation should be revised and streamlined
to reduce undue regulatory burdens for Registered Apprenticeship
stakeholders. One commenter asserted that the part 30 regulations are
not burdensome on sponsors because States and other organizations have
consistently created tools and templates for sponsors that have helped
sponsors easily create affirmative action plans that support equal
opportunity for Registered Apprenticeship program applicants. This
commenter added that sponsors have been complying with these
requirements for decades, and many sponsors already have policies and
practices set up to effectively complete affirmative action plans, as
well as internal auditing and reporting systems.
Department Response: The Department appreciates comments that
acknowledged the challenges that Registered Apprenticeship program
sponsors face in complying with the existing part 30 regulation and the
need for a clearer and less complex regulatory framework. The
Department agrees with those commenters who opined that the existing
part 30 regulation's requirements were expansive, duplicative, and
unclear, and that they imposed a complex regulatory framework that did
not serve sponsors' business needs. The Department further agrees that
such regulatory complexity may have impeded the growth of the
Registered Apprenticeship model by discouraging program uptake or
expansion, and that revising and simplifying the part 30 regulation
will lead to expansion of the model. As such, the Department's final
rule streamlining the part 30 regulation serves the shared goals of the
Department and this Administration to reduce regulatory burdens and
expand Registered Apprenticeship. The Department also appreciates those
commenters who acknowledged the alignment between this rulemaking and
the Administration's deregulatory directive to Federal agencies (as
outlined in E.O. 14192 and cited in the NPRM as a motivation for this
rulemaking).
The Department disagrees with commenters who asserted that the
existing part 30 regulation did not impose meaningful burdens on
program sponsors. Several commenters pointed to the availability of
templates, technical assistance, internal auditing systems, and
established compliance practices as evidence that sponsors could
readily comply with the regulation. The Department does not find these
observations persuasive. The existence of specialized templates,
extensive technical assistance, compliance personnel, internal auditing
systems, and recurring reporting processes demonstrates that sponsors
and Registration Agencies devoted substantial time and resources to
[[Page 70188]]
satisfying the regulation's requirements. The fact that sponsors may
have developed systems to facilitate compliance over time does not
establish that the underlying requirements were simple, costless, or
necessary.
Moreover, the Department is concerned not only with the burden
imposed on existing sponsors that have already invested in compliance
systems, but also with the effect of these requirements on employers
considering whether to establish a Registered Apprenticeship program in
the first instance. The Department concludes that reducing
apprenticeship-specific compliance obligations will lower barriers to
entry and facilitate broader adoption of the Registered Apprenticeship
model.
The Department also received comments from employers describing the
time, administrative effort, and resources devoted to compliance with
affirmative action plans, utilization analyses, reporting obligations,
and related requirements under part 30. After considering these
comments and the record as a whole, the Department has determined that
these apprenticeship-specific requirements imposed significant
compliance costs while providing limited benefits beyond those already
afforded by generally applicable Federal and State nondiscrimination
laws. The Department therefore concludes that rescinding these
requirements is an appropriate means of reducing unnecessary regulatory
burden while continuing to protect apprentices through existing
nondiscrimination protections.
5. Growing Registered Apprenticeship
Expansion and Growth of Registered Apprenticeship Programs
Comments: A commenter maintained that the proposed rule lacks
compelling evidence that it would lead to apprenticeship growth.
Instead, this commenter suggested that, to significantly increase the
number of apprentices, investments in apprenticeships would need to be
of an order of magnitude higher, and that adjustments to the
infrastructure through legislation, such as codifying OA and SAAs as
registration entities, are needed to see growth in the program. The
commenter added that the Department also should adopt more ambitious
growth goals, stating that 1 million apprentices only would equate to
0.6 percent of the workforce, whereas the apprentice share of the
workforce in peer countries like Canada, the United Kingdom, and
Australia is roughly 2 percent. Another commenter noted that the growth
in public investment has led to increased apprenticeship enrollments,
as Federal investment nearly doubled between 2016 and 2020 resulting in
a more than 40 percent increase in the number of apprentices.
A commenter recommended that the Department pursue evidence-based
regulations to speed up and simplify the registration process,
including streamlined cross-State reciprocity or expedited review for
programs using high-quality occupational frameworks or national
standards, reasoning that these would help expand apprenticeship and
result in more effective use of public resources.
Another commenter opposed the proposed rule's description that the
current regulations have limited adoption or participation,
particularly among small businesses, citing personal site visits over
the last 15 years showing no instances in which EEO or affirmative
action requirements were reported as barriers, and over the last 3
years, the commenter said they have registered 12 new apprenticeship
programs with over 200 apprentices without EEO being raised as a
concern.
In contrast, a commenter supported the NPRM's statement that the
costs and disincentives created by the current part 30 regulations may
be greater in new and emerging industries, citing personal experience
in the education sector where funding is limited (or not yet
apportioned as part of existing budgets) to develop or register an
existing apprenticeship program.
Additionally, a commenter expressed support for simplifying 29 CFR
part 30 with Federal nondiscrimination laws, stating that the changes
could ease the burden for small and medium sized businesses, but added
that to meet the Administration's goal of adding 1 million new
apprenticeships, sponsors would need continued guidance from OA on
outreach efforts for recruiting populations not traditionally served in
Registered Apprenticeship programs.
Several commenters commented in support of further growing
Registered Apprenticeship and modernizing the system, citing research
that employers receive a positive return on investment, that
apprentices receive higher wage increases than comparable workers, and
that employers report apprenticeships are effective at addressing
talent shortages. A commenter said that the model is underutilized, and
remarked that more can be done to modernize it to build capacity and
ensure long-term resilience of mutual benefit to employers and
apprentices and that the NPRM is a step towards accomplishing this
goal.
Department Response: The Department agrees with the commenters that
Registered Apprenticeship should continue to be expanded and that it is
crucial in helping address workforce shortages. The Department
anticipates that the removal of onerous and burdensome requirements,
such as those that are rescinded under this final rule, should
facilitate increases in system participation through burden reduction
and lower barriers to entry.
The Department disagrees with commenters who asserted that this
final rule's rescission of provisions of the existing regulation will
harm the growth of the National Apprenticeship System and that these
provisions were not onerous for small businesses. As discussed
throughout this preamble and in greater depth within the sections on
the rescission of the existing regulation, there is no robust causal
evidence that the existing regulations led to the growth of the
National Apprenticeship System. Based on its delivery of technical
assistance to sponsors of various sizes (including small businesses),
the Department expects that the reduction of compliance burdens
associated with these rescissions will facilitate program creation and
expansion.
Additionally, in response to the anecdote from a commenter that the
sponsors the commenter worked with did not mention part 30 and EEO
requirements as burdensome, other commenters who were sponsors
themselves or represented sponsors responding to the NPRM did express
that part 30 is burdensome. As a result, the Department concludes, and
several commenters representing industry concurred, that the existing
part 30 regulations are overly burdensome and thereby suppress, not
expand, potential entities' participation in the National
Apprenticeship System.
Regarding comments that suggested increased funding and the
codification of the National Apprenticeship System as avenues to expand
the model, the Department notes that Congress, not the Department, has
the authority to pursue these activities. The Department also
appreciates the suggestions to further streamline registration, such as
improving reciprocity, and will consider these options if there are
future rulemakings on part 29.
Recommendations for Improving Apprenticeship Programs
Comments: A commenter recommended the Department identify specific
strategies to facilitate
[[Page 70189]]
involvement of non-profit organizations and Federal contractors and
expand into new and emerging industries to achieve growth in
apprenticeship programs.
Another commenter suggested that, to drive meaningful adoption,
apprenticeship programs should be reframed with language and structures
that align with how human resources professionals operate--prioritizing
upskilling, reskilling, and internal mobility. This commenter further
stated that they have an extensive network of human resources
professionals, nationwide chapter system, and communication channels
that could partner with the Department to help educate employers about
apprenticeship regulations and work to expand Registered Apprenticeship
programs.
Department Response: The Department appreciates these comments and
suggestions, but deems them to be outside of the scope of this
rulemaking insofar as they are unrelated to the Department' focus on
streamlining and simplifying the nondiscrimination requirements related
to apprenticeship.
G. Comments on the Proposal's Impacts on Women, Racial and Ethnic
Minorities, and Individuals With Disabilities
1. Data and Research on Demographic Representation and Economic Factors
in Apprenticeship
Comments: A couple of commenters suggested that empirical evidence
shows that the part 30 regulation improved diversity within the
apprenticeship system. For example, some commenters stated that women's
participation in apprenticeship grew threefold over the last decade or
so. One commenter noted that this increase in women's participation
occurred after the Department implemented intentional investments to
increase the number of women in apprenticeships. Several commenters
provided evidence that showed, in their view, that this growth occurred
in smaller sub-groups of apprentices as well. For example, one
commenter asserted that between 2014 and 2023, the growth of women of
color participating in apprenticeship was particularly strong. The
commenter provided data from this time period that, according to the
commenter, demonstrated that the number of Latina and Asian women
apprentices grew by 349 and 302 percent respectively, while the number
of Black women apprentices grew by 222 percent. The commenter added
that the number of women working as apprentices in construction and
extraction occupations increased from 3,789 in 2015 to 10,834 in 2024,
representing a 185.9 percent change. Another commenter also noted that
the gains in the share of Hispanic/Latino apprentices outpace gains in
the share of Hispanic/Latinos in the total labor force. One commenter
reasoned that these increases in representation demonstrate the success
of current Federal regulations and feared the proposed rule's
rescissions would reverse increases in diversity within the National
Apprenticeship System. However, one commenter acknowledged that, while
the National Apprenticeship System has diversified over the last
decade, there is no clear evidence of a causal relationship between the
issuance of the 2016 regulation and increases in participation rates
among certain demographic groups.
Some commenters also stated that demographic groups targeted by the
existing part 30 regulation are still underrepresented within the
apprenticeship system. A commenter said that despite progress, women
remain significantly underrepresented in apprenticeship programs,
making up just 14.3 percent of apprentices according to the OA data,
while comprising nearly half (47.1 percent) of the labor workforce.
Similarly, another commenter noted that only 9 percent of apprentices
are Black despite Black workers making up 12.3 percent of the national
labor force. These commenters asserted that removing the existing part
30 regulations would further exacerbate current demographic imbalances
in the representation of certain demographic groups in apprenticeship.
One commenter further argued that reducing these disparities could
expand the talent pool available to employers, and that apprenticeship
programs would need to reflect the full diversity of the U.S.
population to effectively meet employer needs. Another commenter argued
that if equal access were ensured for women, people of color, and other
historically excluded groups, apprenticeship programs would better
fulfill the goal of providing opportunity for all workers.
However, a commenter that expressed support for the Department's
proposed revisions to part 30 argued that demographic disparities
between apprenticeship programs and the broader workforce should not
justify race-preferential programs. This commenter argued that history
and culture can explain why certain groups are more common in s
[…truncated; see source link]Indexed from Federal Register on November 6, 2026.
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.