Apprenticeship Programs, Labor Standards for Registration, Amendment of Regulations, 64402-64434 [E8-24917]

Agencies

• Employment and Training Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 210 (Wednesday, October 29, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64402-64434]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-24917]



[[Page 64401]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part II





Department of Labor





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Employment and Training Administration



-----------------------------------------------------------------------



29 CFR Part 29



Apprenticeship Programs, Labor Standards for Registration, Amendment of 
Regulations; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 29, 2008 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 64402]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

29 CFR Part 29

RIN 1205-AB50


Apprenticeship Programs, Labor Standards for Registration, 
Amendment of Regulations

AGENCY: Employment and Training Administration, Labor.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Labor (DOL or Department) is issuing this 
final rule to update regulations that implement the National 
Apprenticeship Act of 1937. 29 U.S.C. 50. DOL issued a notice of 
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on December 13, 2007, outlining proposed 
updates to labor standards, policies and procedures for the 
registration, cancellation and deregistration of apprenticeship 
programs, apprenticeship agreements, and administration of the National 
Apprenticeship System. 72 FR 71020, Dec. 13, 2007.

DATES: Effective date: The final rule will become effective December 
29, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Ladd, Administrator, Office of 
Apprenticeship, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N5311, Washington, 
DC 20210, e-mail ladd.john@dol.gov; Telephone (202) 693-2796 (this is 
not a toll-free number) or (877) 889-5627 (TTY/TDD).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This preamble is divided into three 
sections. Section I provides general background information on the 
development of the final rule. Section II discusses the comments and 
regulatory changes in the final rule. Section III covers the 
administrative requirements for this final rule as mandated by statute 
and executive order.

I. Background

    On December 13, 2007, the Department published an NPRM (72 FR 
71020, Dec. 13, 2007) proposing to revise the regulations that 
implement the National Apprenticeship Act of 1937. We initially invited 
comments for a 60-day period through February 12, 2008. Several 
commenters submitted requests for an extension of the comment period. 
In response, we published a notice (73 FR 7693, Feb. 11, 2008) 
extending the comment period by 30 days. The comment period closed on 
March 12, 2008.
    Unique, individual comments received during the comment period 
following publication of the NPRM have been posted on 
www.regulations.gov. Although we considered all comments, duplicate 
copies of comments were not posted.
    The National Apprenticeship Act of 1937 authorized DOL to formulate 
and promote the furtherance of labor standards necessary to safeguard 
the welfare of apprentices, to extend the application of such standards 
by encouraging their inclusion 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.
    The Department promulgated regulations for implementing the 
National Apprenticeship Act in 1977. The regulations govern the 
National Apprenticeship System in which the Department, State agencies, 
industry leaders, employers, employer associations, labor-management 
organizations (primarily consisting of labor organizations and 
employers), and educational institutions collaborate, develop, operate, 
and oversee apprenticeship programs that draw on the skills and 
knowledge that business and industry needs from its employees, to 
ensure that apprentices develop up-to-date and relevant skills. In the 
30 years since, the Department and its partners in the National 
Apprenticeship System have recognized that technological advances, 
demographic changes, and globalization have significantly altered the 
context in which apprenticeship programs operate. The Department and 
its partners recognize that for registered apprenticeship to keep pace 
with these changes, and to continue apprenticeship's vital role in 
developing a skilled, competitive workforce, the regulatory framework 
for registration of apprenticeship programs and administration of the 
National Apprenticeship System must be updated. For example, many 
program sponsors have requested more flexibility in the requirements 
for provision of related technical instruction. Other program sponsors, 
particularly in industries that have not traditionally used registered 
apprenticeship, have sought flexibility in the requirements for length 
of time in the on-the-job learning component so that apprentices could 
progress toward program completion based on demonstration of 
competencies. The Government Accountability Office's August 2005 
report, ``Registered Apprenticeship Programs: Labor Can Better Use Data 
to Target Oversight,'' and the Office of Management and Budget's 
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) review of Registered 
Apprenticeship, have emphasized the need to improve program quality and 
accountability in the National Apprenticeship System.
    The December 13, 2007 NPRM proposed to revise 29 CFR part 29 based 
on these developments and in consultation with the Advisory Committee 
on Apprenticeship (ACA), the National Association of State and 
Territorial Apprenticeship Directors (NASTAD), and State Apprenticeship 
Agencies. This final rule implements changes to 29 CFR part 29 that 
will increase flexibility, enhance program quality and accountability, 
and promote apprenticeship opportunity in the 21st century, while 
continuing to safeguard the welfare of apprentices. In addition to the 
specific changes discussed below, we have made minor editorial changes 
throughout the final rule.
    The final rule takes effect on December 29, 2008. However, States 
will have up to a 2-year period in which to make the changes to State 
law, regulation and/or policy needed to come into compliance with this 
final rule before having to apply for continued recognition under Sec.  
29.13(c). The Department will work with States to make as seamless as 
possible the transition from State laws recognized under current 
regulations to State laws recognized under the final rule.

II. Discussion of the Comments and Regulatory Changes

Summary of Comments

    The Department received 2,660 submissions commenting on the NPRM by 
the close of the comment period. All comments were carefully reviewed. 
We found 2,437 to be cover letters, form letters or duplicates, a 
preponderance of which were from members of a single employer 
association supporting the proposed regulatory changes. Of the 223 non-
duplicative comments, the majority were from labor organizations and 
employer associations that sponsor registered apprenticeship programs, 
and state government entities. All relevant comments are discussed 
below. In response to these comments we made several substantive 
changes which are discussed below.
    Twenty-five commenters expressed general support for the NPRM and 
agreed that the proposed changes will update, improve, and advance the 
mission of the National Apprenticeship System to meet the needs of 
today's industry and economy. Other commenters generally commended the 
Department for improving and

[[Page 64403]]

promoting registered apprenticeship and the National Apprenticeship 
System.
    Twenty-five commenters generally preferred the current regulatory 
framework for registered apprenticeship over the proposed changes, 
stating that the current regulations work well and that the proposed 
changes are unnecessary. We also received comments indicating 
disapproval of the proposed changes due to concerns over the potential 
impact on State agencies. Additional commenters suggested that the 
proposed changes may impact certain apprenticeship programs more than 
others. A few commenters disapproved of the proposed changes due to the 
potential implications for apprentices.

Discussion of Comments

Purpose and Scope (Sec.  29.1)
    A few commenters agreed with the addition to the Purpose and Scope 
of the phrase ``promote apprenticeship opportunity.'' They noted that 
this addition is a fundamental objective of the National Apprenticeship 
Act and should be expressly included in DOL regulations.
    Response: After review of the comments we will promulgate the rule 
as proposed.
Definitions (Sec.  29.2)
    Section 29.2 clarifies and redesignates existing definitions and 
establishes new definitions for certain terms used in the registration 
of apprenticeship programs and in the ongoing operations of the 
National Apprenticeship System. We proposed to carry forward the 
following existing definitions for terms defined in the original 
regulations: ``administrator,'' ``apprentice,'' ``apprenticeship 
program,'' ``cancellation,'' ``Department,'' ``employer,'' ``Federal 
purposes,'' ``registration of an apprenticeship agreement,'' 
``registration of an apprenticeship program,'' ``sponsor,'' and 
``State.'' Accordingly, we did not invite comments on these terms. 
Similarly, the final rule carries forward the definitions for these 
terms, as contained in the existing regulations. Of the proposed new 
and amended definitions, we did not receive comments on the definitions 
for ``Office of Apprenticeship,'' ``Registration Agency,'' ``technical 
assistance,'' and ``State office.'' We made no changes to the proposed 
definitions of these terms.
    We received one comment about the definitions in general. The 
commenter argued that the definitions in Sec.  29.2 would require State 
Apprenticeship Agencies to control and direct State Apprenticeship 
Councils, thus reversing traditional authority without any clear 
explanation of why the Department wants to change the council-agency 
relationship. The commenter also asserted that the definitions are an 
unauthorized intrusion on a State's legislative rights and priorities.
    Response: We have determined that State Apprenticeship Agencies are 
the appropriate entities to receive the Department's grant of authority 
to register apprenticeship programs and apprentices for Federal 
purposes. For reasons enumerated below, we require the State 
Apprenticeship Agency to determine the role of the State Apprenticeship 
Council. Under the existing regulatory scheme, the Department's 
oversight of the National Apprenticeship System has been complicated by 
the fact that States in which the Registration Agencies are State 
Apprenticeship Councils vary considerably in their policies and 
procedures for the administration of registered apprenticeship for 
Federal purposes. For example, we have found it difficult to hold State 
Apprenticeship Councils accountable for conformity with the 
requirements of part 29 because the Councils are sometimes comprised of 
independent, appointed individuals, who may not be answerable to the 
State government agency that actually operates the daily functions of 
registered apprenticeship for Federal purposes in the State. In another 
case, the State Apprenticeship Council's limited involvement in the 
full time operations of the State's registered apprenticeship 
operations has impeded the Department's working relationship with the 
State Apprenticeship Council. In other instances, State Apprenticeship 
Councils have not made determinations about approval of apprenticeship 
program standards in a timely manner. In order to achieve consistency 
within the National Apprenticeship System for the promotion of 
registered apprenticeship opportunities and for the registration of 
apprenticeship standards that meet the requirements of this part, we 
have determined that the relationship between the Federal government 
and the entities that act on our behalf must be between two government 
agencies: DOL and the cabinet-level government agency in each State's 
government that operates and manages the functions of registered 
apprenticeship in that State. At the same time, we recognize the 
considerable value that State Apprenticeship Councils provide for the 
promotion and establishment of apprenticeship programs. State 
Apprenticeship Council members are often closely associated with 
apprenticeship program sponsors and can directly facilitate linkages 
between apprentices and program sponsors. As explained below in the 
discussion of Sec.  29.13(a)(2), States seeking recognition from the 
Department are still required to establish State Apprenticeship 
Councils for advisory and or regulatory purposes. Under the revised 
regulatory framework, where a State has been ``recognized,'' the State 
Apprenticeship Council must operate at the direction of the State 
Apprenticeship Agency. Having given full consideration to the general 
comment about the impact of the proposed definitions on the 
relationship between State Apprenticeship Councils and State 
Apprenticeship Agencies, we are promulgating the definitions for State 
Apprenticeship Agency and State Apprenticeship Council as proposed.
``Apprenticeship Committee (Committee)''
    Five commenters addressed the proposed definition of 
``apprenticeship committee,'' which clarified that an apprenticeship 
agreement is between an apprentice and either the apprentice's program 
sponsor, or an apprenticeship committee acting as an agent for the 
program sponsor. One commenter supported the definition as proposed. 
Other commenters noted that use of the term ``worker'' may be confusing 
in the parenthetical notation in paragraph (b), which defines a non-
joint committee as ``a unilateral or group non-joint (may include 
workers) committee [which] has employer representatives but does not 
have a bona fide collective bargaining agent as a participant.'' The 
commenter suggested that for consistency, the term ``employee'' should 
replace the term ``worker.'' Another commenter suggested that the 
incumbent workforce of a program sponsor is a stakeholder that should 
be included in the definition of ``apprenticeship committee,'' 
regardless of the status of a collective bargaining agreement in a 
program sponsor's workplace. Another commenter recommended removing the 
terms ``non-joint,'' in paragraph (b), and ``joint'' in paragraph (a), 
which specifies that ``a joint committee is composed of equal number of 
representatives of the employer(s) and of the employees represented by 
a bona fide collective bargaining agent.'' The commenter suggested the 
phrase, ``unilateral or group, which shall include equal numbers from 
employer(s) and employees.'' Another commenter suggested that the 
proposed change in which an apprenticeship committee acts

[[Page 64404]]

as an agent of the apprenticeship program sponsor, is not the 
apprenticeship program sponsor, and is to be subordinate to the 
apprenticeship program sponsor, appears to be inconsistent with the 
core concepts of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 
(ERISA).
    Response: We agree with the suggestion that the use of the term 
``workers,'' in place of ``employees,'' may cause confusion, and so we 
have changed the definition by replacing ``workers'' with ``employees'' 
in paragraph (2). We do not agree with the suggestion to delete the 
terms ``joint and non-joint.'' The commenters suggested replacement 
wording does not adequately provide the flexibility needed to address 
the variety of circumstances faced by apprenticeship committees across 
the nation. Nor are we convinced that the terms ``joint and non-joint'' 
are problematic. These terms are well-recognized and used throughout 
the National Apprenticeship System. Accordingly, we have kept the terms 
``joint and non-joint.'' We also do not agree with the suggestion that 
a program sponsor's incumbent workforce should be required members of 
an apprenticeship committee. The determination to include employees on 
an apprenticeship committee is most appropriately addressed by the 
program sponsor, not DOL. As mentioned, one comment noted that the 
definition of ``apprenticeship committee'' may be inconsistent with 
ERISA because it might be read as requiring the apprenticeship 
committee to always act in the sponsor's interest, rather than in the 
interest of the participants when the committee is carrying out 
fiduciary responsibilities. Although we do not agree with this reading 
of the definition, we have modified the definition to avoid confusion 
on this point.
``Certification or Certificate''
    Three commenters expressed concern over the potential effect of 
paragraph (a) of the proposed definition of ``certification or 
certificate'' on individual programs that are currently using State-
approved industry standards. Paragraph (a) provides that in order to 
receive certification from the Office of Apprenticeship, national 
guidelines for apprenticeship standards which are developed by a 
national committee or organization for policy or guideline use by local 
affiliates must conform to the standards of apprenticeship set forth in 
Sec.  29.5. Commenters stated that standards approved by State 
Apprenticeship Agencies are more trade-specific and protective of 
apprentices' safety than any proposed national guidelines for 
apprenticeship standards. They also stated that it would be problematic 
to allow an outside ``national committee or organization'' to dictate 
the direction of individual programs and concluded that national 
guidelines for apprenticeship standards will ``erode apprenticeship 
standards by trade, and blend multiple trades into one standard.'' In 
addition, a few commenters questioned who would set the standards used 
in national guidelines for apprenticeship standards.
    Response: These comments appear to reflect a misunderstanding of 
the current definitions of ``certification or certificate.'' The 
purpose of national guidelines for apprenticeship standards, as 
established by the definition of ``certification'' in the existing 
regulations, is to provide policy and guidance to local affiliates of 
national organizations in developing standards for approval and 
registration. National Guideline Standards are developed by national 
committees or organizations, joint or unilateral, and are certified by 
DOL's Office of Apprenticeship as substantially conforming to the 
requirements of 29 CFR parts 29 and 30. When local affiliates develop 
local standards for registration, even though the local standards may 
be based upon the organizations' National Guideline Standards, they 
must meet all the requirements of and be approved by the Registration 
Agency in that State. Thus, the approval of national guidelines for 
apprenticeship standards in no way precludes a State Apprenticeship 
Agency or a local sponsor from developing apprenticeship standards that 
are more trade-specific or protective. This flexibility does not, 
however, authorize a State Apprenticeship Agency to develop or approve 
standards that improperly restrict registered apprenticeship 
opportunities. Therefore, we are promulgating the definition of 
``certification or certificate'' as proposed.
``Competency''
    Sixteen commenters weighed in on the proposed definition of 
``competency,'' which means ``the attainment of manual or technical 
skills and knowledge, as specified by an occupational standard.'' Many 
expressed apprehension over the implications of the definition, 
suggesting that it does not clearly articulate how competency will be 
measured (e.g., on a set of validated industry and trade-specific 
standards). Others noted that the definition does not mandate specific 
types of training (e.g., on-the-job, classroom) that are often critical 
to meet industry accepted guidelines for journey-level status. Finally, 
others raised concerns that with this definition, journeyworker status 
will be determined in a subjective manner, without strict standards for 
objective program administration.
    Response: We agree that the definition needs to address the 
measurement of competency with greater specificity. Therefore, we have 
revised the proposed definition to provide for the ``attainment of 
manual, mechanical or technical skills and knowledge, as specified by 
an occupational standard and demonstrated by an appropriate written and 
hands-on measurement of proficiency.'' To align with the criteria for 
apprenticeable occupations established under Sec.  29.4(c), the final 
rule adds the term ``mechanical'' as a descriptor of the skills and 
knowledge that are attained.
    Regarding concerns that the definition does not require specific 
types of training and that journeyworker status will be determined in a 
subjective manner, we have concluded that apprenticeship programs need 
flexibility when setting the requirements for training and the 
attainment of journeyworker status, so that the program standards can 
take into account the circumstances of particular occupations and 
programs. Additionally, we note that the requirement for an 
apprenticeable occupation to include on-the-job learning as specified 
in Sec.  29.4(c), and the requirements for apprenticeship program 
standards to include on-the-job learning as specified in Sec.  
29.5(b)(2) and related instruction specified in Sec.  29.5(b)(4), 
address concerns regarding specific training. Therefore, we do not 
adopt the comments that favor a more prescriptive approach to those 
matters in the definition of ``competency.''
``Completion Rate''
    Several commenters requested a formal definition of the term 
``completion rate,'' stating that further guidance was necessary for 
evaluating program performance based on a completion rate.
    Response: We agree that a definition of ``completion rate'' is 
necessary to facilitate compliance with the requirement in Sec.  29.6 
to evaluate the performance of apprenticeship programs, which is a 
critical component of strengthening accountability for program 
outcomes. The final rule adds a definition for the term ``completion 
rate'' to mean ``the percentage of an apprenticeship cohort who receive 
a certificate of apprenticeship completion within 1 year of the 
projected

[[Page 64405]]

completion date. An apprenticeship cohort is the group of individual 
apprentices registered to a specific program during a 1 year time 
frame.'' This definition is consistent with the methodology used by 
other Federal employment and training programs, which measure program 
outcomes by calculating rates of program participants who successfully 
achieve a specific outcome such as entering employment or retaining 
employment. Consistency in methodology will minimize the implementation 
burden on Registration Agencies and will further align registered 
apprenticeship with other workforce investment programs.
``Electronic Media''
    Although commenters did not provide any comments specific to the 
proposed definition for ``electronic media,'' many raised concerns that 
the use of electronic media in the proposed revision to related 
instruction could supplant, reduce, or eliminate an apprentice's 
interface with an instructor in a lab or classroom setting. They 
emphasized the importance of classroom and hands-on learning for the 
successful acquisition of skills and knowledge necessary for completion 
of an apprenticeship program.
    Response: We recognize the validity of this concern, as addressed 
further in the discussion of Sec.  29.5(b)(4). However, we have 
determined that the inclusion of electronic media in the definition of 
``related instruction'' is necessary to align the National 
Apprenticeship System with technological advances in the delivery of 
related instruction. We have made no change to the proposed definition 
of ``electronic media.''
``Interim Credential''
    Some commenters suggested that the proposed definition for 
``interim credential,'' which is ``a credential issued by the 
Registration Agency, upon the request of the sponsor, as certification 
of competency attainment by an apprentice,'' does not sufficiently 
include requirements for the recipient to meet an objective, external 
standard associated with the subject matter for which an interim 
credential is issued. Others asserted that the definition of ``interim 
credential'' could diminish the meaning and significance of the status 
of ``journeyworker'', and that the use of interim credentials in the 
National Apprenticeship System may serve as a disincentive to 
completing an apprenticeship program.
    Response: We recognize these concerns and address them below in our 
discussion of the requirements for program standards in Sec.  29.5(b). 
We have made no change to the proposed definition of ``interim 
credential.''
    Issuance of interim credentials will be determined by the program 
sponsor's choice of approach for an apprentice's progression through an 
apprenticeship program: Competency-based, time-based, or hybrid. 
Program sponsors must identify and define all interim credentials in 
the program standards that are registered with the Registration Agency. 
Interim credentials may be issued only for industry-recognized 
components of an apprenticeable occupation. Therefore, if an 
apprenticeship program's standards do not include provisions for 
issuance of interim credentials for specific components of an 
apprenticeable occupation, the Registration Agency with which the 
program is registered may not issue interim credentials to apprentices 
registered with that program.
    We reiterate that interim credentials are issued by the 
Registration Agency, upon request of the appropriate sponsor, as 
certification of an apprentice's attainment of competency. Further, the 
regulations do not require program sponsors to include interim 
credentials in their program standards, nor do they require sponsors to 
request that a Registration Agency issue interim credentials to 
apprentices registered in their apprenticeship programs. The Department 
also recognizes that some Registration Agencies may find the issuance 
of interim credentials to be unduly burdensome and beyond their 
capabilities. Therefore, Registration Agencies, other than the Office 
of Apprenticeship, may opt not to offer this additional service.
    We have concluded that the revised regulatory framework does not 
detract from the overall goal of the National Apprenticeship System to 
support and enable apprentices to complete an apprenticeship program. 
Through the authorization of interim credentials, the National 
Apprenticeship System recognizes that some industries and occupations 
are more amenable to an incremental recognition of an apprentice's 
increasing skills, knowledge, and abilities. In such industries the use 
of interim credentials can, thereby, afford multiple opportunities for 
apprentices to grow and expand their knowledge and their capacity to 
meet current, new, and emerging industry advances. Use of interim 
credentials also recognizes the fact that not all apprentices will 
complete their apprenticeship programs and offers opportunities for 
recognition of what these individuals have learned. Therefore, interim 
credentials will also enable apprentices to obtain portable credentials 
commensurate with the skills and competencies acquired and demonstrated 
throughout an apprenticeship. Notwithstanding the value of interim 
credentials, the issuance of a certificate of completion of 
apprenticeship, and the associated ``journeyworker'' status, remains 
the ultimate goal for the National Apprenticeship System.
``Journeyworker''
    Ten comments were submitted on the proposed definition of 
``journeyworker.'' One commenter requested inserting the word 
``abilities'' to the definition to read ``a worker who has attained a 
level of skills, abilities, and competencies recognized within an 
industry,'' asserting that use of the term ``abilities'' provided a 
more thorough recognition of a journeyworker's qualifications. Multiple 
commenters recommended using industry standard definitions for 
``journeyworker,'' asserting that permitting employers to recognize 
other definitions would leave the National Apprenticeship System open 
to abuse. Others asserted that by expanding the term to refer to a 
mentor, technician, specialist or other skilled worker gives the 
employer the authority to determine journeyworker status. One commenter 
argued for retention of the term ``journeyman,'' because in the 
traditional sense it is not and has not been gender-specific, and that 
it refers to rank or status in a skilled trade.
    Response: We agree with the suggestion to expand the definition to 
include ``abilities,'' and have revised the definition accordingly. We 
disagree with the assertion that by granting individual employers the 
authority to designate journeyworker status, the term ``journeyworker'' 
will be subject to abuse in the National Apprenticeship System. 
Currently, program sponsors designate an individual as a journeyworker 
when that individual has sufficient skills, abilities, and competencies 
to be recognized by the employer as a journeyworker. The revised 
regulatory framework carries forward this approach currently used in 
the National Apprenticeship System. With regard to the use of the term 
``journeyworker,'' the Department of Labor is committed to avoiding the 
use of terms that are or may appear to be gender-specific, even if the 
historic usage of the term has not been so. We disagree with the 
assertion that the term journeyman is not gender-specific. Accordingly, 
the final rule retains the term ``journeyworker.''

[[Page 64406]]

``Provisional Registration''
    Several comments on proposed revisions to Sec.  29.3(g) and Sec.  
29.3(h) regarding provisional registration indicate that the proposed 
definition of ``provisional registration'' did not adequately specify 
the process by which a provisionally registered program would receive 
permanent registration, continuance of provisional registration, or 
rescission of registration.
    Response: We agree with these comments and have clarified the 
requirements by expanding the definition of ``provisional 
registration'' to refer to the relevant criteria in Sec.  29.3(g) and 
Sec.  29.3(h), which provide for provisional registration and review of 
provisionally registered programs. These additions will avoid any 
ambiguity between the proposed definition of provisional registration 
in Sec.  29.2, and the subsequent opportunity for additional review 
and/or removal of the provisional status after the first full training 
cycle. Accordingly, in the final rule ``provisional registration'' is 
defined to mean, ``the 1-year initial approval of newly registered 
programs that meet the required standards for program registration, 
after which program approval may be made permanent, continued as 
provisional, or rescinded following a review by the Registration 
Agency, as provided for in the criteria described in Sec.  29.3(g) and 
Sec.  29.3(h).''
``Quality Assurance Assessment''
    In their discussion of program performance standards in proposed 
Sec.  29.6, some commenters recommended establishing a clear definition 
of ``quality assurance assessment.''
    Response: We agree that Sec.  29.6 will be improved by adding a 
formal definition for ``quality assurance assessment,'' so that 
programs are assessed consistently and fairly across the National 
Apprenticeship System. Accordingly, in the final rule ``quality 
assurance assessment'' means, ``a comprehensive review conducted by a 
Registration Agency regarding all aspects of an apprenticeship 
program's performance, including but not limited to determining if 
apprentices are receiving: On-the-job training in all phases of the 
apprenticeable occupation; scheduled wage increases consistent with the 
registered standards; related instruction through appropriate 
curriculum and delivery systems; and that the Registration Agency is 
receiving notification of all new registrations, cancellations, and 
completions as required in this part.'' This definition codifies the 
Office of Apprenticeship's existing practice of reviewing programs for 
quality based on the factors described above.
``Registration Agency''
    A commenter asserted that by expanding the definition of 
``Registration Agency'' to include registration of apprentices and 
programs, providing technical assistance, and conducting reviews for 
compliance with parts 29 and 30, and quality assurance assessments, the 
Department is attempting to retain the services of a State 
Apprenticeship Agency without Federal funding or State legislative 
approval.
    Response: We disagree with these assertions. The definition of 
``Registration Agency'' codifies existing practice in the National 
Apprenticeship System in which a Registration Agency, whether it is the 
Office of Apprenticeship or a recognized State Apprenticeship Agency, 
provides guidance and assistance to help program sponsors comply with 
this part; reviews registered programs; and registers apprentices and 
programs. We view these functions as necessary to properly administer 
the National Apprenticeship System. Further, the definition is intended 
to emphasize consistency across the National Apprenticeship System 
regarding the types of support and assistance that registered 
apprenticeship program sponsors should receive from a Registration 
Agency, regardless of their geographic location. It should also be 
noted that State Apprenticeship Agency recognition as a Registration 
Agency, for Federal purposes, is voluntary. We have made no change to 
the proposed definition of ``Registration Agency.''
``Related Instruction''
    Several commenters noted that the proposed separation of 
apprenticeship's theoretical instruction into two terms, ``related 
technical instruction'' and ``supplemental instruction,'' creates undue 
complications. On the other hand, a commenter praised the addition of 
``supplemental instruction,'' stating that such instruction will 
increase opportunities for learning, as well as provide additional 
opportunities to create and ensure equitable classroom and worksite 
environments. Other commenters asserted that ``related instruction'' 
should not be limited to ``core'' requirements. Further, the commenters 
noted that safety processes like CPR/first-aid training may be part of 
a related training for many apprenticeable occupations and expressed 
concern that valuable training would be marginalized.
    Response: We agree that the commenters have raised valid concerns 
and we have therefore deleted the proposed definition of ``supplemental 
instruction.'' Our intent in separating the two terms was to clarify 
that instruction specific to a particular occupation is ``related 
instruction,'' and instruction that is relevant but not necessarily 
occupationally-specific is ``supplemental instruction.'' However, we 
recognize that the proposed elements of supplemental instruction, such 
as job site management, leadership, communications, first-aid/CPR, 
field trips, and new technologies/processes, and in particular those 
pertaining to health and safety, have been long-standing facets of the 
term ``related instruction.'' The final rule retains the existing term 
``related instruction'' and thus carries forward existing practice in 
the National Apprenticeship System which incorporates the components of 
the proposed definition of ``supplemental instruction.'' We have also 
deleted the term ``core'' from the definition of ``related 
instruction,'' to indicate that all components of related instruction 
that are related to the occupation are important to an apprenticeship 
program, whether or not they are occupation-specific. We have also 
added a comma after the phrase ``such instruction may be given in a 
classroom,'' to make the definition consistent with the substantive 
provisions in Sec.  29.5(b)(4). Therefore, in the final rule, ``related 
instruction'' means, ``an organized and systematic form of instruction 
designed to provide the apprentice with the knowledge of the 
theoretical and technical subjects related to the apprentice's 
occupation. Such instruction may be given in a classroom, through 
occupational or industrial courses, or by correspondence courses of 
equivalent value, electronic media, or other forms of self-study 
approved by the Registration Agency.''
``State Apprenticeship Agency''
    We received two comments on the definition of ``State 
Apprenticeship Agency.'' One commenter stated that the proposed 
definition of ``State Apprenticeship Agency'' would allow for the State 
Apprenticeship Agency to assume the powers of the State Apprenticeship 
Council. The other commenter sought clarification on the proposed 
definition.
    Response: The proposed definition of ``State Apprenticeship 
Agency'' as ``an agency of a State government that has responsibility 
and accountability for apprenticeship within the State,'' reflects the 
Department's determination

[[Page 64407]]

that only State government entities should be recognized as 
Registration Agencies, in order to ensure accountability for oversight 
and management of a State's apprenticeship system for Federal purposes. 
As discussed above, where a State Apprenticeship Agency has been 
``recognized,'' the State Apprenticeship Agency must establish and 
maintain a State Apprenticeship Council. Additionally, as explained in 
the discussion of Sec.  29.13(a)(2), we have clarified that the Council 
operates at the direction of the State Apprenticeship Agency. 
Therefore, we have made no changes to the proposed definition of 
``State Apprenticeship Agency'' nor to the State Apprenticeship 
Agency's role as the only entity authorized to register and oversee 
apprenticeship programs and agreements for Federal purposes.
``State Apprenticeship Council''
    Two commenters questioned if the definition of ``State 
Apprenticeship Council'' would mean that the Council would only serve 
an advisory role rather than a regulatory role.
    Response: Our intent in the proposed rule was to provide that the 
State Apprenticeship Council could serve in either an advisory role or 
regulatory role. As explained further in the discussion of Sec.  
29.13(a)(2), we have clarified that a State Apprenticeship Council 
operates at the direction of the State Apprenticeship Agency. Depending 
on how this direction is exercised, a State Apprenticeship Council 
could serve either a regulatory or an advisory role. The requirements 
for operation of a State Apprenticeship Council are set forth in 
Sec. Sec.  29.13(a)(2) and (b)(3). We have made no change to the 
proposed definition of ``State Apprenticeship Council.''
``Transfer''
    Several commenters noted that the proposed revisions regarding 
apprentice transfers in Sec.  29.5(b) and the proposed new definition 
of ``transfer'' in Sec.  29.2 raise questions about approval and 
consent for transfer and the potential impact on apprenticeship program 
sponsors. Several commenters questioned the need for apprentices to 
initiate requests for transfers, asserting that such latitude could 
enable apprentices to transfer registration without regard to negative 
impact on program sponsors. Other commenters suggested that program 
sponsors could use the provisions of this definition to transfer an 
apprentice to another program or to another employer without the 
apprentice's consent, thereby potentially negatively impacting the 
safety and welfare of the apprentice.
    Response: We do not foresee that the transfer of apprenticeship 
registration from one program to another or from one employer to 
another would occur frequently or on a regular basis. The intent of 
this provision is to provide flexibility for an apprentice to continue 
his or her apprenticeship in changing circumstances, such as the need 
for geographic relocation for personal reasons. However, we agree that 
all parties to the transfer must be in agreement in order to avoid 
potential negative impacts. Accordingly, we have revised the definition 
to clarify that in order for a transfer to occur, the affected parties 
(i.e., the apprentice and each apprenticeship committee or program 
sponsor) must reach agreement regarding the shift of the apprentice's 
registration from one program to another or from one employer within a 
program to another employer within that same program.
Eligibility and Procedure for Registration of an Apprenticeship Program 
(Sec.  29.3)
    This section addresses the criteria and process used by a 
Registration Agency to register apprenticeship programs. In general, 
the comments we received supported the proposed changes which were 
designed to ensure high quality for registered apprenticeship programs, 
assist program sponsors through early intervention and technical 
assistance, and foster closer working relationships between the 
apprenticeship sponsors and Registration Agencies.
Resources
    Several commenters raised concerns about the adequacy of the 
resources available to the DOL and the Office of Apprenticeship for 
follow through requirements pertaining to provisional registration. Two 
commenters asked who would pay for technical assistance provided to new 
programs.
    Response: As under current regulations, the resources necessary to 
carry out the requirements of Sec.  29.3 would be the responsibility of 
the Registration Agency, including provision of technical assistance. 
States seeking registration authority for Federal purposes must be 
prepared to provide resources necessary for these responsibilities.
Provisional Registration
    Proposed Sec.  29.3(g) is a new provision which establishes 
provisional approval for 1 year of new programs that the Registration 
Agency preliminarily determines comply with part 29. Most commenters 
supported the concept of provisional registration for new programs, but 
expressed concern that DOL currently appears to be understaffed and 
would not have adequate resources to perform the reviews required at 
the end of a program's first year to determine if the program should 
receive full recognition. Some commenters asserted that the 
determination to grant provisional program approval, regardless of 
length, belongs to State Apprenticeship Agencies.
    Response: As discussed in the NPRM, the ``provisional 
registration'' concept was added to enhance monitoring of the 
performance of apprenticeship programs registered for Federal purposes 
by the Office of Apprenticeship and recognized State Apprenticeship 
Agencies (i.e., the Registration Agencies). As we have repeatedly 
emphasized, the States derive any authority they exercise, for Federal 
purposes, from the recognition accorded by the Department. Therefore, 
provisional program approval does not impinge on State authority.
    We recognize that adequate resources are required to successfully 
address the additional workload associated with provisional 
registration procedures. Accordingly, we are realigning resources to 
provide these services in States where the Office of Apprenticeship 
serves as the Registration Agency. As discussed below under Sec.  
29.13, Recognition of State Apprenticeship Agencies, States seeking 
registration authority for Federal purposes must provide sufficient 
resources to perform all the functions of a Registration Agency. We 
have revised Sec.  29.3(g) to clarify that the Registration Agency is 
responsible for reviewing programs for quality and conformity with the 
requirements of this part at the end of the first year after 
registration. A program that conforms to the requirements of part 29 
may be permanently approved, or the provisional approval may be 
extended through the end of the first training cycle. A program not in 
operation or not conforming to the regulations during the provisional 
approval period must be recommended for deregistration procedures.
Program Reviews
    Proposed Sec.  29.3(h) provides that a satisfactory review at the 
end of the first full training cycle will result in removal of 
provisional approval, and provides that subsequent reviews will be 
conducted no less frequently than on a five-year cycle. A few 
commenters questioned how this five-year cycle of program reviews, 
which generally

[[Page 64408]]

corresponds to the completion of the first full training cycle, aligns 
with competency-based or hybrid programs that may have training cycles 
of different lengths. Other commenters questioned if the five-year 
cycle provided in Sec.  29.3(h) would conflict with a State 
Apprenticeship Agency's program review cycle that might occur more 
frequently.
    Response: Competency-based and hybrid programs also have 
requirements for on-the-job work experience associated with program 
completion, but the cycles of each may vary in length from traditional 
apprenticeship programs. To address this, Sec.  29.3(h) of the final 
rule clarifies that subsequent reviews will be completed after a 
satisfactory review at the end of the first full training cycle, and 
must be conducted no less frequently than every 5 years. Section 
29.3(h) does not preclude a State Apprenticeship Agency from conducting 
reviews more frequently than prescribed. If a review demonstrates that 
a provisionally registered program has satisfactorily met the 
requirements of this part in a timeframe shorter than the typical 5 
years, provisional registration may be transformed to permanent 
registration.
Timeframe for Approval of Proposals and Modifications
    A few commenters questioned the requirement in Sec.  29.3(i) for a 
Registration Agency to make a determination on whether to approve 
sponsor proposals or applications for modifications to registered 
programs within 45 days from the date of receipt. Existing regulations 
simply provide for ``prompt'' submission of requests for modification 
and set no timeframe for a Registration Agency and provide no guidance 
on what the Registration Agency must do to process the application or 
modification. Commenters asserted that 45 days does not provide 
sufficient time for review and comment. In particular, this proposed 
requirement would not align with schedules for State Apprenticeship 
Councils that only meet quarterly or every 90 days, to review proposals 
and modifications for registered apprenticeship programs. Other 
commenters did support the proposed 45-day timeframe for the 
Registration Agency to make a determination whether to approve such 
submissions.
    Response: In light of the quarterly meeting schedule used by many 
State Apprenticeship Councils and State Apprenticeship Agencies for 
review of proposals and modifications, a 90-day timeframe is more 
appropriate for the Registration Agency to make determinations whether 
to approve such submissions. We have also clarified that if approved, 
the Registration Agency will record and acknowledge the modifications 
within 90 days of approval. Final Sec.  29.3(i) also clarifies that if 
the modifications are not approved, the Registration Agency will notify 
the sponsor of the disapproval, and provide reasons therefore. Final 
Sec.  29.3(i) has been changed accordingly.
Criteria for Apprenticeable Occupations (Sec.  29.4)
    Section 29.4 revises the criteria for determining when an 
occupation qualifies as apprenticeable. The revisions proposed in the 
NPRM align Sec.  29.4 with changes to ways to progress through an 
apprenticeship program, as discussed further in the discussion of Sec.  
29.5(b)(2). Some commenters raised questions and concerns about 
deletion of the term ``skilled trade'' and inconsistency between an 
apprenticeable occupation's requirement for hours of on-the-job 
learning and the competency-based approach for completion of an 
apprenticeship program, provided by final Sec.  29.5(b)(2).
Deletion of ``Skilled Trade''
    A few commenters raised concerns about the deletion of the term 
``skilled trade'' in describing an apprenticeable occupation, asserting 
that the term is recognized nationally in the construction industry, 
and is commonly used.
    Response: We acknowledge that the term ``skilled trade'' is a 
nationally recognized term in the construction industry, and emphasize 
that deletion of this term in the regulations for the National 
Apprenticeship System is not meant to discourage continued use of this 
term. However, as apprenticeship expands into new industries, we have 
determined that more generic approach better reflects the terminology 
used by a variety of industries. Accordingly, we have not added 
``skilled trade'' to the final rule.
Hours of On-The-Job Learning
    Some commenters suggested that requiring at least 2,000 hours of 
on-the-job work experience in Sec.  29.4(c) conflicts with the 
competency-based approach outlined in Sec.  29.5(b)(2).
    Response: The 2000 hour standard in Sec.  29.4(c) is solely for the 
purpose of helping to define an apprenticeable occupation. In order for 
an occupation to be considered apprenticeable it must be an occupation 
which, if learning were conducted in the traditional on-the-job manner, 
would require at least 2,000 hours of on-the-job learning. As is 
discussed more fully in the next section on standards of 
apprenticeship, only ``time-based'' apprenticeship programs will be 
required to provide for at least 2000 hours of actual on-the-job 
learning. ``Competency-based'' and ``hybrid'' programs also will be 
required to provide for on-the-job learning, but the required hours 
will vary by program.
    The comments on this section have brought to light an inconsistent 
and interchangeable use of the terms ``on-the-job training'' and ``work 
experience'' throughout the proposed rule to refer to the on-the-job 
learning component of registered apprenticeship, as required in Sec.  
29.4(c) and Sec.  29.5(b)(2). We have replaced the terms ``on-the-job 
training'' and ``on-the-job work experience'' with the term ``on-the-
job learning'' throughout the final rule.
Standards of Apprenticeship (Sec.  29.5)
    Proposed changes to Sec.  29.5 regarding standards of 
apprenticeship received many comments; over 132 comments pertained to 
the use of a competency-based approach to progression through an 
apprenticeship. Other significant areas of interest centered on related 
instruction, apprentice instructor certification, advanced standing or 
credit, transfers, interim credentials, and cancellation rate.
Three Approaches to Completion of Apprenticeship
    Section 29.5(b)(2), which is based on the existing requirement that 
on-the-job learning must be consistent with industry practice, presents 
three methods by which an individual apprentice may progress toward the 
industry standard for work experience. These methods are: (i) A time-
based approach involving completion of at least 2,000 of hours of on-
the-job work experience; (ii) a competency-based approach involving 
successful demonstration of acquired skills and knowledge by an 
apprentice, as verified by the program sponsor, plus an on-the-job 
learning component; and (iii) a hybrid approach involving completion of 
a specified minimum number of hours plus the successful demonstration 
of competency.
    Many commenters raised questions and asked for clarification about 
the proposed three approaches. Many commenters questioned whether the 
competency-based model would require on-the-job learning. Most 
commenters expressed concern that the proposed terms were not 
adequately defined, that industries should be equipped to monitor 
validity and achieve standardization, and that existing

[[Page 64409]]

minimum standards would be compromised. A community-based organization 
praised the proposed three approaches, citing studies that indicate 
that nontraditional apprentices, such as women, are more likely to 
complete programs if such requisites as pre-apprenticeship training 
programs were recognized in a competency-based or hybrid approach. 
Several commenters expressed concern that the competency-based and the 
hybrid methods for completion of an apprenticeship would allow 
apprentices to circumvent on-the-job learning and related technical 
instruction with a demonstration of acquired skills and knowledge. 
Other commenters expressed apprehension over the potential for safety 
compromise, particularly in the construction industry, and the need to 
``safeguard the welfare of apprentices.'' One commenter asserted that a 
competency-based apprenticeship program would not require an apprentice 
to demonstrate competency in a ``real time, distracting, sometimes 
noisy, sometimes dirty, and often unpredictable environment.'' Many 
commenters interpreted proposed Sec.  29.5(b)(2) to mean that all 
program sponsors would have to adopt all three approaches for 
completion of apprenticeship.
    Response: This rule carries forward the traditional model because 
it has worked well in many occupations that have used a time-based 
approach for registered apprenticeship; we expect that most program 
sponsors in those occupations will continue using this approach. 
However, as part of the Department's strategic emphasis on meeting the 
training needs of business and workers, and our policy of expanding 
apprenticeship, it has become clear that the traditional time-based 
approach to training does not fit the norms of all industries or 
occupations seeking to use the registered apprenticeship model. The 
final rule acknowledges the needs of industries that prefer to continue 
to use a time-based approach for registered apprenticeship, as well as 
those industries that require more flexibility in how an apprentice can 
attain the journeyworker level of proficiency.
    We agree that clarifying language is required for all three 
approaches to ensure that on-the-job learning is a required component 
of all apprenticeship programs. Paragraph (ii) of Sec.  29.5(b)(2) has 
been revised to include additional language specifying that programs 
using the competency-based approach must still require an apprentice to 
complete the on-the-job learning component of registered 
apprenticeship. We emphasize that on-the-job learning remains the 
primary method by which apprentices gain the competencies necessary for 
successful completion of a competency-based or hybrid apprenticeship 
program. An apprenticeship program's use of a competency-based or 
hybrid approach does not exempt apprentices from participating in the 
fundamental elements of registered apprenticeship: on-the-job learning 
and related instruction.
    The Office of Apprenticeship guidance on competency-based and 
hybrid apprenticeship in Circular 2005-03 describes how program 
sponsors and apprentices can comply with the requirements for minimum 
on-the-job learning for each major work process using the competency-
based or hybrid approach outlined in Sec.  29.5(b)(2). Additionally, 
materials available on the CareerOneStop Web site (https://
www.careeronestop.org/competencymodel) provide examples of recently 
approved competency-based apprenticeship programs in the advanced 
manufacturing and health care industries. These examples showcase the 
depth and breadth of the information required to define a 
``competency,'' establish a proficiency level for that competency, and 
develop a test and evaluation for said competency. This guidance 
reinforces that the competency-based model does not negate requirements 
for on-the-job learning and related instruction. Such requirements will 
ensure that all apprentices are exposed to workplace conditions and 
properly trained in the safety requirements essential to the industry.
    Neither the proposed nor the final rule requires program sponsors 
or Registration Agencies to adopt all three approaches. A new paragraph 
(iv) has been added to Sec.  29.5(b)(2) to clarify that the 
determination of the appropriate approach for the program standards is 
made by the program sponsor, subject to approval by the Registration 
Agency of the determination as appropriate to the apprenticeable 
occupation for which the program standards are registered.
    We seek to provide a variety of industries with greater flexibility 
and options for approaches to addressing their talent-development needs 
through apprenticeship. As discussed in the NPRM, business, industry, 
and labor have requested a more flexible and accountable National 
Apprenticeship System that meets their workforce development needs. 
Through pilot programs in which sponsors measured apprentices' 
attainment of certain skills and competencies rather than using the 
traditional, time-based approach, many new business, labor, and 
industry partners in National Apprenticeship System have found that 
competency-based apprenticeship provides the flexibility and 
accountability necessary to use registered apprenticeship in their 
respective industries and occupations. Final Sec.  29.5(b)(2) provides 
greater flexibility for registered apprenticeship programs to address 
career development plans of registered apprentices. As we emphasized in 
the NPRM, the three approaches reflect the experience of the 
traditional building and construction trades and industrial sectors' 
use of time-based apprenticeship, while addressing the needs of new and 
emerging industries seeking to participate in the National 
Apprenticeship System. Therefore, we anticipate that program sponsors 
will use the approach that best meets the needs of their particular 
industry. We do not intend to discourage the use of the time-based 
approach in those occupations in which it has proven successful nor for 
any new occupations that lend themselves to that approach.
Related Instruction
    The majority of comments on provisions for related and supplemental 
instruction stated that training through the use of electronic media as 
proposed in Sec.  29.5(b)(4) should not supplant or replace an 
apprentice's ongoing, face-to-face interaction and classroom time with 
an instructor. Some commenters suggested that the Department clarify 
that electronic media can be used to supplement classroom instruction, 
but that it is not a substitute for instructor/apprentice interaction. 
Many suggested that electronic media should not be allowed as the sole 
method for related technical instruction, as it would be open to 
widespread misuse and mismanagement. Others suggested that the 
regulations require that a majority of, or a significant portion of 
related instruction should be provided through in-person instruction. 
Other commenters supported the use of electronic media in related 
instruction, because it enhances flexibility in registered 
apprenticeship and recognizes new training methods and technologies.
    Response: The inclusion of electronic media for related instruction 
is critical to aligning the National Apprenticeship System with 
technological advances and appropriate industry application of such 
advances. Section 29.5(b)(4) does not require that all industries and 
apprenticeship programs must use electronic media; rather, it permits 
use of electronic media as a tool to support

[[Page 64410]]

industry learning styles. Section 29.5(b)(4) retains other methods of 
related instruction such as classroom, occupation, or industry courses, 
or other instruction approved by the Registration Agency. The extent to 
which an apprenticeship program incorporates electronic media into the 
provision of related instruction depends on the learning objectives for 
the particular occupation associated with that program. Therefore, the 
regulatory framework for apprenticeship should not specify how related 
technical instruction will be delivered. Such decisions are most 
appropriately determined by program sponsors, subject to approval by 
the Registration Agency. Through the provisional registration process 
and the review of modifications to registered programs established in 
Sec.  29.3(g), (h), and (i), Registration Agencies will coordinate with 
program sponsors to identify the appropriate method(s) of providing 
related technical instruction. The Registration Agency's evaluation of 
program performance in the quality assurance assessment process, as 
established in Sec.  29.6(b), will identify and assess any changes in 
related technical instruction and its effect on the overall operation 
and quality of the program. To further address concerns regarding 
inappropriate, ineffective use of electronic media in the provision of 
related technical instruction, the Office of Apprenticeship will 
consult with State Apprenticeship Agencies to develop and issue further 
guidance illustrating the appropriate use of electronic media.
Apprenticeship Instructor Qualifications
    Proposed requirements for an apprenticeship instructor would be 
similar to States' requirements such as meeting the State Department of 
Education's requirements for a vocational-technical instructor, and/or 
being recognized as a subject matter expert, and would require that 
instructors have training in teaching techniques and adult learning 
styles. A few commenters generally supported the proposed 
qualifications for apprenticeship instructors in Sec.  29.5(b)(4) 
because they would raise the quality of apprenticeship instruction. 
Some commenters stated the proposed changes did not adequately define 
``subject matter expert'' or provide guidance on how an apprenticeship 
program or Registration Agency should make a determination of who may 
be considered a ``subject matter expert.'' Others agreed with the 
concept of improving the quality of apprenticeship instructors, but 
stated the proposed changes would be overly restrictive by requiring 
all instructors to be certified as having met the state vocational 
education instructor requirements. Other commenters questioned whether 
journeyworkers would have to be certified by the State vocational 
education entity in order to teach the related instruction component of 
registered apprenticeship. Some commenters asserted that the proposed 
text would eliminate the use of journeyworkers as subject matter 
experts or technical experts. Some commenters supported the proposed 
requirement in Sec.  29.5(b)(4) that apprenticeship instructors have 
training in teaching techniques and adult learning styles. Others 
requested clarification on this requirement.
    Response: We agree that the proposed rule did not provide adequate 
guidance and flexibility for instruction qualifications. Accordingly, 
we have revised Sec.  29.5(b)(4) to clarify that an apprenticeship 
instructor must either meet the State Department of Education's 
requirements for a vocational-technical instructor or be a subject 
matter expert. The rule also clarifies that subject matter experts are 
individuals who are recognized within an industry as having expertise 
in a specific occupation. Journeyworkers can be considered subject 
matter experts, and therefore may be appropriate instructors of related 
technical instruction. Provisions in Sec.  29.5(b)(4) requiring 
instructors to have training in teaching techniques and adult learning 
styles will further ensure quality of instruction in the National 
Apprenticeship System. Training in and an understanding of teaching 
techniques and adult learning styles will enhance instructors' 
effectiveness, thereby improving the learning experiences of individual 
apprentices and the overall National Apprenticeship System. Such 
training may be provided by the apprenticeship program, or through an 
accredited institution of higher learning, and may occur before or 
after the apprenticeship instructor has started to provide the related 
technical instruction.
Probationary Period
    Seventeen commenters expressed concern that the length of the 
probationary period was not defined in proposed Sec.  29.5(b)(19), 
which provided simply that cancellations during an apprentice's 
probationary period will not adversely impact the sponsor's completion 
rate. The completion rate is a new factor for evaluation of program 
performance proposed in Sec. Sec.  29.6(b) and (c). Several commenters 
suggested defining a specific ``not to exceed'' time for probationary 
periods, such as 15 percent or 20 percent of a program's length. Many 
commenters were concerned that without a time limit on the probationary 
period, the proposed regulations could permit an apprenticeship program 
to leave apprentices in probationary status for an extended period of 
time in an effort to improve