Apprenticeship Programs, Labor Standards for Registration, 58269-58288 [2022-20560]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 185 / Monday, September 26, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
29 CFR Part 29
[Docket No. ETA–2021–0007]
RIN 1205–AC06
Apprenticeship Programs, Labor
Standards for Registration
Employment and Training
Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Department of Labor
(DOL or the Department) is issuing this
final rule to rescind its 2020 regulation
SUMMARY:
that established a process under which
the Department’s Office of
Apprenticeship (OA) Administrator
(Administrator) was authorized to grant
recognition to qualified third-party
entities, known as Standards
Recognition Entities (SREs), which in
turn were authorized to evaluate and
extend recognition to IndustryRecognized Apprenticeship Programs
(IRAPs). This final rule also makes
necessary conforming changes to the
regulations governing the registration of
apprenticeship programs by the
Department.
Abbreviation
John
V. Ladd, Administrator, Office of
Apprenticeship, U.S. Department of
Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW,
Room C–5311, Washington, DC 20210;
telephone (202) 693–2796 (this is not a
toll-free number).
Individuals with hearing or speech
impairments, please dial 7–1–1 to
access telecommunications relay
services.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
List of Abbreviations
American Apprenticeship Initiative.
Administrator of the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Apprenticeship.
U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics.
Code of Federal Regulations.
Coronavirus Disease 2019.
U.S. Department of Labor.
Employer Costs for Employee Compensation.
equal employment opportunity.
Executive Order.
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
Employment and Training Administration.
Federal Register.
Fiscal Year.
General Schedule.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
information collection.
Industry-Recognized Apprenticeship Program.
information technology.
National Apprenticeship Act of 1937.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
Office of Apprenticeship.
on-the-job learning.
Office of Management and Budget.
Registered Apprenticeship program.
Registered Apprenticeship Partners Information Database System.
Related instruction.
State Apprenticeship Agency.
U.S. Secretary of Labor.
Standard Occupational Classification.
Standards Recognition Entity.
Task Force on Apprenticeship Expansion.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
U.S. Code.
Preamble Table of Contents
I. Background
II. The Registered Apprenticeship System Is
Highly Successful for Industry
III. The Registered Apprenticeship System Is
Highly Successful for Workers
A. Registered Apprenticeships Uniformly
Provide More Rigorous, Higher Quality
Training
B. Registered Apprenticeships Provide
Better Safety and Welfare Protections
IV. The IRAP System Is Redundant of the
Registered Apprenticeship System
V. The Effect of the Department’s Rescission
of the 2020 IRAP Final Rule
VI. Regulatory Analysis and Review
15:55 Sep 23, 2022
This final rule is effective
November 25, 2022.
DATES:
Definition
AAI ..................................................
Administrator ...................................
BLS .................................................
CFR .................................................
COVID–19 .......................................
DOL or the Department ..................
ECEC ..............................................
EEO .................................................
E.O. .................................................
ERISA .............................................
ETA .................................................
FR ...................................................
FY ....................................................
GS ...................................................
HHS .................................................
IC .....................................................
IRAP ................................................
IT .....................................................
NAA .................................................
NPRM ..............................................
OA ...................................................
OJL ..................................................
OMB ................................................
RAP .................................................
RAPIDS ...........................................
RI .....................................................
SAA .................................................
Secretary .........................................
SOC ................................................
SRE .................................................
Task Force ......................................
UMRA ..............................................
U.S.C. ..............................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
58269
Jkt 256001
A. Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory
Planning and Review) and 13563
(Improving Regulation and Regulatory
Review)
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. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
F. Executive Order 13175 (Indian Tribal
Governments)
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
I. Background
The National Apprenticeship Act of
1937 (NAA), 29 U.S.C. 50, authorizes
the Secretary of Labor (Secretary) to: (1)
formulate and promote the use of labor
standards necessary to safeguard the
welfare of apprentices and to encourage
their inclusion in apprenticeship
contracts; (2) bring together employers
and labor for the formulation of
programs of apprenticeship; and (3)
cooperate with State agencies engaged
in the formulation and promotion of
standards of apprenticeship. 29 U.S.C.
50. The Department promulgated
E:\FR\FM\26SER1.SGM
26SER1
58270
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 185 / Monday, September 26, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
regulations to implement the NAA at 29
CFR part 30 (equal employment
opportunity (EEO) in apprenticeship) in
1963 and at 29 CFR part 29 (labor
standards for the registration of
apprenticeship programs) in 1977. The
part 30 regulations prohibit
discrimination in Registered
Apprenticeship based on race, color,
religion, national origin, sex (including
pregnancy and gender identity), sexual
orientation, age (40 or older), genetic
information, and disability, and they
require sponsors of Registered
Apprenticeship programs (RAPs) to
promote equal opportunity in such
programs. The part 29 regulations set
forth labor standards designed to
safeguard the welfare of apprentices in
RAPs, including: prescribing policies
and procedures concerning the
registration, cancellation, and
deregistration of apprenticeship
programs; recognizing State
Apprenticeship Agencies (SAAs) as
Registration Agencies; and matters
relating thereto. The Department
significantly updated 29 CFR part 29 in
2008 to ‘‘increase flexibility, enhance
program quality and accountability, and
promote apprenticeship opportunity in
the 21st century, while continuing to
safeguard the welfare of apprentices’’
(73 FR 64402, Oct. 29, 2008, hereinafter
‘‘the 2008 final rule’’), and updated 29
CFR part 30 in 2016 ‘‘to modernize the
equal employment opportunity
regulations’’ (81 FR 92026, Dec. 19,
2016). These regulations provide the
framework for the Registered
Apprenticeship system.
On June 15, 2017, President Trump
issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13801,
‘‘Expanding Apprenticeships in
America’’ (82 FR 28229), which directed
the Secretary of Labor to consider
issuing regulations that promote the
development of IRAPs by third parties.
Section 8(b)(iii) of E.O. 13801 also
established a Task Force on
Apprenticeship Expansion (Task Force)
to identify strategies and proposals to
promote apprenticeships, to include
‘‘the most effective strategies for
creating industry-recognized
apprenticeships.’’ Based on E.O. 13801
and the Task Force’s recommendations,
the Department issued a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on June
25, 2019 (84 FR 29970, hereinafter ‘‘the
2019 IRAP NPRM’’), which proposed
amending 29 CFR part 29 by adding a
subpart (subpart B) containing a new
regulatory framework governing both
the recognition and oversight of SREs by
the Department, and the recognition and
oversight of IRAPs by Departmentrecognized SREs. After considering
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:55 Sep 23, 2022
Jkt 256001
approximately 326,000 written
comments on the 2019 IRAP NPRM, the
Department published a final rule in the
Federal Register on March 11, 2020 (85
FR 14294), entitled ‘‘Apprenticeship
Programs, Labor Standards for
Registration, Amendment of
Regulations’’ (hereinafter ‘‘the 2020
IRAP final rule’’), which established a
new 29 CFR part 29, subpart B
governing the recognition and oversight
of SREs and IRAPs, designated the
Registered Apprenticeship regulations
at 29 CFR 29.1 through 29.14 as subpart
A under the heading ‘‘Subpart A—
Registered Apprenticeship Programs,’’
and made conforming edits to subpart A
to account for the addition of subpart B.
The 2020 IRAP final rule established
a set of standards and procedures under
which the Administrator would
evaluate and extend recognition to
SREs; these recognized SREs, in turn,
were authorized under the rule to
evaluate and recognize IRAPs. The 2020
IRAP final rule set forth in detail the
requirements for third-party entities
applying for Departmental recognition
as SREs. It also identified certain
requirements apprenticeship programs
must meet to obtain recognition from
SREs as IRAPs. The 2020 IRAP final rule
became effective on May 11, 2020.
On February 17, 2021, President
Biden issued E.O. 14016, ‘‘Revocation of
Executive Order 13801’’ (86 FR 11089);
section 2 of this E.O. directed Federal
agencies to ‘‘promptly consider taking
steps to rescind any orders, rules,
regulations, guidelines, or policies’’
implementing E.O. 13801. Pursuant to
E.O. 14016, on February 17, 2021, the
Department announced that it would
initiate a review of the IRAP system.
The Department also suspended the
acceptance and review of new and
pending SRE recognition applications.1
The Department advised that all SREs
recognized by the Department prior to
the February 17, 2021 suspension, as
well as all IRAPs recognized by an SRE
prior to that date, could continue to
operate in accordance with the
requirements outlined in 29 CFR part
29, subpart B. At the time the
Department began the SRE pause and
IRAP system review, there were 27
organizations recognized by the
Department as SREs.
Consistent with E.O. 14016, the
Department considered whether to
retain the 2020 IRAP regulation. After
review, the Department concluded that
retaining the IRAP regulatory framework
1 DOL,
‘‘U.S. Department of Labor Undertakes
Several Actions to Strengthen Registered
Apprenticeship Program, Eliminate Duplication,’’
Feb. 17, 2021, https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/
releases/eta/eta20210217.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
was not in the best interest of
apprentices or the Department.
Accordingly, on November 15, 2021, the
Department published an NPRM in the
Federal Register (86 FR 62966,
hereinafter ‘‘the 2021 IRAP Rescission
NPRM’’), proposing to rescind the 2020
IRAP final rule and to make necessary
conforming changes to the Department’s
Registered Apprenticeship regulations
in 29 CFR part 29, subpart A (Registered
Apprenticeship Programs).
In the 2021 IRAP Rescission NPRM,
the Department explained the rationale
for adopting the 2020 IRAP final rule,
acknowledged that the proposed
rescission represented a change in its
position with respect to the need for and
the benefits of IRAPs, and explained
why it proposed to rescind the 2020
final rule. Commenters on the proposed
rescission largely supported the
Department’s proposal for the reasons
discussed at length in the proposal, as
discussed in more detail in the ‘‘Public
Comments’’ section below. Accordingly,
the Department, for the reasons
discussed in the 2021 IRAP Rescission
NPRM and the preamble to this final
rule, is finalizing the rule as proposed.
The Department is rescinding the
2020 IRAP final rule because it has
determined that the Department’s efforts
and resources should be focused on
Registered Apprenticeship, which has
proven to be highly successful for both
industry and workers and incorporates
valuable quality standards and worker
protections. This is consistent with the
Administration’s priority to expand
Registered Apprenticeship because of its
success as a pathway to the middle class
and ability to connect a diverse
workforce to family-supporting jobs.2
Further, it aligns with the Department’s
priority to use ‘‘Registered
Apprenticeship [to] provide pathways to
strengthen our workforce and our
economy.’’ 3
In contrast, and as explained in detail
in the 2021 IRAP Rescission NPRM, the
Department now believes the 2020 IRAP
final rule does not align with the
Department’s priorities of providing
high-quality training with an emphasis
on apprentice safety and welfare. 86 FR
62968–71. This is due to the 2020 IRAP
final rule’s fewer quality training and
worker protection standards as
compared to Registered
Apprenticeship’s on-the-job learning
and related instruction requirements
and apprentice protections, such as
2 https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/
statements-releases/2021/02/17/fact-sheet-bidenadministration-to-take-steps-to-bolster-registeredapprenticeships/.
3 https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/eta/
eta20210217.
E:\FR\FM\26SER1.SGM
26SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 185 / Monday, September 26, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
enhanced safety standards, a progressive
wage requirement, and EEO regulations.
Within the Registered Apprenticeship
regulations, there is also greater
accountability because the Department
can exercise direct oversight to ensure
employers provide industry-established
prevailing wages, ensure stringent safety
standards are in place, and monitor
program quality to protect workers. By
contrast, the Department’s limited,
indirect oversight role of IRAPs under
the 2020 IRAP final rule constrains its
ability to ensure that IRAPs are
providing quality training and worker
protection, leading to potentially
inequitable access to higher quality
training and worker protections among
program participants. Accordingly, the
Department no longer believes the IRAP
model is a reasonable or effective
alternative to the training standards,
worker protection, and oversight that
are the cornerstones of Registered
Apprenticeship. 86 FR 62968–71.
The Department also determined that
two of the key justifications for issuing
the 2020 IRAP final rule—the purported
inflexibility in the Registered
Apprenticeship system and the
administrative burdens hindering
Registered Apprenticeship’s ability to
meet the needs of different industries—
are fundamentally flawed. As discussed
at length in the 2021 IRAP Rescission
NPRM, the assertion that the Registered
Apprenticeship system is inflexible and
administratively burdensome is belied
by the demonstrated success of
Registered Apprenticeship for industry
and workers alike, and by Registered
Apprenticeship’s continued growth and
expansion into new industries and
occupations. Indeed, Registered
Apprenticeship has continued to show
strong growth since its establishment,
including the latest data reflecting
strong growth in 2020 and 2021, during
the height of the COVID–19
pandemic.4 5 RAPs are a flexible training
strategy, with vital quality controls, that
can be customized to meet the business
needs for a skilled workforce. As the
Department discussed in the 2021 IRAP
Rescission NPRM, the most recent data
reflects that Registered Apprenticeship
has not only continued to grow but has
also expanded into ‘‘non-traditional’’
industry sectors, such as healthcare,
cybersecurity, transportation, and
advanced manufacturing, through a
variety of initiatives (e.g., Department’s
2015 American Apprenticeship
4 OA 2020 Data and Statistics, available at https://
www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/apprenticeship/about/
statistics/2020.
5 OA 2021 Data and Statistics, available at https://
www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/apprenticeship/about/
statistics/2021.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:55 Sep 23, 2022
Jkt 256001
Initiative (AAI)) and has demonstrated
success in those sectors. 86 FR 62971–
72.
The Department also determined that
the 2020 IRAP final rule’s justification
that IRAPs were necessary to address a
purported ‘‘skills gap’’ was based on
faulty reasoning. As discussed in the
2021 IRAP Rescission NPRM, the
Department no longer believes the
purported ‘‘skills gap,’’ as referenced in
the 2020 IRAP final rule, to be the major
challenge facing the labor market. 86 FR
62971. Rather, the Department now
believes that there are additional factors
that have a bearing on industry labor
needs, such as employer investments in
workforce development, competitive
and rising wages to attract and retain
workers, commitments to opportunity
and diversity, and worker
empowerment.6 7 These are factors that
the RAP framework supports and is
well-positioned to address, thereby
providing a more promising and
effective framework for addressing and
closing persistent inefficiencies in the
labor market. In contrast, the 2020 IRAP
final rule is deficient in incorporating
these factors, and its deficiencies in job
quality and worker protection
requirements (particularly with respect
to EEO and progressive wages for
apprentices) reduce the ability of IRAPs
to address any current or future labor
shortages. Further, the IRAP final rule’s
deficiencies in ensuring quality
standards for workers undermine both
the RAP framework and the
Administration’s commitment to
promoting good quality, familysustaining jobs for all workers,
including apprentices.
Finally, through the experience of
administering the IRAP system, the
Department has determined that the
IRAP system is redundant of Registered
Apprenticeship and that such
redundancy creates confusion and
reduces resources that would be better
used to support the continued success
and growth of Registered
Apprenticeship across industries and
occupations. As discussed in the 2021
IRAP Rescission NPRM, the Department
observed significant duplication of
occupations covered by RAPs and
IRAPs. 86 FR 62972. The Department
notes that the flexible RAP model has
6 Annelies Goger and Luther Jackson, ‘‘The labor
market doesn’t have a ‘skills gap’—it has an
opportunity gap,’’ Sept. 9, 2020, https://
www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/09/09/
the-labor-market-doesnt-have-a-skills-gap-it-has-anopportunity-gap/.
7 Kate Bahn, ‘‘ ‘Skills gap’ arguments overlook
collective bargaining and low minimum wages,’’
May 9, 2019, https://equitablegrowth.org/skills-gaparguments-overlook-collective-bargaining-and-lowminimum-wages/.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
58271
continued to expand into emerging
occupations and sectors; accordingly, as
discussed above and in the 2021 IRAP
Rescission NPRM, there is a significant
overlap in the industry sectors served by
RAPs and IRAPs. Further, the
administration of the IRAP system has
generated duplicative work and costs for
the Department, created inconsistent
standards for quality training, reduced
worker protections such as EEO, and
committed limited resources that could
have been better utilized by the
Department to partner with industry to
expand the existing Registered
Apprenticeship system. 86 FR 62971–
72.
Public Comments
The 2021 IRAP Rescission NPRM
invited written comments from the
public concerning the proposed
rulemaking; the comment period closed
on January 14, 2022. During the 60-day
public comment period, the Department
received a total of 20 public comment
submissions (including 18 unique
submissions, one duplicate submission,
and one submission that was outside the
scope of the rulemaking). The comments
received on the 2021 IRAP Rescission
NPRM may be viewed at https://
www.regulations.gov by entering docket
number ETA–2021–0007.
The commenters represented a range
of stakeholders from the public, private,
and not-for-profit sectors, including: six
labor organizations; three trade
associations; two advocacy
organizations; two SAAs; one
organization that represents SAAs; one
SRE; and one IRAP. The Department
also received comments from two
individuals. After careful consideration
of the comments received and for the
reasons explained below, the
Department is adopting this final rule,
which rescinds the regulatory
framework for SREs and IRAPs codified
at 29 CFR part 29, subpart B, and makes
necessary conforming changes to the
Department’s Registered Apprenticeship
regulations in 29 CFR part 29, subpart
A, as proposed (including removing the
subpart A designation).
General Support for and Opposition to
the 2021 Proposal To Rescind the 2020
IRAP Final Rule
Several commenters discussed their
general support for the proposal to
rescind the 2020 IRAP final rule and
thereby remove the regulatory
framework for SREs and IRAPs under 29
CFR part 29, subpart B. Some
commenters expressed agreement with
the proposal and further supported the
proposal’s focus on strengthening and
modernizing the current Registered
E:\FR\FM\26SER1.SGM
26SER1
58272
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 185 / Monday, September 26, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
Apprenticeship system, ensuring that
apprentices are protected from abuse
and properly trained by their chosen
apprenticeship program, and
safeguarding the welfare of apprentices.
Other commenters expressed support
for the proposal and argued that the
Registered Apprenticeship system
should be supported and expanded to
new industries and that, ‘‘if allowed to
remain in place, the 2020 IRAP final
rule would threaten to undo more than
eight decades of highly effective
apprenticeship programs validated by
public entities.’’ A commenter conveyed
its support for the removal of subpart B
because doing so would ensure that
construction industry apprenticeships
continue as the ‘‘gold standard’’ for
apprenticeship programs throughout the
United States and to serve as an
example to other industries to emulate.
Another commenter urged the
Department to ensure that the proposal
only strengthen RAPs and maintain the
high quality of the Registered
Apprenticeship system.
The Department appreciates the
commenters’ support of the proposal
and agrees that the RAP model is
effective and has proven successful for
both industry and workers for more than
80 years. The Department shares the
view of the commenters who believe
that the Department should focus its
efforts on bolstering and modernizing
the Registered Apprenticeship system
and facilitating the expansion of RAPs
into new and emerging industries and
sectors. The Department appreciates the
commenter’s assertion that the
rescission of 29 CFR part 29, subpart B
would ensure that construction industry
apprenticeships continue as the ‘‘gold
standard’’ for apprenticeship programs,
however, the Department also notes that
the rescission of this subpart would
ensure that all apprenticeship programs,
including construction industry
apprenticeships, maintain high-quality
labor standards in connection with the
Registered Apprenticeship framework.
The Department recognizes the value of
the Registered Apprenticeship system
and has prioritized investing in the RAP
model to rebuild the economy, expand
economic opportunities and workforce
access for underrepresented populations
and communities, and advance racial
and gender equity. By adopting this
proposal, the Department preserves
high-level requirements for apprentice
training and safety. These requirements
are vital to establishing quality RAP
opportunities that lead to good-quality
jobs, and careers for workers, while also
helping fulfill labor market demands
and support economic growth.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:55 Sep 23, 2022
Jkt 256001
The Department received comments
expressing general support for the IRAP
model, based on commenters’ use of the
model, and discussing some of the
benefits of their use of the IRAP model.
One commenter described the process
by which it developed an SRE and its
process to create criteria to evaluate
IRAPs. The commenter described its
process as fair, valid, impartial and
well-received by the IRAP that it
recognized. Another commenter
asserted that IRAPs can help close the
growing skills gap, creating a bridge
between business leaders and career
seekers. The commenter further argued
that IRAPs help rebuild the workforce
by shortening the amount of time
required to enter or upskill in a given
industry. The commenter also
highlighted the internal and external
program evaluation elements in their
IRAP that cover validation of need,
validation of competencies,
qualifications of personnel, apprentice
selection, and program effectiveness.
The Department acknowledges these
comments in general support of IRAPs
and appreciates that there can be
instances of success in IRAPs.
Nevertheless, as stated in the 2021 IRAP
Rescission NPRM, the Department
views the 2020 IRAP final rule as
inconsistent with the Department’s goal
of expanding quality apprenticeships in
a manner that both ensures a high level
of quality for apprentices and industry
while also retaining the necessary
flexibility to adapt apprenticeships to
different industries and occupations.
Further, the Department views the IRAP
system as duplicative of the Registered
Apprenticeship system, though with
fewer quality standards and less
oversight, and the IRAP system is not a
prudent use of Government resources
and would diminish the quality and
coherence of the Department’s
apprenticeship efforts.
In response to the commenter who
asserted that IRAPs can help address the
skills gap in the American workforce,
the Department disagrees with this
view. In the 2021 IRAP Rescission
NPRM, the Department explained why
the IRAP model is not poised to address
the existing challenges and
inefficiencies in the labor market.
Specifically, while providing training to
job seekers is a key component to
addressing any ‘‘skills gaps’’ or ‘‘skills
mismatches,’’ evidence suggests that
training alone is not the answer.
Employer investments in workforce
development, competitive and rising
wages to attract and retain workers,
commitments to opportunity and
diversity, and worker empowerment are
key factors to addressing industry labor
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
needs.8 9 The well-established RAP
model provides a more promising and
effective framework for addressing and
closing persistent inefficiencies in the
labor market.
The Department’s Role in Administering
the National Apprenticeship Act and
Implementing Its Regulations
The Department received several
comments that questioned whether the
2020 IRAP final rule’s issuance was
consistent with the NAA, referring to
the legislative history and purpose of
the NAA. One commenter, in describing
the NAA’s legislative history,
highlighted congressional comments
about Federal intervention to halt the
exploitation of apprentices. Several
commenters remarked that the 2020
IRAP final rule constituted an improper
delegation of the Department’s authority
under the NAA. One commenter stated
that Congress did not enable the
Secretary to delegate the authority to
approve apprenticeships or
apprenticeship standards to an outside
party. Similarly, another commenter
stated that the 2020 IRAP final rule
shifts the authority from the Department
to third-party SREs in contravention of
the Department’s responsibility under
the NAA to determine whether statutory
requirements have been met. Another
commenter stated that IRAPs created
under the 2020 IRAP final rule do not
feature the level of standardization
demanded by the NAA. A commenter
asserted that the 2020 IRAP final rule
unlawfully delegated EEO oversight to
SREs, contrary to the Department’s goals
in the 29 CFR part 30 regulations to
address discrimination and inequitable
participation of women and minorities
in apprenticeships. Another commenter
asserted that the 2020 IRAP final rule
eliminated protections for apprentices
established by the 2008 final rule,
including: (1) the requirement that a
State Apprenticeship Agency serving as
a Registration Agency recognized by the
Department under 29 CFR part 29 must
be a Government entity; (2) the
provisional registration of new
apprenticeship programs; (3) minimum
standards for instructor qualifications;
and (4) a cap on the length of an
apprentice’s probationary period. The
commenter argued that rescinding the
8 Annelies Goger and Luther Jackson, ‘‘The labor
market doesn’t have a ‘skills gap’—it has an
opportunity gap,’’ Sept. 9, 2020, https://
www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/09/09/
the-labor-market-doesnt-have-a-skills-gap-it-hasanopportunity-gap/.
9 Kate Bahn, ‘‘ ‘Skills gap’ arguments overlook
collective bargaining and low minimum wages,’’
May 9, 2019, https://equitablegrowth.org/skills-gaparguments-overlook-collective-bargaining-and-lowminimum-wages/.
E:\FR\FM\26SER1.SGM
26SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 185 / Monday, September 26, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
IRAP regulations would restore these
important protections as well as other
safeguards that preceded the 2008 final
rule, such as the minimum number of
hours of related instruction (RI), for all
apprentices.
The Department acknowledges these
comments and appreciates their support
for the 2021 IRAP Rescission NPRM. As
the Department explained in the 2020
IRAP final rule (85 FR 14295–14296,
Mar. 11, 2020), the NAA provides a
general authorization and direction for
the Secretary to create and promote
standards of apprenticeship, including
through contracts, and to interface with
employers, labor, and States to create
apprenticeships and apprenticeship
standards. See 29 U.S.C. 50. The 2020
IRAP final rule does not exceed or
conflict with the broad authority
granted by Congress to the Secretary in
the NAA. However, the Department
agrees that IRAPs created under the
2020 IRAP final rule do not provide
adequate standards for high-quality
training or safety and welfare
protections, including sufficient EEO
protections. As stated in the 2021 IRAP
Rescission NPRM, the 2020 IRAP final
rule ‘‘does not provide adequate focus
on worker needs and protections, does
not ensure adequate program quality
standards, does not provide sufficient
[EEO] protections for apprentices, and
does not provide a proven pathway to
family-sustaining jobs’’ (86 FR 62967,
Nov. 15, 2021).
With regard to the comment that the
2020 IRAP final rule eliminated
protections for apprentices established
by the 2008 final rule, the Department
clarifies that the 2020 IRAP final rule
did not propose any revisions to the 29
CFR part 29 requirements that a State
Apprenticeship Agency serving as a
Registration Agency must be a
Government entity, the provisional
registration of new apprenticeship
programs, the minimum standards for
instructor qualifications, and a cap on
the length of an apprentice’s
probationary period. Rather, the 2020
IRAP final rule made technical
amendments to subpart A to account for
subpart B. The 2021 IRAP Rescission
NPRM proposed to remove subpart B, to
make conforming technical edits to
what had been subpart A, and to remove
the distinctions of subparts because they
would no longer be necessary with the
removal of subpart B. Therefore, no
changes are required in response to
these comments.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:55 Sep 23, 2022
Jkt 256001
II. The Registered Apprenticeship
System Is Highly Successful for
Industry
A skilled workforce is foundational to
a strong economy, and RAPs provide a
proven avenue by which to deliver
much needed talent development to
various industry sectors. For over 80
years, the Registered Apprenticeship
system has been successful in providing
industry with high-quality work-based
learning. RAPs combine paid on-the-job
learning (OJL) with RI to progressively
increase workers’ skill levels and wages.
With this ‘‘earn and learn’’ model,
apprentices are employed and earn
wages from the first day on the job.
Additionally, employers have continued
to turn to Registered Apprenticeship to
hire and train new employees, with over
241,000 new apprentices in RAPs in
Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 across several
industries, including cybersecurity,
healthcare, advanced manufacturing,
transportation, energy, and information
technology (IT).10 Industries that have
adopted RAPs as part of their workbased learning models have cited the
standards, skillsets, and retention
offered by skilled workers associated
with RAPs as advantageous to their
bottom line. In one survey, nearly threefourths of surveyed employers stated
that RAPs drove increased worker
productivity.11 RAPs are a flexible
training strategy, with vital quality
controls, that can be customized to meet
the business needs for a skilled
workforce. These strategies include
allowing employers to partner with
workforce partners and educators to
develop and apply industry standards to
training programs, thereby increasing
the quality and productivity of the
workforce.
Most commenters agreed with the
Department’s position in the NPRM that
RAPs are highly successful for industry.
One commenter noted the eight
successful decades of the Registered
Apprenticeship system and credited
RAPs with continued success in
expanding their presence in high10 The 25 federally administered States and 18
federally recognized SAAs use the Employment and
Training Administration’s Registered
Apprenticeship Partners Information Database
System (RAPIDS) to provide individual apprentice
and sponsor data. These data represent Registered
Apprenticeship national results for FY 2021 (Oct.
1, 2020–Sept. 30, 2021), as reported by these
entities, and are available at https://www.dol.gov/
agencies/eta/apprenticeship/about/statistics/2021
(last visited May 19, 2022).
11 Urban Institute Research Report, ‘‘The Benefits
and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The
Sponsors’ Perspective,’’ June 12, 2009, https://
www.urban.org/research/publication/benefits-andchallenges-registered-apprenticeship-sponsorsperspective.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
58273
growth sectors (e.g., advanced
manufacturing, healthcare,
transportation, and IT) and ‘‘in
industries not traditionally associated
with apprenticeship.’’ Another
commenter encouraged the Department
to ‘‘embrace and bolster’’ the RAP
model. Several commenters referred to
RAPs as the ‘‘gold standard’’ for
apprenticeship that creates a highly
trained workforce. The Department
appreciates these commenters’ support
for RAPs and agrees that the Registered
Apprenticeship system has had a robust
and successful history.
Notably, these same commenters who
lauded RAP as beneficial to industry
also expressed their views that IRAPs
are harmful to industry. One commenter
expressed concern that the 2020 IRAP
final rule’s lack of uniform standards
disincentivizes the creation of
apprenticeship programs because
apprentices are easily ‘‘poached’’ due to
minimal standards and less program
transparency. The commenter also
stated that the Department’s decision to
create IRAPs was counter to the Task
Force’s recommendation to start with a
pilot program to determine industry
interest, leading to a hastily created
apprenticeship model without evidence
that it would be embraced by industry
or successful as a viable alternative to
RAPs.
Commenters also expressed the view
that the 2020 IRAP final rule was
detrimental to the construction
industry, despite the exclusion of
construction activities from the 2020
IRAP final rule. A commenter also noted
that future administrations could
remove the construction exclusion from
the 2020 IRAP final rule, thereby
undermining RAPs in the construction
industry, and jeopardizing RAPs as the
‘‘premier method for preparing its future
workforce.’’
The Department appreciates the
support received to rescind the 2020
IRAP final rule. The Department
acknowledges the commenters’
assertions that IRAPs would create
disincentives to setting up
apprenticeship programs or an overall
negative impact on industry, including
the construction industry. The
Department’s rationale for rescinding
the 2020 IRAP final rule does not rely
upon general concerns about the
potential detrimental effect to industry
generally and the construction industry
particularly, but the Department
appreciates these concerns and notes
that the rescission of the 2020 IRAP
final rule in its entirety obviates such
concerns.
Conversely, a commenter in support
of the IRAP system noted their
E:\FR\FM\26SER1.SGM
26SER1
58274
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 185 / Monday, September 26, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
opposition to the Department’s
exclusion of the construction industry
from recognition under the IRAP
regulatory framework.12 This
commenter argued that the construction
industry was ripe for an expansion of
apprenticeship opportunities. While the
commenter applauded efforts to recruit,
retrain, and upskill workers in the
Registered Apprenticeship system, the
commenter asserted that ‘‘new and
innovative apprenticeships’’ are
necessary in the construction sector as
it recovers from the negative economic
impacts of the Coronavirus Disease 2019
(COVID–19) pandemic. The commenter
specifically highlighted the residential
construction industry as one that could
benefit from these new approaches to
apprenticeship. The commenter urged
the Department, when designing and
implementing apprenticeship and job
training opportunities, to target those
industries with the highest number of
job openings and conduct greater
outreach efforts to identify the
individual sectors that are
underrepresented. The commenter also
encouraged the Department to take steps
to distinguish between types of
construction activities (such as
residential construction) and collaborate
with the different segments of the
construction industry ‘‘to develop and
expand [RAPs] through companies,
educational organizations, and other
nonunion groups that better represent
the demographics of the workforce.’’
In response to the comment
reiterating opposition to the
construction industry’s exclusion in the
2020 IRAP final rule, the Department
has concluded that the rescission of the
2020 IRAP final rule should have a
beneficial impact across all industries
by restoring a unitary regulatory
framework for quality apprenticeship
programs, both in sectors where such
programs are widespread (such as
construction) and in a wide range of
high-growth and emerging occupations
(such as healthcare, IT, cybersecurity,
advanced manufacturing). While the
Department notes the commenter’s
concerns about a current shortage of
workers in the residential construction
sector, it does not believe that
preserving a parallel system of
apprenticeship that lacks quality control
and oversight is the appropriate solution
for addressing such a worker shortage.
Moreover, the Department notes that it
has registered nonunion programs in the
construction sector, which demonstrates
12 The 2020 IRAP final rule at § 29.30 excluded
SREs from not recognizing as IRAPs programs that
seek to train apprentices to perform construction
activities as defined in § 29.30.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:55 Sep 23, 2022
Jkt 256001
the RAP model can be successfully
utilized across all parts of an industry.
The Department notes further that the
IRAP system is not necessary to expand
the reach of apprenticeship to new and
different industries as RAPs have
proven to be successful across a wide
range of industry sectors. The
Department continues to be interested
in expanding and strengthening the RAP
model in all industry sectors, including
residential construction and other
construction-related activities.
III. The Registered Apprenticeship
System Is Highly Successful for
Workers
A. Registered Apprenticeships
Uniformly Provide More Rigorous,
Higher Quality Training
In addition to the demonstrated
success of the Registered
Apprenticeship system as a workforce
training model for industry, it has
proven to be highly successful and
beneficial to workers because of its
emphasis on both high-quality training
and apprentice safety and welfare. RAPs
are designed to ensure high-quality
training through structured OJL,
mentorship, and RI, while also
prioritizing safety, wage progression,
and EEO for apprentices. RAPs
implement federally approved industry
standards for training apprentices for
skilled occupations in the workplace;
specifically, these programs must abide
by regulatory provisions for supervision
and training of apprentices to further
enhance safety in the workplace. During
training, apprentices are guaranteed
progressive wage increases, and
research shows that RAP completers
earn over $300,000 (including benefits)
more over their lifetimes as compared
with individuals who do not complete
a RAP.13 Further, the Department has
taken significant steps to increase the
participation of women and individuals
from underrepresented groups through
the robust requirements in 29 CFR part
30. With Registered Apprenticeship,
there is also an added level of
accountability because the Department
can intervene and ensure employers
provide progressive wages established
in their approved Registered
13 See, e.g., Mathematica Policy Research, ‘‘An
Effectiveness Assessment and Cost-Benefit Analysis
of Registered Apprenticeship in 10 States: Final
Report,’’ July 25, 2012, https://wdr.doleta.gov/
research/FullText_Documents/ETAOP_2012_
10.pdf. The study cautions against interpreting its
results, which do not control for unobservable skill
or motivation, as having conclusively identified the
effects of Registered Apprenticeship on earnings.
Moreover, the estimates do not represent
increments between RAPs and IRAPs (the latter not
having been implemented at the time the study was
conducted).
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Apprenticeship standards, ensure
stringent safety standards are in place,
address discrimination and issues of
equal opportunity, and monitor program
quality to protect workers.
Commenters agreed with the
Department that the RAP model is
highly successful because of its
emphasis on both high-quality training
and apprentice safety and welfare and
agreed with the Department’s position
that IRAPs are not designed to
uniformly promote these core elements
of quality apprenticeship programs. For
example, several commenters, in
expressing support for the Department’s
2021 IRAP Rescission NPRM, remarked
that RAPs offer protection and standards
to ensure quality among the hallmarks
of apprenticeship—high-quality
training, including OJL and RI, safety
and welfare, progressive wages, EEO
protections, and worker empowerment.
One commenter argued that Registered
Apprenticeship is a proven model that
consistently provides quality training
and employment opportunities, and
another commenter stated that the RAP
model’s balance of regulatory oversight
and standardized training requirements
produces workers with skillsets that
lead to family-sustaining careers. In
addition, in noting their support for the
Department’s 2021 IRAP Rescission
NPRM, several commenters compared
the RAP model with that of IRAPs,
agreeing with the Department’s
determination that the IRAP model
neither adequately ensures high-quality
training nor apprentice safety and
welfare.
Commenters also provided
suggestions on how to improve
Registered Apprenticeship. One
commenter suggested that the
Department use lessons learned from
the IRAP model to strengthen Registered
Apprenticeship, specifically
recommending that the RAP model
should emphasize the assessment of
competencies, use third-party capstone
industry-recognized certifications, and
require a program evaluation
component with an emphasis on
outcomes. Another commenter, in
expressing support for the 2021 IRAP
Rescission NPRM, suggested that
resources be refocused on aggressive
oversight of RAPs to ensure the
protection of apprentices, including
investigation into the amount and
source of funding for the operation of a
RAP; the adequacy of the facilities and
equipment used for training; adequacy
of plans for retraining graduates to
upgrade skillsets; the track record of the
RAP sponsor; and whether the sponsor
has the ability to provide broad-based
training that will prepare apprentices to
E:\FR\FM\26SER1.SGM
26SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 185 / Monday, September 26, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
be marketable in an industry-recognized
occupation.
The Department appreciates these
comments that support its 2021 IRAP
Rescission NPRM. The Department also
appreciates and agrees with the
comments characterizing the RAP
model as highly successful because of
its emphasis on protections and
standards that ensure high-quality
training and apprentice safety and
welfare. The Department agrees with the
comments that assert that the IRAP
model does not adequately ensure highquality training or apprentice safety and
welfare. With respect to the suggestions
on how to improve Registered
Apprenticeship, the Department
acknowledges these comments and
continues to be interested in ideas to
expand Registered Apprenticeship
while elevating important quality
standards and promoting advancement
opportunities for workers. The
Department notes that the 2020 IRAP
final rule does not mandate industry
capstone certifications and that such
mechanisms are not prohibited under
the Registered Apprenticeship
regulations. The Department continues
to be interested in exploring ideas for
strengthening the Registered
Apprenticeship system and training
model, and the Department appreciates
these suggestions on how to make
Registered Apprenticeship more
successful for all workers and
industries.
A structured OJL model is a hallmark
of a high-quality apprenticeship
program, as this framework provides
standardized evaluation of apprentice
proficiency using a time-based model,
competency-based model, or a hybrid of
both, with benchmarks that ensure
mastery in the apprentice’s respective
occupation and flexibility in the
approach used that ensures
apprenticeships can be developed and
customized to a variety of
occupations.14 OJL is a critical
component for the apprentice’s learning
experience, and the Department
considers a structured mentorship
requirement as a strength for highquality apprenticeship programs. RAPs
pair apprentices with experienced
employees (also referred to as
journeyworkers) who have already
mastered the skills and competencies
14 RAP
regulations at 29 CFR 29.5(b)(2) set forth
the requirements for the term of apprenticeship,
which for an individual apprentice may be
measured either through the completion of the
industry standard for OJL (at least 2,000 hours)
(time-based approach), the attainment of
competency (competency-based approach), or a
blend of the time-based and competency-based
approaches (hybrid approach).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:55 Sep 23, 2022
Jkt 256001
associated with the occupation such
that these individuals can mentor
apprentices with on-the-job guidance
and direction that ensures safety and
quality training. In contrast, the IRAP
regulations lack a structured,
standardized framework for OJL,
resulting in inconsistent training across
all SREs and IRAPs.
Another critical component of a RAP
is RI.15 This RI provision is designed to
ensure that apprentices uniformly
receive meaningful and substantive
knowledge in their respective
occupations, creating a well-rounded
training experience that provides the
educational foundation necessary for
success in practical settings, while also
retaining flexibility based on different
industries and occupations that may
require varying amounts of RI. In
contrast, the IRAP regulations lack
standards on minimum RI hours, and do
not articulate how SREs monitor or
evaluate RI.
The Department received several
comments concerning OJL and RI.
Several commenters, in expressing their
support for the Department’s 2021 IRAP
Rescission NPRM, agreed with the
Department’s assertion that the IRAP
model lacks OJL and RI standards that
are necessary to ensure high-quality
training. One commenter argued that the
2020 IRAP final rule’s lack of robust OJL
requirements means that many IRAPs
would not include this essential aspect
of quality apprenticeship programs.
Another commenter lauded the current
OJL and RI requirements in the
Registered Apprenticeship regulations 16
and agreed with the Department’s
assertion that the 2020 IRAP final rule’s
requirement of only a written training
plan 17 means that IRAPs cannot create
a standardized framework for quality
training since quality of training can
vary across SREs. Another commenter
suggested that the RAP model benefits
apprentices through robust
requirements for OJL, which provides a
holistic understanding of their specific
field; the commenter also asserted that
the RAP model is generally supported
by a recommended minimum
15 RI is an organized and systematic form of
instruction designed to provide the apprentice with
the knowledge of the theoretical and technical
subjects related to the apprentice’s occupation.
Such instruction may be given in a classroom,
through occupational or industrial courses, or by
correspondence courses of equivalent value,
electronic media, or other forms of self-study
approved by the Registration Agency. 29 CFR 29.2.
Under 29 CFR 29.5(b)(4), a minimum of 144 hours
of RI is recommended for Registered
Apprenticeship; many RAPs exceed this 144-hour
recommendation.
16 See 29 CFR 29.5(b)(1) through (3) for OJL and
29.5b(4) for RI.
17 See 29 CFR 29.22(a)(4)(ii).
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
58275
requirement for RI, which provides
theoretical and technical education
associated with an apprentice’s
profession. The same commenter argued
that the absence of minimum standards
and an articulated approach to
evaluation for RI in the 2020 IRAP final
rule results in subpar IRAP training
relative to RAPs and a lower quality
experience for employers and
apprentices. Another commenter agreed
with the Department and stated that the
2020 IRAP final rule’s approach to OJL
and RI is amorphous and inadequate.
The commenter also referred to the
Department’s recent updates to its RAP
guidance 18 around flexibilities available
in the delivery of OJL and RI to
demonstrate that the RAP model can be
flexible while still adhering to quality
standards.
Another commenter, in expressing
support for the proposed rescission,
argued that the IRAP model also failed
to incorporate apprenticeability
standards, which appear at 29 CFR
29.4.19 The commenter argued that
rescission of the 2020 IRAP final rule is
important to ensure that apprentices
receive broad-based training for indemand skills because the 2020 IRAP
final rule fails to account for
apprentices’ need to affordably retrain
and update their skillsets. The
commenter referred to three States—
Delaware, New York, and
Pennsylvania—that have included
language in their apprenticeability
standards that ensures skill
development is not restricted to a single
organization. Further, the commenter
referred to Washington State’s
apprenticeability standard as one of the
most stringent.
While not expressly opposing the
Department’s 2021 IRAP Rescission
NPRM, two commenters, nevertheless,
expressed their support of the general
IRAP approach to OJL and RI, and
suggested improvements to the RAP
model based on the 2020 IRAP final
rule. One of these commenters
developed an IRAP-recognition
procedure that the commenter described
as ‘‘based on national and international
standards [. . .] that, in turn,
incorporate adult learning principles,
validate content in alignment with
industry, and produce rigorous and
18 OA issued Circular 2021–01, Flexibilities
Available for the Delivery of On-the-Job Learning
(OJL) and Related Instruction (RI) by Registered
Apprenticeship Programs (RAPs), on December 16,
2020. It is available at https://
www.apprenticeship.gov/about-us/legislationregulations-guidance/circulars.
19 Registered Apprenticeship regulations at 29
CFR 29.4 set forth criteria for determining when an
occupation qualifies as apprenticeable.
E:\FR\FM\26SER1.SGM
26SER1
58276
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 185 / Monday, September 26, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
validated assessment tools and
personnel who are qualified to facilitate
learning in the work environment.’’ This
commenter expressed the view that
incorporating such a competency-based
approach could strengthen outcomes for
RAP apprentices by assuring industry
and employers that competencies have
been attained. The commenters
recommended that all apprenticeships
be based on competency and
performance criteria rather than having
the option of a time-based approach,
and they stated that the Department
should incorporate positive features of
the 2020 IRAP final rule into a new,
modified Registered Apprenticeship
system. To this end, one of the
commenters recommended that RAPs
emphasize the assessment of
competencies by using a third-party
capstone industry-recognized
certification and by requiring a program
evaluation component with an emphasis
on outcomes. The other commenter
opined that the IRAP model’s
competency-based approach to learning
is more cost effective than
apprenticeship programs that are timebased. The commenter further asserted
that IRAPs provide credit for prior
knowledge for all workers, allowing
individuals to complete apprenticeships
more quickly. The same commenter
stated that its IRAP ensures quality of
OJL and apprentices’ instruction by
specifically using an assessment model
tiered with several levels of quality
assurance.
The Department appreciates and
agrees with the comments asserting that,
when compared to Registered
Apprenticeship, the IRAP model lacks
OJL and RI requirements that are
necessary to ensure high-quality
training. The Department agrees with
the comments that laud the RAP
model’s approach to OJL and RI, which
provide a holistic understanding of a
specific field and are generally
supported by a recommended minimum
requirement for RI that provides
theoretical and technical education
associated with an apprentice’s
profession. The Department also agrees
that the standards and approach to
evaluation for RI in the 2020 IRAP final
rule results in subpar training relative to
RAPs and a lower quality experience for
employers and apprentices. The
Department concurs that the existing
approach to OJL and RI in RAPs has
proven effective in striking an
appropriate balance between the
structure necessary to ensure highquality training and the flexibility
necessary to adapt the apprenticeship
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:55 Sep 23, 2022
Jkt 256001
model to different industries and
occupations.
In response to the comment that notes
the 2020 IRAP final rule failed to
incorporate apprenticeability standards,
the Department concurs that the
omission of the apprenticeability
requirements from the 2020 IRAP final
rule was problematic. The Department
agrees that this omission is further
support for the proposed rescission, as
apprenticeability standards are a key
component in determining whether an
occupation’s training is responsive to
the needs of industry. The RAP model’s
incorporation of apprenticeability
standards to determine whether
proposed training is suitable for an
occupation and responsive to industry
needs underscores the quality of the
existing RAP model.
In response to the comments that
expressed support of the IRAP model’s
approach to OJL and RI, the Department
maintains that IRAPs do not have the
same rigorous training standards for
minimum skill level or competency
baselines in their respective occupations
when compared to RAPs. Regarding the
commenter that stated that the IRAP
model’s competency-based approach to
learning is more cost effective than
apprenticeship programs that are timebased, the Department notes that the
RAP model allows for a competencybased approach to OJL (see 29 CFR
29.5(b)(2)(ii)) and permits RAP sponsors
the ability to choose the approach—
time-based, competency-based, or
hybrid—that is best suited for their
industry, programs, and apprentices.
Regarding the same commenter’s further
assertion that IRAPs provide credit for
prior knowledge for all workers,
allowing individuals to complete
apprenticeships more quickly, the
Department notes that the RAP model
also permits sponsors to grant advanced
standing or credit for demonstrated
competency (see 29 CFR 29.5(b)(12)).
Finally, in response to the same
commenter that stated its IRAP ensures
quality of OJL and apprentices’
instruction by specifically using an
assessment model tiered with several
levels of quality assurance, the
Department acknowledges that while
the commenter’s specific IRAP may
implement several levels of quality
assurance for its OJL and RI, the 2020
IRAP final rule fails to ensure that all
IRAPs include such quality standards
for OJL and RI.
In response to the comments that
suggest improvements to the RAP
model’s approaches to OJL and RI, the
Department appreciates the
commenters’ recommendation
concerning the assessment of
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
competencies as a key measure for
evaluating the successful completion of
a RAP by an apprentice but notes that
adoption of these suggestions are
outside the scope of this rulemaking.
The Department also notes that the RAP
regulations at 29 CFR 29.2 define
‘‘competency’’ as ‘‘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 proficiency
measurement.’’ Accordingly,
competency attainment is the basis for
advancement through and successful
completion of both the competencybased and hybrid approaches in RAPs.
The Department is committed to
expanding competency attainment
models as a feature of RAPs while also
ensuring the acquisition of critical
structured OJL necessary to acquire
these competencies. Such models
should include sufficient mentoring
opportunities for apprentices to obtain
proficiency in the skilled occupation.
The Department acknowledges this
comment regarding the utility of thirdparty evaluation of an apprentice’s
competencies in apprenticeship
program design and is committed to
continuing to study effective RAP
models, identify research and evidencebased practices, and evaluate their
outcomes.
B. Registered Apprenticeships Provide
Better Safety and Welfare Protections
The importance of apprentice safety
and welfare cannot be overstated. As
discussed in the 2021 IRAP Rescission
NPRM and reiterated below, the
Registered Apprenticeship system
includes enhanced requirements related
to safety, EEO, progressive wages, and
other worker protections that provide
apprentices with meaningful
employment opportunities while also
guaranteeing rights and protections on
the job. In contrast, the requirements of
the 2020 IRAP final rule fall short in
these areas. That final rule’s
requirements include basic compliance
with existing laws but do not create
additional obligations that focus on
safeguarding the welfare of apprentices,
especially with respect to progressively
increasing wages, safety requirements,
and EEO protections and requirements.
The 2021 IRAP Rescission NPRM also
noted that the 2020 IRAP final rule
dilutes the Department’s role in
overseeing apprenticeships, tasking
SREs with this oversight role instead,
and retaining only a minimal role in
overseeing the SREs. The Department
received several comments regarding
these issues, which are discussed below.
E:\FR\FM\26SER1.SGM
26SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 185 / Monday, September 26, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
1. Workplace Safety
RAPs require several safety
protections designed to both teach
apprentices how to work safely within
their occupation and create safe
workplaces for apprentices.20 These
safety requirements focus on both
physical workplace safety and safety
through training and mentorship.
Further, they are meant to protect the
safety of apprentices in each RAP by
being tailored to the specific conditions
in which those apprentices will be
working and learning. In contrast, IRAPs
are not covered by enhanced safety
standards beyond generally applicable
Federal, State, and local safety laws and
regulations and any additional safety
requirements of the SRE.
Several comments in support of the
2021 IRAP Rescission NPRM discussed
the strength of Registered
Apprenticeship’s worker safety
protections. For example, one
commenter noted that the Registered
Apprenticeship safety framework has
proven effective in striking the right
balance between safety, quality, and
flexibility across industries. Further, the
commenter highlighted the strength of
Registered Apprenticeship’s safety
parameters, to include ratios,
supervision, and training requirements.
Another commenter highlighted the
importance of a safe training
environment for apprentices in RAPs,
with an emphasis on data from the
construction industry about the inherent
dangers to younger, less experienced
workers. The commenter described how
RAPs include extensive safety training
as well as supervision and on-the-job
training to ensure the work environment
is safe. These commenters also
contrasted the Registered
Apprenticeship safety protections with
the 2020 IRAP final rule. One
commenter highlighted the lack of
required safety training in the 2020
IRAP final rule and offered that a mere
pledge to comply with workplace safety
laws was insufficient to adequately
protect apprentices. Another commenter
acknowledged the construction industry
exclusion from the 2020 IRAP final rule
but expressed concern that some
industry programs could still be
recognized as IRAPs, which in the
commenter’s view would create parallel
systems that would dilute safety
requirements and affect overall industry
safety for apprentices, journeyworkers,
and the public. A commenter faulted the
2020 IRAP final rule for merely
requiring IRAPs to abide by Federal,
State, and local safety laws and for
20 See
29 CFR 29.5(b)(7) and (9).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:55 Sep 23, 2022
Jkt 256001
providing SREs with too much
discretion to establish their own safety
standards, leading to less rigorous safety
requirements that could result in unsafe
training programs and high-risk
workplaces. Finally, a commenter
contrasted the safety requirements for
RAPs in the Registered Apprenticeship
regulations at 29 CFR 29.5 with the lack
of an apprentice-to-journeyworker ratio
in the 2020 IRAP final rule at 29 CFR
29.22 to ensure a level of supervision
necessary for apprentice safety.
The Department appreciates these
comments and agrees that Registered
Apprenticeship’s worker safety
provisions are designed to provide
stronger protections than provided in
the 2020 IRAP final rule. The
Department views the enhanced safety
requirements in Registered
Apprenticeship regulations as an
essential element of a successful
apprenticeship program, given the
nature of apprenticeship as OJL and
training. The focus in the Registered
Apprenticeship regulations on both
workplace safety standards and safety
through training and mentorship
provides a multi-pronged approach to
worker safety. 29 CFR 29.5(b)(7) and (9).
The Department agrees with the
commenters’ assessments that the safety
requirements in Registered
Apprenticeship are rigorous enough to
provide essential protection and
training for apprentices as well as
flexible and adaptable enough to each
workplace and industry needs. The
Department also agrees with
commenters’ assessments of the 2020
IRAP final rule requirements at
§ 29.22(a)(4) as being insufficient to
provide a safe training environment for
apprentices. Likewise, the Department
agrees that the 2020 IRAP final rule
instead inadvisably gives discretion to
the SRE on the important matter of
apprentice safety, potentially leading to
both inconsistencies and deficient safety
requirements across IRAPs even within
the same industry. With respect to the
construction industry exclusion from
the 2020 IRAP final rule in § 29.30, the
Department acknowledges concerns that
IRAPs could have been recognized in
the construction industry despite the
exclusion in the 2020 IRAP final rule.
Although the Department views the
explicit construction industry exclusion
from the 2020 IRAP final rule as an
appropriate safeguard against such
potential outcomes, the Department’s
decision to rescind the 2020 IRAP final
rule resolves concerns about potential
weaknesses in the 2020 IRAP final rule’s
construction industry exclusion.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
58277
2. Progressive Wages
It is a priority of the Department to
grow opportunities to help workers
access family-sustaining jobs. The RAP
earn-as-you-learn model accomplishes
this priority by providing for
progressively increasing wages for
apprentices as they progress in their
apprenticeship experience, learning,
and skills. In Registered
Apprenticeship, the graduated scale of
wages and any compensation for RI is
set forth in the apprenticeship
agreement required for each apprentice.
Not only is this type of wage
progression guaranteed per the terms of
the apprenticeship agreement, but it
also serves as an important incentive to
attract apprentices and sets them on a
path to family-sustaining careers. In
contrast, there is no such guaranteed
wage progression for apprentices of
IRAPs—an apprentice could be earning
the same wages over the course of the
apprenticeship, and any wage
progression is solely at the discretion of
the IRAP.
Several commenters in support of the
2021 IRAP Rescission NPRM discussed
the importance of Registered
Apprenticeship’s progressive wage
requirements. A couple of commenters
cited research showing that apprentices
who successfully complete RAPs
accrue, over the course of their careers,
approximately $300,000 more in salary
and benefits than similarly situated
workers who have not completed a
RAP.21 Another commenter described
RAPs as providing ‘‘a pathway to the
middle class’’ because apprentices are
guaranteed to receive higher wages as
they advance and complete training
requirements.
These commenters also faulted the
IRAP model for failing to require
progressive wage increases for
participants. One commenter expressed
concern that failing to require
progressive wages would decrease the
attractiveness of IRAPs, lead to lower
completion rates, and worsen employee
loyalty. One commenter expressed that
the 2020 IRAP final rule’s lack of
progressive wage requirement
undermined the pathway to the middle
class because IRAPs are permitted to
21 See, e.g., Mathematica Policy Research, ‘‘An
Effectiveness Assessment and Cost-Benefit Analysis
of Registered Apprenticeship in 10 States: Final
Report,’’ July 25, 2012, https://wdr.doleta.gov/
research/FullText_Documents/ETAOP_2012_
10.pdf. The study cautions against interpreting its
results, which do not control for unobservable skill
or motivation, as having conclusively identified the
effects of Registered Apprenticeship on earnings.
Moreover, the estimates do not represent
increments between RAPs and IRAPs (the latter not
having been implemented at the time the study was
conducted).
E:\FR\FM\26SER1.SGM
26SER1
58278
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 185 / Monday, September 26, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
offer a single wage rate that never
increases, even after apprentices’
complete months or years of training.
A commenter expressed concern that
IRAPs could subvert Davis-Bacon Act
provisions that provide exemptions for
apprentices in RAPs to be paid at an
amount commensurate with their skill
level for Federal construction contract
positions. The commenter noted that
this exemption allows an apprentice to
gain firsthand experience through a
robust training program with
mentorship. Citing research, a
commenter remarked that ‘‘robust’’
prevailing wage laws help States attract
more apprentices and lead to improved
safety on construction work sites.
The Department agrees with the
commenters that progressive wages are
a critical element in successful
apprenticeship programs both because
they guarantee increases commensurate
with the apprentice’s experience and
proficiency and because they lead
apprentices on a path to higher lifetime
earnings. The Department also agrees
with these commenters that the absence
of a requirement for a progressively
increasing schedule of apprentice wages
in the 2020 IRAP final rule is a
fundamental shortcoming and is
inconsistent with the Department’s role
in promoting the highest quality
apprenticeship programs. The
Department acknowledges one
commenter’s concern regarding DavisBacon wages and related concern that
IRAPs could subvert these wage
provisions to create instability in the
construction apprenticeship program.
The Department does not share this
view, however, because the construction
industry exclusion in the 2020 IRAP
final rule was specifically designed to
address this concern. Moreover, the
Department’s decision to rescind the
2020 IRAP final rule in its entirety will
obviate any concerns about its potential
negative impact on construction
industry wages.
One commenter in support of the
2020 IRAP final rule stated that IRAPs
provide opportunities for job seekers to
obtain profitable employment while
earning a credential and developing
‘‘specific industry-related skill sets.’’
The commenter remarked that its
practice was to create apprenticeship
programs that pay a living wage, as
determined by local workforce
development boards.
The Department acknowledges and
appreciates that IRAPs may structure
their programs to provide a path to
family-sustaining employment, and that
the commenter’s particular IRAP may be
one that is beneficial to its apprentices.
The issue with the 2020 IRAP final rule,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:55 Sep 23, 2022
Jkt 256001
however, is that it does not set
requirements in this regard—other than
adherence to applicable laws—and
therefore, IRAPs’ wage structures may
vary widely. IRAPs have broad
discretion to structure their wages as
they please and to include stagnant
wages that do not provide a viable path
to family-sustaining employment. For
this reason, the Department does not
view IRAPs’ wage requirements as
sufficiently meeting the Department’s
goal of ensuring high-quality
apprenticeship programs.
3. Equal Employment Opportunity
The Department views equity and
equal opportunity as essential to the
success of an apprenticeship program,
and it notes its responsibility under E.O.
13985, ‘‘Advancing Racial Equity and
Support for Underserved Communities
Through the Federal Government,’’ 86
FR 7009 (Jan. 20, 2021), to advance
equity, civil rights, racial justice, and
equal opportunity. Accordingly, the
Registered Apprenticeship system has
structured and specific requirements
regarding equal opportunity, antiharassment, affirmative action,
utilization analyses and goals, targeted
recruitment, outreach and retention,
compliance, and enforcement. In
contrast, the 2020 IRAP final rule only
requires IRAPs to affirm their adherence
to applicable Federal, State, and local
laws and regulations pertaining to EEO.
Commenters in support of the
Department’s 2021 IRAP Rescission
NPRM highlighted the strength of the
Registered Apprenticeship system’s EEO
requirements. One commenter remarked
that the Registered Apprenticeship
system’s EEO requirements are
especially important for women, people
of color, and veterans.22 Another lauded
the Registered Apprenticeship system’s
requirements to take affirmative steps to
ensure EEO in apprenticeship. One
commenter specifically noted the
Registered Apprenticeship system’s
requirements to develop and maintain
an extensive affirmative action plan,
comprehensive recordkeeping, and
complaint and enforcement provisions.
Commenters were also critical of the
2020 IRAP final rule’s lack of enhanced
EEO provisions. One commenter faulted
the 2020 IRAP final rule for failing to
22 Pursuant to 29 CFR 30.3, all apprentices and
applicants for Registered Apprenticeship are
protected against discrimination on the bases of
race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual
orientation, age (40 or older), genetic information,
or disability. While the EEO in apprenticeship
regulations do not specify veterans as a protected
group, sponsors may specifically seek out veterans
or give them preference in hiring as long as doing
so does not discriminate on the basis of any of the
protected characteristics covered by 29 CFR 30.3.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
ensure EEO in its apprenticeship
programs for underrepresented groups,
including women, minorities, and
individuals with disabilities. The
commenter stated that merely requiring
SREs to develop outreach strategies was
insufficient because there was no
requirement to implement such
strategies. Another commenter similarly
faulted the 2020 IRAP final rule for
failing to require programs to comply
with Registered Apprenticeship’s EEO
regulations at 29 CFR part 30 and
instead only requiring IRAPs to practice
‘‘passive nondiscrimination’’ and
comply with a ‘‘patchwork’’ of Federal,
State, and local antidiscrimination laws.
Because of this, the commenter asserted
that IRAPs do not comply with the
Biden Administration’s E.O. 13985,
‘‘Advancing Racial Equity and Support
for Underserved Communities Through
the Federal Government.’’ The
commenter argued that the 2020 IRAP
final rule undermined diversity efforts
in its industry and fails to protect
minorities and other disadvantaged
populations that would otherwise
benefit from apprenticeship programs in
its industry. By rescinding the 2020
IRAP final rule and redirecting
resources to expansion of the Registered
Apprenticeship system, the commenter
said the Department would promote
equity and equal opportunities to
participate in training programs with a
‘‘proven record of leading to middleclass jobs for all Americans.’’ Similarly,
another commenter agreed that IRAPs
would not successfully expand
opportunities to participate in
apprenticeship programs to underserved
populations because programs under the
IRAP model are only required to affirm
they will adhere to Federal, State, and
local EEO laws and regulations. A
commenter also noted the benefits of
building upon and strengthening the
successful Registered Apprenticeship
program rather than allowing a parallel
model ‘‘to evolve through the shedding
of strong EEO commitments,
obligations, [and] accountability.’’
The Department appreciates and
agrees with the comments in support of
the Registered Apprenticeship system’s
part 30 regulations. The Department
also agrees with the comments faulting
the 2020 IRAP final rule for falling short
by only requiring the bare minimum
under applicable laws and minimal
additional outreach responsibilities by
the SREs that do not include a
mechanism for accountability. The
Department also agrees with the
commenter who stated that the
Department’s focus on building and
strengthening Registered
E:\FR\FM\26SER1.SGM
26SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 185 / Monday, September 26, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
Apprenticeship would be the most
effective path in ensuring successful
apprenticeship programming for all U.S.
workers.
Conversely, a commenter opposed to
the proposed rescission asserted that
both IRAPs and RAPs are required to
take affirmative steps to ensure EEO,
and that IRAPs promote increased
apprenticeship opportunities while
continuing to safeguard the welfare of
apprentices.
The Department disagrees with this
assertion. As noted in the 2021 IRAP
Rescission NPRM, the current
regulations governing EEO in Registered
Apprenticeship under 29 CFR part 30
require program sponsors to take
affirmative steps to promote diversity
and equity in apprenticeship and
provide sponsors with the tools needed
to reduce barriers to equal opportunity
within their programs. The structured
and specific EEO requirements in
Registered Apprenticeship regarding
equal opportunity, anti-harassment,
affirmative action, utilization analyses
and goals, targeted recruitment,
outreach and retention, compliance, and
enforcement are absent from the IRAP
model. The IRAP model simply requires
programs to affirm their adherence to
applicable Federal, State, and local laws
and regulations pertaining to EEO, but
provides no specific mechanisms by
which to measure effort and outcomes.
4. Worker Empowerment
As mentioned in the 2021 IRAP
Rescission NPRM, the Department
generally believes the relationship
between workers and employers must
be balanced so workers have a voice in
ensuring fair and safe work conditions.
The requirement that Registered
Apprenticeship agreements include
specific terms ensures the apprentices
have knowledge of their rights and
responsibilities and empowers them to
be informed participants in the program
and employment relationship. Although
the IRAP regulation at 29 CFR
29.22(a)(4)(x) also contains a written
apprenticeship agreement requirement,
each IRAP may determine which terms
and conditions to include as long as the
agreement is consistent with the SRE’s
requirements. Without parameters, this
requirement contains little more than an
honor system to ensure apprentices
have meaningful information about the
terms and conditions of their
apprenticeship and how they can voice
their concerns.
Commenters in support of the
Department’s 2021 IRAP Rescission
NPRM praised the Department’s
attention to worker empowerment. One
commenter proposed that RAPs be
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:55 Sep 23, 2022
Jkt 256001
further strengthened to empower
workers in industries that lack union
representation and achieve the Biden
Administration goal of creating jobs ‘‘to
be filled by diverse, local, well-trained
workers who have a choice to join a
union.’’ The commenter also agreed
with the Department’s reasoning that
the apprenticeship agreement is crucial
to ‘‘articulating the standards of
apprenticeship and the terms and
conditions of employment’’ given the
required elements of the apprenticeship
agreement. The commenter additionally
praised RAPs for protecting apprentices
by requiring periodic performance
evaluations and only canceling an
apprenticeship for ‘‘good cause’’ after a
reasonable and time-limited
probationary period that counts toward
completion of the program. Other
commenters similarly praised the RAP
apprenticeship agreement requirements
as a crucial tool for worker
empowerment and success.
Commenters highlighted the 2020
IRAP final rule’s lack of worker
empowerment provisions. One
commenter faulted the 2020 IRAP final
rule for failing to comply with the
NAA’s directive to safeguard
apprentices’ welfare by leaving undue
discretion to SREs, failing to ‘‘establish
the minimum standards necessary’’ to
ensure industries do not exploit new
entrants to an industry, and failing to
clarify the process for employee
grievances or complaints. A commenter
similarly stated that the 2020 IRAP final
rule fails to appropriately empower
workers through the lack of clarity on
grievance procedures. A commenter also
agreed with the Department’s reasoning
that the IRAP model’s ‘‘hands-off
approach’’ enables employers to ignore
apprentice needs and asserted that
apprentices participating in IRAPs
would be at risk of sudden, arbitrary
cancellation of their participation in a
program. Commenters noted that there
were no uniform requirements for IRAP
apprenticeship agreements to include
apprentice work plans and number of
classroom hours needed for program
completion.
The Department views an
apprenticeship agreement as a
foundational requirement for worker
empowerment and agrees that the RAP
requirements for apprenticeship
agreements provide apprentices with
knowledge and awareness of the terms
of their employment and training during
the apprenticeship. As commenters
noted, unlike in the 2020 IRAP final
rule, the apprenticeship agreement for
RAPs must contain specific terms,
including a statement of the occupation
for which the apprentice is training, the
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
58279
duration of the apprenticeship, the
number of hours in the program (to
include RI hours), the schedule of work
processes, the graduated scale of wages
to be paid, the standards of the
apprenticeship program, dispute
resolution, and an EEO statement. See
29 CFR 29.7. Registered Apprenticeship
agreements must also set forth the
requirement that the apprenticeship
agreement be canceled for ‘‘good cause,’’
which provides additional protection
for apprentices, as does the requirement
to include information on grievance
procedures. These elements of an
apprenticeship agreement are not
required in the 2020 IRAP final rule,
and the Department views their absence
as a detriment to apprentices.
The Department further agrees with
commenters that the 2020 IRAP final
rule’s requirement for an IRAP
apprenticeship agreement is insufficient
to guarantee that apprentices are fully
informed of the terms and conditions of
their apprenticeship because the IRAP
can determine which terms to include
as long as the IRAP is consistent with
its SRE’s requirements. Because there
are two levels of discretion for IRAP
apprenticeship agreements—the SRE
decides its required parameters and the
IRAP determines which terms and
conditions to include—apprenticeship
agreements can vary widely among
IRAPs and may not include all
provisions the Department thinks are
necessary to protect the interests of
apprentices.
A commenter who supported IRAPs
stated that the IRAP model does meet
workers’ needs by providing them with
a clear sense of career trajectory and
increased job satisfaction while also
increasing loyalty and reducing
turnover for employers. The Department
acknowledges that an individual IRAP
may structure its program to lead to
such results. However, the Department
does not view the requirements in the
2020 IRAP final rule as sufficient to
provide apprentices with the
information needed to make informed
decisions or be knowledgeable about
their rights and responsibilities during
their apprenticeship.
5. Departmental Oversight
In support of its proposal, the
Department noted its concern with the
oversight structure set forth in the 2020
IRAP final rule because the required
safety and welfare provisions of the
2020 IRAP final rule are primarily
overseen and enforced by SREs. The
Department also described its limited
ability to intervene in any disparities in
worker protections or outcomes among
IRAPs.
E:\FR\FM\26SER1.SGM
26SER1
58280
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 185 / Monday, September 26, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
Commenters agreed with these
concerns, faulting the 2020 IRAP final
rule for failing to ensure adequate
Departmental oversight. For example, a
commenter noted that the 2020 IRAP
final rule provided the Department with
almost no basis for evaluating SRE
standards or IRAP recognition. Another
commenter stated that the requirement
for ‘‘reasonable’’ and ‘‘effective’’ quality
control between the SREs and IRAPs
was not sufficient to ensure IRAP
compliance with the minimal
requirements of the 2020 IRAP final
rule. This commenter also noted that
SREs and IRAPs would have no reason
to comply with the higher fiduciary
standards under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
(ERISA), in contrast to the majority of
apprentices in RAPs being protected by
ERISA. A commenter also expressed
concern that the 2020 IRAP final rule
lacked an adequate quality assurance
framework and that vesting oversight
responsibilities with SREs would lead to
disparities in the quality of IRAPs
available, noting that there were few, if
any, consequences for low-performing
IRAPs. One commenter referenced the
2008 final rule, in which the
Department concluded that delegation
of oversight responsibilities to State
Apprenticeship Councils failed to meet
its obligation under the NAA, to argue
that the Department similarly should
conclude that delegation of oversight to
SREs is prohibited under the NAA.
The Department generally agrees that
tasking SREs with oversight in the
manner set forth in the 2020 IRAP final
rule dilutes the Department’s role in
overseeing apprenticeship and concurs
with the notion that the 2020 IRAP final
rule’s oversight provisions are less
rigorous than those in the Registered
Apprenticeship framework due to the
Department’s more limited role. The
Department agrees that the lack of
uniformity in the 2020 IRAP final rule
could lead to disparities in IRAP quality
that may go unchecked. The Department
also acknowledges that the
Department’s reduced role in the 2020
IRAP final rule could present
compliance challenges and, in
combination with the insufficient
apprentice safety and welfare
provisions, could lead to less protection
for apprentices—a fundamental reason
for the Department’s proposed
rescission. The Department disagrees,
however, that it inappropriately
delegated its oversight responsibilities
to SREs and that it did so in a manner
inconsistent with the NAA. The
Department considered this issue in
developing the 2019 IRAP NPRM and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:55 Sep 23, 2022
Jkt 256001
the 2020 IRAP final rule and views the
oversight provisions in the 2020 IRAP
final rule, which include SRE reporting
requirements and the Department’s
oversight of SREs, to be consistent with
the NAA. That said, in rescinding the
2020 IRAP final rule, the Department
has determined that, for the reasons
discussed in the NPRM and provided by
the commenters, the better approach is
for the Department to have a more direct
oversight role than provided for in the
2020 IRAP final rule.
6. Other Worker Protection Concerns
The Department received comments
in support of the proposed IRAP
rescission offering additional criticisms
that the 2020 IRAP final rule fails to
protect apprentices and proposing
additional bases for the rescission of the
2020 IRAP final rule. Commenters
raised several concerns, in addition to
the reasons set forth by the Department
in the 2021 IRAP Rescission NPRM,
related to IRAPs’ impact on apprentice
safety and welfare. One commenter
expressed the view that the SRE
recognition process was flawed because
it did not provide for adequate input
from industry experts, stakeholders, or
members of the public in reviewing SRE
applications and did not provide for
their subsequent involvement in SRE
recognition of IRAPs. The commenter
noted that the 2020 IRAP final rule’s
processes for suspension or
derecognition of an SRE are an
‘‘inadequate remedy’’ to protect
apprentices who have spent their time
and money on a poor-quality program.
This commenter also expressed the view
that allowing IRAPs to maintain their
status for 1 year despite their SRE’s
derecognition further deprives
apprentices of protection without
recourse with the IRAP regardless of the
quality of the program that the
derecognized SRE recognized.
The Department generally agrees with
the comment about the lack of effective
industry and public involvement in the
IRAP framework; such engagement can
be instrumental to ensuring a highquality apprenticeship system that is
responsive to industry, employer, and
worker needs. For example, as noted
above, the apprenticeability process for
RAPs under 29 CFR 29.4 is one instance
in which interested stakeholders and
industry are invited to share their
expertise about the suitability of certain
occupations for apprenticeship training.
The Department also agrees that the
2020 IRAP final rule lacked protections
for apprentices if SREs were suspended
or derecognized, particularly by
allowing IRAPs to maintain their status
for 1 year after SRE derecognition
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
without any additional protections for
their apprentices.
Some commenters noted that the
design of SRE–IRAP recognition in the
2020 IRAP final rule led to inherent
conflicts of interest that would leave
apprentices vulnerable. One commenter
argued that SREs and IRAPs were
incentivized to do only the bare
minimum necessary to comply rather
than seeking to satisfy higher standards
and requirements. This commenter also
expressed the view that there were
inadequate safeguards against selfdealing between SREs and their
affiliates and that SREs were responsible
for policing their own conflicts of
interest. This commenter expressed the
belief that IRAPs’ on-the-job training
could lead to an apprentice being
treated as an independent contractor
and that the IRAP model fails to ensure
participants are protected by ERISA. A
commenter also asserted that SREs
could not be impartial in their
recognition of IRAPs because of the
industry-driven nature of the 2020 IRAP
final rule and wide flexibility in
recognition of SREs and IRAPs.
The Department appreciates the
commenters’ concerns about these
perceived deficiencies in the 2020 IRAP
final rule. The Department generally
agrees with the commenters that IRAPs
provide insufficient protection for
apprentices, as discussed in the NPRM
and above. The Department also
generally agrees that the 2020 IRAP final
rule does not eliminate risks of conflicts
of interest or apprentice
misclassification. Nonetheless, the
Department does not view the concerns
raised about conflicts of interest or
apprentice misclassification as
additional bases for rescission of the
2020 IRAP final rule. With respect to
conflicts of interest, the Department
notes that it discussed conflicts of
interest at length in the 2020 IRAP final
rule and added specific provisions to
increase transparency and mitigate
against conflicts of interest during the
SRE recognition process. See 85 FR
14309–14312, 14336–14339 (Mar. 11,
2020). Additionally, the apprenticeship
agreement requirement in the 2020
IRAP final rule provides some
protection against apprentice
misclassification, though the
Department acknowledges that it does
not eliminate the risk of such
misclassification. As discussed above,
the Department does not view the
apprenticeship agreement requirement
in the 2020 IRAP final rule as sufficient
to inform apprentices of the terms and
conditions of their apprenticeship.
Finally, ERISA requirements are binding
on all employee benefit plans, and the
E:\FR\FM\26SER1.SGM
26SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 185 / Monday, September 26, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
2020 IRAP final rule does not allow
SREs or IRAPs that constitute such
plans to circumvent ERISA’s
obligations. While the Department does
not agree with these commenters’
specific concerns as the bases for IRAP
rescission, these features of the 2020
IRAP final rule do not overcome the
deficiencies that have led the
Department to rescind the 2020 IRAP
final rule.
IV. The IRAP System Is Redundant of
the Registered Apprenticeship System
In the 2021 IRAP Rescission NPRM,
the Department asserted that a key
premise justifying the establishment of
the IRAP alternative framework—that
the Registered Apprenticeship system is
too inflexible and administratively
burdensome to sufficiently
accommodate the needs of both industry
and workers—is contradicted by the
notable gains made in the RAP model
through such strategies as the Industry
Intermediaries concept 23 and the AAI
grants.24
Commenters in support of the
Department’s 2021 IRAP Rescission
NPRM expressed concerns that the 2020
IRAP final rule would, over time,
undermine the integrity of Registered
Apprenticeship, create confusion, and
generate unnecessary duplication. One
commenter remarked that creating two
distinct apprenticeship systems with
different policies and regulations could
lead to inconsistent training for
23 Since 2016, the Department has launched
funding opportunities for Industry Intermediaries to
develop, promote, and expand the availability of
and access to Registered Apprenticeships across the
United States. See https://www.apprenticeship.gov/
investments-tax-credits-and-tuition-support (last
visited May 19, 2022). Through these investments,
Industry Intermediaries have expanded Registered
Apprenticeship into new industry sectors and
occupations, worked with sponsors to ensure that
diverse and underrepresented populations are
connected to Registered Apprenticeship
opportunities, and promoted Registered
Apprenticeship as a workforce solution. An OA fact
sheet highlighting the accomplishments these
entities have made to accommodate the needs of
workers and industry is available at https://
www.apprenticeship.gov/sites/default/files/
Industry-and-Equity-IntermediaryAccomplishment-Fact-Sheet.pdf (last visited May
19, 2022).
24 In 2015, the Department launched the AAI to
expand Registered Apprenticeship in the United
States, particularly in high-growth and high-tech
industries, such as healthcare, IT, and advanced
manufacturing, as well as to populations
traditionally underrepresented in apprenticeship,
including women, people of color, and individuals
with disabilities. Through AAI, AAI grantees have
successfully expanded the RAP model into new
industries and extended it to more diverse
populations. For more information, see National
Governors’ Association Report, ‘‘Registered
Apprenticeship Reimagined: Lessons Learned from
the American Apprenticeship Initiative,’’ Nov. 9,
2020, available at https://www.nga.org/center/
publications/registered-apprenticeship-reimagined.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:55 Sep 23, 2022
Jkt 256001
apprentices, which would negatively
impact their skills and marketability.
The commenter also viewed the IRAP
framework as devaluing apprenticeship.
Another commenter echoed these
concerns and asserted the establishment
of a duplicative, parallel system, which
is not responsive to employers or
workers, would lead to confusion and
disparate outcomes for apprentices. A
number of commenters expressed
concern that the IRAP model
undermines investments in the proven
RAP model and could disincentivize the
creation of new apprenticeship
programs.
The Department agrees with the
concerns expressed by these
commenters. The inherent confusion
and redundancy created by parallel
systems was a significant factor in the
Department’s proposal to rescind the
2020 IRAP final rule, as was the
Department’s concern about disparate
outcomes resulting from a lack of
uniformity across programs.
V. The Effect of the Department’s
Rescission of the 2020 IRAP Final Rule
For the reasons discussed above, the
Department has determined that the
IRAP model established in the 2020
IRAP final rule does not ensure access
to high-quality job skills and training to
American workers, nor does it
adequately safeguard the welfare of
apprentices. The Department has further
concluded that because the IRAP system
duplicates the Registered
Apprenticeship system, though with
less quality standards and oversight,
continuing to operate the IRAP system
is not a prudent use of Government
resources and would diminish the
quality and coherence of the
Department’s apprenticeship efforts.
In considering alternatives, the
Department also has determined that
amending, rather than rescinding, the
2020 IRAP final rule would not address
these issues. As discussed in detail
above, Registered Apprenticeship
provides for apprentice safety and
welfare and continues to nurture
apprenticeship opportunities without
sacrificing crucial requirements for
quality or worker protections.
Amending the 2020 IRAP final rule to
align with the Department’s goals and
priorities so that the IRAP model
possesses more of the qualities of
Registered Apprenticeship, however,
would simply recreate the RAP model
with less oversight by the Department.
Rather than administer two parallel
programs, the Department can better
utilize its resources and provide better
service to the public by supporting and
strengthening one robust apprenticeship
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
58281
system that has been designed to
incorporate the needs of both industry
and the workforce. The Department
therefore has decided to adopt the
NPRM as proposed.
As stated in the 2021 IRAP Rescission
NPRM, the Department acknowledges
this final rule does immediately affect
current SREs, IRAPs, and the
apprentices participating in IRAPs. The
Department understands SREs devoted
resources to developing their
applications and the infrastructure
necessary to operate effectively for a
period of 5 years, and IRAPs and their
apprentices may have been drawn to the
program given the indication of
approval from the Department.
However, the impact of this rescission
will be limited. Over the 9-month
period between May 2020, when the
2020 IRAP final rule became effective,
and February 2021, when the
Department paused the consideration of
SRE applications, the Department
received a total of 45 SRE applications,
including from two organizations that
resubmitted applications. Of these
applications, the Department ultimately
recognized 27 SREs.25 For FY 2021,
covering the period of October 1, 2020,
through September 30, 2021, 6 of the 27
recognized SREs recognized 178 IRAPs,
which served 23,975 apprentices. A
single SRE recognized the majority of
the IRAPs (167).26 The rescission of the
2020 IRAP final rule does not require
that the SREs and the IRAPs they have
recognized cease their operations;
rather, this action only requires that
these entities cease indicating that they
are recognized by or associated with
OA. The apprentices enrolled in the
existing IRAPs can continue to receive
training from the program
uninterrupted. Alternatively, those
apprenticeship programs can seek
registration with a Registration Agency
(either OA or a recognized SAA). Even
if the IRAP does not seek such
registration, those apprentices currently
enrolled in an IRAP can seek to transfer
into a RAP. In addition, IRAP
apprentices moving into a RAP, either
on their own or because their IRAP has
been registered as a RAP with a
Registration Agency, may qualify for
25 Applications received by the Department for
SREs. Approved SREs published at https://
www.apprenticeship.gov/employers/industryrecognized-apprenticeship-program/approvedstandards-recognition-entities (last visited May 19,
2022).
26 According to the IRAP Program and
Performance Reporting System, as of September 30,
2021, of the 175 IRAPs approved, 167 were
recognized by the same SRE. See https://
www.apprenticeship.gov/sites/default/files/SREFY21-performance-data.pdf (last visited September
6, 2022).
E:\FR\FM\26SER1.SGM
26SER1
58282
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 185 / Monday, September 26, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
advanced standing or credit in those
RAPs. Moreover, as the 2020 IRAP final
rule requires only basic compliance
with existing federal, state, and local
laws governing employees, and does not
provide any further protections that
would enhance the safety and welfare of
apprentices, the Department believes
that the issuance of this final rule will
not adversely affect the existing rights
and protections of IRAP apprentices
impacted by this rescission.
Several commenters referred to the
Department’s acknowledgement that
rescinding the 2020 IRAP final rule
would affect current SREs, IRAPs, and
any apprentices participating in IRAPs.
Two commenters agreed with the
Department’s position that the overall
impact of the rescission to SREs, IRAPs,
and apprentices in IRAPs would be
minimal based on the reported data. Of
these comments, one commenter said
the data suggest that IRAPs have not
been widely adopted and therefore will
not likely be effective or successful. One
commenter presented an alternative
view, suggesting that the number of
recognized SREs and IRAPs since the
issuance of the 2020 IRAP final rule is
significant relative to the amount of
time for which the rule has been
effective. Another commenter remarked
that the number of recognized SREs and
IRAPs since the issuance of the 2020
IRAP final rule should not be
understood as a lack of interest from the
business community but rather as a
reflection of the broader impact of the
COVID–19 pandemic on industry.
The Department appreciates the
comments supporting its analysis in the
2021 IRAP Rescission NPRM of the
potential impact of the rescission of the
2020 IRAP final rule for SREs, IRAPs,
and any apprentices participating in
IRAPs. The Department acknowledges
the comment suggesting the number of
recognized SREs and IRAPs since the
issuance of the 2020 IRAP final rule is
significant relative to the amount of
time for which the rule has been
effective. As discussed below in Section
VI.A.2, Economic Analysis of Executive
Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and
Review and 13563 (Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review), the
Department notes that the actual
number of recognized SREs and IRAPs
is lower than anticipated in Economic
Analysis of the 2020 IRAP final rule (85
FR 14357–14358, Mar. 11, 2020).
However, regardless of the number of
current SREs and IRAPs, the
Department, for the reasons discussed
above, has concluded that rescission of
the IRAP regulation is appropriate. The
rescission of the 2020 IRAP final rule
does not require that the SREs and the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:55 Sep 23, 2022
Jkt 256001
IRAPs they have recognized cease their
operations. This rescission only requires
that these entities cease indicating that
they are recognized by or associated
with OA. Further, as stated above, there
are multiple avenues for IRAPs to
continue operation, either as
independent apprenticeship programs
or by seeking registration with OA, and
for apprentices to receive training,
either in their current program or in a
RAP. Thus, the Department maintains
that the impact of the rescission will be
limited and outweighed by the benefits
of rescission discussed above.
The Department also acknowledges
that the COVID–19 pandemic had broad
societal impacts, including on the
business community, which may have
had an impact on both RAPs and IRAPs.
While the COVID–19 pandemic may
have had a negative impact on IRAPs, as
the commenter asserted, in contrast,
despite the COVID–19 pandemic, FY
2021 represented the fourth-highest year
of new RAP development over the past
decade, with over 2,800 new RAPs
developed.27
In the 2021 IRAP Rescission NPRM,
the Department considered other
options with respect to the currently
recognized SREs or IRAPs, including a
proposed ‘‘sunset’’ period during which
SREs and IRAPs would operate for a set
number of years before the Department
ceased its recognition, and recasting
IRAPs as Certified Work-Based
Learning. The Department did not
receive any specific comments on these
two options. One commenter stated that
returning to a single RAP model and
‘‘[i]mmediate rescission of the [2020
IRAP final rule] is superior to any other
alternative course of action.’’ The
commenter noted that, based on the
reported data at the time of the NPRM,
it was evident that private industry has
rejected IRAPs as a vehicle for training
workers. As such, the commenter
asserted there are no disadvantages to
rescinding the 2020 IRAP final rule
now. The Department agrees that
rescinding the 2020 IRAP final rule and
immediate cessation of recognition for
currently recognized SREs or IRAPs is
appropriate in light of the concerns
discussed above.
Transition to and Implementation of the
Final Rule
In the 2021 IRAP Rescission NPRM,
the Department sought comments on
how to address the effects of the
proposed immediate cessation of
27 These figures reflect Registered Apprenticeship
national results and are available at https://
www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/apprenticeship/about/
statistics/2021 (last visited September 6, 2022).
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
recognition on SREs, IRAPs, and
apprentices in IRAPs, including
comments on the alternatives
considered, but ultimately not adopted,
by the Department. One commenter
suggested the Department continue to
explore efforts to develop industrydriven apprenticeship programs and
continue to establish and strengthen
workforce development initiatives that
partner with business. Another
commenter recommended that the
Department provide technical assistance
to build the capacity of SREs and IRAPs
to offer high-quality apprenticeships,
even if they operate outside of the
Registered Apprenticeship system.
The Department, as noted, is
rescinding its recognition of SREs under
this final rule; however, it continues to
expand and further develop the
Registered Apprenticeship system as a
premier workforce development
strategy. The Department appreciates
the suggestions that it continue to
develop workforce development
initiatives that partner with business
and industry, and it notes their integral
role in the Registered Apprenticeship
system. This final rule does not prevent
IRAPs from continuing to offer a range
of training options to job seekers. The
Department is interested in continuing
to promote more work-based learning
strategies in its employment and
training programs, with an increased
emphasis on RAP models as a proven
solution for both career seekers and
business.
Additionally, the Department has
provided and will continue to provide
technical assistance and support to
SREs or IRAPs that are interested in
becoming program sponsors or
intermediaries under the Registered
Apprenticeship system. Similarly, as a
component of the Department’s
technical assistance to SREs, the
Department will provide SREs and
IRAPs with information and resources
the SREs can share with any apprentices
in IRAPs who may seek placement in a
RAP.
VI. Regulatory Analysis and Review
A. Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory
Planning and Review) and 13563
(Improving Regulation and Regulatory
Review) and Subtitle E of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996
Under E.O. 12866, the Office of
Management and Budget’s (OMB) Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs
(OIRA) determines whether a regulatory
action is significant and, therefore,
subject to the requirements of the E.O.
and review by OMB. See 58 FR 51735
E:\FR\FM\26SER1.SGM
26SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 185 / Monday, September 26, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
(Oct. 4, 1993). Section 3(f) of E.O. 12866
defines a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’
as an action that is likely to result in a
rule that: (1) has an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more, or
adversely affects in a material way a
sector of the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment,
public health or safety, or State, local,
or Tribal Governments or communities
(also referred to as economically
significant); (2) creates serious
inconsistency or otherwise interferes
with an action taken or planned by
another agency; (3) materially alters the
budgetary impacts of entitlement grants,
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights
and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) raises novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the
President’s priorities, or the principles
set forth in the E.O. Id. OIRA has
determined that this final rule is an
economically significant regulatory
action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866.
E.O. 13563 directs agencies to propose
or adopt a regulation only upon a
reasoned determination that its benefits
justify its costs; the regulation is tailored
to impose the least burden on society,
consistent with achieving the regulatory
objectives; and in choosing among
alternative regulatory approaches, the
agency has selected those approaches
that maximize net benefits. E.O. 13563
recognizes that some benefits are
difficult to quantify and provides that,
where appropriate and permitted by
law, agencies may consider and discuss
qualitatively values that are difficult or
impossible to quantify, including
equity, human dignity, fairness, and
distributive impacts.
Pursuant to Subtitle E of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, also known as the
Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
et seq.), OIRA designated this rule as a
‘‘major rule,’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
1. Public Comments
In the preliminary economic analysis
in the 2021 IRAP Rescission NPRM, the
Department invited written comments
from the public concerning the potential
number of SREs and IRAPs in the
absence of the proposed rule and the
removal of the February 17, 2021,
suspension, as well as on possible
alternatives to the proposed rule. Only
one commenter submitted comments
pertaining to the preliminary economic
analysis. The commenter stated that the
rescission of the 2020 IRAP final rule
will result in cost savings in excess of
those set forth in the proposed rule; in
particular, savings will be realized when
Government grant money that would
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:55 Sep 23, 2022
Jkt 256001
otherwise go to ‘‘ineffective IRAPs and
SREs’’ is better used by RAPs. The
commenter stated that, if resources are
used for RAPs instead of ‘‘wasted on
IRAPs,’’ workers will be safer, better
protected, and more justly compensated,
plus society will benefit from a greater
diversity of apprentices, a larger tax
base, increased employee loyalty, higher
productivity, and additional skilled
labor that will help address labor market
demands. The commenter suggested
that the monetary value of those
additional benefits should be factored
into the cost analysis.
The Department appreciates the
commenter’s recognition of the benefits
of RAPs to the U.S. economy and
workforce. The Department agrees that
supporting RAPs is a better use of grant
funds than supporting IRAPs;
accordingly, the Department has not
issued grant funding specifically for
IRAPs and does not plan to do so. The
Department agrees that RAPs provide
numerous benefits to apprentices,
employers, taxpayers, and society, and
that a quantification of these benefits
would be ideal to include in the
economic analysis. Due to data
limitations, however, the Department
cannot quantify the benefits listed by
the commenter and has maintained a
qualitative discussion in this final rule.
The same commenter stated that
returning to a single RAP model is the
best course of action and rescinding the
2020 IRAP final rule is superior to any
alternative. The commenter anticipates
that the cost of transferring current IRAP
participants to RAPs will be minimal
and will be offset by the increased
benefits that will accrue to IRAP
trainees when they become RAP
apprentices. The Department agrees that
rescinding the 2020 IRAP final rule is
the best course of action.
2. Economic Analysis
E.O. 14016, ‘‘Revocation of Executive
Order 13801,’’ instructed the Director of
OMB and the heads of executive
departments and agencies to ‘‘promptly
consider taking steps to rescind any
orders, rules, regulations, guidelines, or
policies, or portions thereof,
implementing or enforcing’’ E.O. 13801.
Accordingly, the Department identified
for review the 2020 IRAP final rule. The
Department is issuing this final rule
because the Department has determined
that a single apprenticeship system,
namely, the Registered Apprenticeship
system, will provide clearer messaging
and more consistent outcomes than two
parallel apprenticeship systems that
likely would lead to disparate outcomes
and incur duplicative costs.
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
58283
In accordance with the regulatory
analysis guidance articulated in OMB
Circular A–4 and consistent with the
Department’s practices in previous
rulemakings, this regulatory analysis
focuses on the likely consequences of
this final rule. The Department
anticipates that this final rule will result
in cost savings for SREs and IRAPs since
they will no longer need to comply with
the provisions of the 2020 IRAP final
rule.
The Department has estimated the
cost savings of this final rule relative to
the existing baseline (i.e., 27 SREs and
178 IRAPs). The analysis covers 10
years to ensure it captures the major
cost savings that are likely to accrue
over time. The Department expresses
the quantifiable impacts in 2021 dollars
and uses discount rates of 3 and 7
percent, pursuant to OMB Circular A–4.
The Department also considered an
alternative baseline in which the
Department’s February 17, 2021,
suspension of consideration of SRE
applications was temporary and would
be removed. That analysis is discussed
qualitatively in the Total Cost Savings
section below.
a. Number of SREs, IRAPs, and
Apprentices
To calculate the annual cost savings,
the Department first needed to estimate
the number of SREs, IRAPs, and
apprentices over the 10-year analysis
period. The Department used the
number of SREs (27), the number of
IRAPs (178), and the number of
apprentices in IRAPs (23,975) as of
September 30, 2021, for this analysis.
b. Compensation Rates
The compensation rates used to
quantify the cost savings of this final
rule are based on the compensation
rates in the 2020 IRAP final rule. The
Department updated the compensation
rates with 2021 data. The Department
anticipates that the bulk of the workload
for private sector workers would have
been performed by employees in
occupations similar to those associated
with the following Standard
Occupational Classification (SOC)
codes: SOC 11–3131 (Training and
Development Managers) and SOC 43–
0000 (Office and Administrative
Support Occupations).
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS), the mean hourly wage
rate for Training and Development
Managers in May 2021 was $61.92.28
For this analysis, the Department used
28 BLS, ‘‘Occupational Employment and Wages,
May 2021,’’ https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/
oes113131.htm (last updated March 31, 2022).
E:\FR\FM\26SER1.SGM
26SER1
58284
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 185 / Monday, September 26, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
a fringe benefits rate of 45 percent 29 and
an overhead rate of 54 percent,30
resulting in a fully loaded hourly
compensation rate for Training and
Development Managers of $123.22 [=
$61.92 + ($61.92 × 0.45) + ($61.92 ×
0.54)].
According to BLS, the mean hourly
wage rate for Office and Administrative
Support Occupations in May 2021 was
$20.88.31 The Department used a fringe
benefits rate of 45 percent and an
overhead rate of 54 percent, resulting in
a fully loaded hourly compensation rate
for Office and Administrative Support
Occupations of $41.55 [= $20.88 +
($20.88 × 0.45) + ($20.88 × 0.54)].
The Department estimated the
compensation rate for a Program
Analyst in OA using the midpoint (Step
5) for Grade 13 of the General Schedule
(GS), which is $56.31 in the
Washington, DC, locality area.32 The
Department used a fringe benefits rate of
69 percent 33 and an overhead rate of 54
percent, resulting in a fully loaded
hourly compensation rate for Program
Analysts of $125.57 [= $56.31 + ($56.31
× 0.69) + ($56.31 × 0.54)].
c. Time Estimates
The hourly time burdens used to
quantify the cost savings of this final
rule are based on the Department’s time
estimates in the 2020 IRAP final rule.
The following time burdens are annual
estimates.
Cost Savings Components for SREs
• Notifying the Administrator of any
major change to processes or
programs: 10 hours (50 percent of
SREs)
• Informing the Administrator of IRAP
recognition, suspension, or
derecognition: 30 minutes
• Provision of data or information to the
Administrator: 2 hours (10 percent of
SREs)
• Provision of written attestation to the
Administrator: 10 minutes per IRAP
• Disclosure of the credentials that
apprentices will earn: 30 minutes
• Quality control of IRAPs: 4 hours per
IRAP
• Submission of performance data to
the Administrator: 4 hours per IRAP
• Making publicly available IRAP
performance data: 2 hours per IRAP
• Recordkeeping: 20 hours per IRAP
Cost Savings Components for IRAPs
• Submission of performance data to
the SRE: 25 hours
• Preparation of written apprenticeship
agreement: 10 minutes per apprentice
Cost Savings Components for the
Federal Government
• Compliance assistance reviews of
SREs: 10 hours per SRE (5 percent of
SREs)
• Maintenance of online application
form and internal review system:
$125,000
• Maintenance of online resource for
performance measures: $245,909
• Maintenance of online resource for
list of SREs and IRAPs: $18,000
d. Total Cost Savings
Exhibit 1 shows the total estimated
cost savings of the final rule over 10
years (2022–2031) at discount rates of 3
and 7 percent. The final rule is expected
to have first-year cost savings of $1.8
million in 2021 dollars. Over the 10year analysis period, the annualized
cost savings are estimated at $1.8
million at a discount rate of 7 percent
in 2021 dollars. In total, over the first 10
years, the final rule is estimated to
result in cost savings of $12.9 million at
a discount rate of 7 percent in 2021
dollars.
Exhibit 1: Esttmated Cost Savings
(2021 doUars)
First Year Total
$1,832,752
Annualized. 3% discount rate, 10 years
Annualized. 7% discount rate, 10 ears
$1,832,752
$1,832,752
$15,633,750
$12,872,486
The Department also contemplated
including an alternative baseline that
assumed the Department’s February 17,
2021, suspension of consideration of
SRE applications would be removed. If
the suspension were to be removed,
there could be additional SREs and
IRAPs in future years. OMB Circular A–
4 defines a no action baseline as ‘‘what
the world will be like’’ if the rule is not
adopted. If the world did not include
this rule, but included the removal of
29 BLS, ‘‘Employer Costs for Employee
Compensation’’ (ECEC), https://www.bls.gov/ncs/
data.htm (last visited May 19, 2022). Wages and
salaries averaged $27.22 per hour worked in 2021,
while benefit costs averaged $12.24, which is a
benefits rate of 45 percent.
30 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS), ‘‘Guidelines for Regulatory Impact
Analysis,’’ 2016, https://aspe.hhs.gov/system/files/
pdf/242926/HHS_RIAGuidance.pdf. In its
guidelines, HHS states, as ‘‘an interim default,
while HHS conducts more research, analysts should
assume overhead costs (including benefits) are
equal to 100 percent of pre-tax wages.’’ HHS
explains that 100 percent is roughly the midpoint
between 46 and 150 percent, with 46 percent based
on ECEC data that suggest benefits average 46
percent of wages and salaries, and 150 percent
based on the private sector ‘‘rule of thumb’’ that
fringe benefits plus overhead equal 150 percent of
wages. To isolate the overhead costs from HHS’s
100-percent assumption, the Department subtracted
the 46-percent benefits rate that HHS references,
resulting in an overhead rate of approximately 54
percent.
31 BLS, ‘‘Occupational Employment and Wages,
May 2021,’’ https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/
oes430000.htm (last visited May 19, 2022).
32 Office of Personnel Management, ‘‘General
Schedule (GS) Locality Pay Tables,’’ https://
www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/
salaries-wages/salary-tables/pdf/2021/DCB_h.pdf
(last visited May 19, 2022).
33 Congressional Budget Office, ‘‘Comparing the
Compensation of Federal and Private-Sector
Employees, 2011 to 2015,’’ Apr. 25, 2017, https://
www.cbo.gov/publication/52637. The wages of
Federal workers averaged $38.30 per hour over the
study period, while the benefits averaged $26.50
per hour, which is a benefits rate of 69 percent.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:55 Sep 23, 2022
Jkt 256001
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\26SER1.SGM
26SER1
ER26SE22.007</GPH>
Total, 3% discomt rate. 10 years
Total, 7% discomt rate, 10 ears
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 185 / Monday, September 26, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
the February 17, 2021, suspension as
well as decision making by potential
SREs in the manner anticipated in the
2020 IRAP final rule, it is possible that
there would be more than 27 SREs and
178 IRAPs in each year of the analysis
period. Given the potential temporary
nature of the February 17, 2021,
suspension, some members of the public
may believe there will be an
opportunity to participate in the
program again in the absence of this
rule. Under such a scenario, 27 SREs
and 178 IRAPs may be only fractions of
the numbers of SREs and IRAPs that
would come into existence, and perhaps
those numbers would continue to grow
throughout the analysis period. As such,
this rule would then prevent some of
the eventual effects of the 2020 IRAP
final rule.
The Department is unable, however,
to provide a quantitative analysis of this
alternative baseline. The Department
does not have a way to accurately
estimate the number of SREs or IRAPs
that would be established in the absence
of this rule and the removal of the
February 17, 2021, suspension.
Specifically, the Department is unable
to estimate a reasonable growth rate for
SREs over the analysis period or a
realistic number of IRAPs per SRE each
year. Without these two key data points,
a quantitative analysis is not possible.
The Department believes that the
numbers of SREs and IRAPs estimated
in the 2020 IRAP final rule are not an
appropriate source for quantifying an
alternative baseline in this final rule.
Over the 9-month period between May
2020, when the 2020 IRAP final rule
became effective, and February 2021,
when the Department paused the
consideration of SRE applications, data
indicate that participation was far lower
than what was projected in the 2020
IRAP final rule. To begin with, the
number of SRE applications was far
fewer than the number anticipated in
the 2020 IRAP final rule. For the 2020
IRAP final rule, the Department used
the number of entities that submitted
grant applications under the AAI grant
program in FY 2016 as a guidepost for
estimating the number of SRE
applications. It now seems that this
guidepost was unrealistic because
millions of dollars were awarded to
each successful AAI grant application
whereas similar grant funds were not
available to SREs. The lack of Federal
funding may largely explain the low
number of SREs (27) and IRAPs (178)
compared to the numbers anticipated in
the 2020 IRAP final rule (203 SREs and
2,030 IRAPs in Year 1).
While the estimated number of SRE
applications in the 2020 IRAP final rule
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:55 Sep 23, 2022
Jkt 256001
was based on the number of entities that
submitted AAI grant applications, the
estimated number of IRAPs was not
based on a specific source of data
because the IRAP system was a new
concept in the United States.
Accordingly, the Department does not
have a guidepost to realistically estimate
the number of IRAPs for an alternative
baseline that assumes the absence of
this rule and the removal of the
February 17, 2021, suspension.
Without a reasonable way to estimate
the number of SREs and IRAPs or to
quantify the cost savings, benefits, and
transfer payments, the Department
acknowledges that this rule may have an
annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more; therefore, this rule has
been designated as an economically
significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of E.O. 12866.
e. Nonquantifiable Effects
The Department is rescinding the
2020 IRAP final rule and, instead,
refocusing its efforts on expanding,
modernizing, strengthening, and
diversifying the Registered
Apprenticeship system. As explained in
the previous sections, the Registered
Apprenticeship system is highly
successful for industry. Industries that
have adopted RAPs have cited the
standards, skillsets, and retention
offered by skilled workers associated
with RAPs as advantageous to their
bottom line. In one survey, nearly threefourths of surveyed employers stated
that RAPs drove increased worker
productivity.34 A skilled workforce is
foundational to a strong economy, and
Registered Apprenticeship provides a
proven avenue by which to deliver
talent development to various industry
sectors.
In addition to the demonstrated
success of RAPs as a workforce training
model for industry, RAPs have proven
to be highly beneficial to workers
because of their emphasis on highquality training as well as apprentice
safety and welfare. During training,
apprentices are guaranteed wage
increases, and research shows that RAP
completers earn over $300,000
(including benefits) more over their
lifetimes as compared with similar
individuals who do not complete a
RAP.35
34 Urban Institute Research Report, ‘‘The Benefits
and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The
Sponsors’ Perspective,’’ June 12, 2009, https://
www.urban.org/research/publication/benefits-andchallenges-registered-apprenticeship-sponsorsperspective.
35 See, e.g., Mathematica Policy Research, ‘‘An
Effectiveness Assessment and Cost-Benefit Analysis
of Registered Apprenticeship in 10 States: Final
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
58285
The Registered Apprenticeship
system has successfully been adopted
across a diverse range of sectors, with
significant growth in recent years. The
expansion of the Registered
Apprenticeship system into
‘‘nontraditional’’ sectors indicates that
the IRAP model may be superfluous and
not a good use of Government resources
that could support the proven activities
of the Registered Apprenticeship
system.
3. Regulatory Alternatives
OMB Circular A–4 directs agencies to
analyze alternatives if such alternatives
best satisfy the philosophy and
principles of E.O. 12866. Accordingly,
the Department considered two
regulatory alternatives. Under the first
alternative, the Department would allow
the SREs and any related IRAPs to
operate with the Department’s
recognition for a transitional period not
to exceed the previously approved 5year period. As noted above, the
approach of permitting the continued
recognition of SREs and any related
IRAPs would continue to temporarily
retain a parallel system that does not
ensure sufficient protections for
apprentices, would diminish
Departmental resources available for
expansion of Registered Apprenticeship,
and would generate confusion among
both entities interested in establishing
apprenticeship programs and the
potential apprentices in such programs.
This alternative would result in lower
cost savings over the 10-year analysis
period than the cost savings presented
in Exhibit 1 because SREs and IRAPs
would be obligated to follow the
provisions of the 2020 IRAP final rule
for a longer period of time. Therefore,
the costs of the 2020 IRAP final rule
would accumulate for a longer duration
and the cost savings would be delayed.
Under the second alternative, the
Department would recast IRAPs as
Certified Work-Based Learning. The
Department considers the most effective
and efficient use of its resources is to
oversee a national system of Registered
Apprenticeship that is more protective
of the welfare of apprentices and that
Report,’’ July 25, 2012, https://wdr.doleta.gov/
research/FullText_Documents/ETAOP_2012_
10.pdf. This report categorizes reduced payments of
unemployment insurance, welfare, and food stamps
as benefits (separate from productivity increases)
associated with Registered Apprenticeship;
however, for purposes of this E.O. 12866 analysis,
adding these effects would constitute doublecounting and they should instead be presented as
an assessment of who, other than workers
themselves, receives some portion of productivity
benefits. Moreover, as noted earlier in this
regulatory preamble, the report does not speak to
the relative effects of RAPs and IRAPs.
E:\FR\FM\26SER1.SGM
26SER1
58286
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 185 / Monday, September 26, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
has demonstrated its capacity to grow
and adapt across a range of industries
and sectors. Similarly, recasting IRAPs
as a type of Certified Work-Based
Learning would not address the
concerns identified in the discussions
above regarding an indirect and
insufficient oversight role for the
Department in IRAPs. This alternative
would also result in lower cost savings
over the 10-year analysis period than
the cost savings presented in Exhibit 1
because SREs and IRAPs would incur
costs under the revised program. The
Department cannot estimate the costs
without details about the provisions of
such a program.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and
Executive Order 13272 (Proper
Consideration of Small Entities in
Agency Rulemaking)
In accordance with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. ch. 6 (as
amended), the Department examined
the regulatory requirements of this final
rule to determine whether they will
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
As explained in the E.O. 12866
economic analysis above, this final rule
is expected to lead to cost savings for
IRAPs because these entities will no
longer be required to comply with the
provisions of the 2020 IRAP final rule.
Cost savings for IRAPs will primarily
arise from no longer needing to submit
performance data to the SRE and no
longer needing to prepare or sign a
written apprenticeship agreement with
each apprentice.
In the 2020 IRAP final rule, the
Department estimated that it would take
IRAPs approximately 25 hours per year
to collect and provide the relevant
performance data. To estimate the cost
savings per IRAP under this final rule,
the Department multiplied the number
of IRAPs (178) by 25 hours and by the
hourly compensation rate for Training
and Development Managers ($123.22
per hour). In the 2020 IRAP final rule,
the Department estimated that it would
take IRAPs approximately 10 minutes
per apprentice to prepare and sign a
written apprenticeship agreement. To
estimate the cost savings per IRAP
under this final rule, the Department
multiplied the number of apprentices
(23,975) by 10 minutes and by the
hourly compensation rate for Training
and Development Managers ($123.22
per hour). In total, the first-year cost
savings per IRAP is estimated at $5,516
at a discount rate of 7 percent. The
annualized cost savings per IRAP is
estimated at $5,902 at a discount rate of
7 percent.
As of September 30, 2021, the number
of IRAPs recognized by SREs stood at
178. Of the 178 IRAPs, 167 are in the
health care industry; specifically, the
vast majority of the 167 IRAPs are
associated with hospitals and medical
centers. As shown in Exhibit 2, the firstyear and annualized cost savings for
IRAPs in the hospitals subsector are not
expected to have a significant economic
impact (3 percent or more) on small
entities of any size.
Exhibit 2: Hospitals (NAICS 622)
Small Business Size Standard: $8.0 million- $41.5 million
Number of
First Year
First Year
Annualized
Annualized
Average
Cost Savings Cost Savings Cost Savings Cost Savings
Firms as
Number of
Total Number
Annual
Receipts per per Firm with per Firm as per Firm with per Firm as
Percent of
Firms*
of Employees*
Receipts*
Small Firms
Firm
7%
Percent of
7%
Percent of
in Industrv
Discountine:
Receiots
Discountine:
Receiots
Firms with receipts below $100,000
23
1.6%
0
$0
$0
$5,516
NIA
$5,902
NIA
Firms with receipts of$100,000 to $499,999
35
2.4%
145
$8,838,000
$252,514
$5,516
2.2%
$5,902
2.3%
Firms with receipts of$500,000 to $999,999
20
1.4%
136
$14,654,000
$732,700
$5,516
0.8%
$5,902
0.8%
Firms with receipts of$1,000,000 to $2,499,999
19
1.3%
515
$30,189,000
$1,588,895
$5,516
0.3%
$5,902
0.4%
Firms with receipts of$2,500,000 to $4,999,999
65
4.4%
3,616
$251,405,000
$3,867,769
$5,516
0.1%
$5,902
0.2%
Firms with receipts of $5,000,000 to $7,499,999
100
6.8%
7,135
$598,696,000
$5,986,960
$5,516
0.1%
$5,902
0.1%
Firms with receipts of $7,500,000 to $9,999,999
125
8.5%
12,010 $1,076,343,000
$8,610,744
$5,516
0.1%
$5,902
0.1%
Firms with receipts of$10,000,000 to $14,999,999
218
14.8%
28,209 $2,599,739,000
$11,925,408
$5,516
0.0%
$5,902
0.0%
Firms with receipts of$15,000,000 to $19,999,999
213
14.5%
36,660 $3,593,092,000
$16,868,977
$5,516
0.0%
$5,902
0.0%
Firms with receipts of$20,000,000 to $24,999,999
171
11.6%
36,287 $3,640,858,000
$21,291,567
$5,516
0.0%
$5,902
0.0%
Firms with receipts of$25,000,000 to $29,999,999
133
9.0%
31,171 $3,507,932,000
$26,375,429
$5,516
0.0%
$5,902
0.0%
Firms with receipts of$30,000,000 to $34,999,999
120
8.2%
31,175 $3,675,365,000
$30,628,042
$5,516
0.0%
$5,902
0.0%
Firms with receipts of$35,000,000 to $39,999,999
97
6.6%
30,001 $3,547,170,000
$36,568,763
$5,516
0.0%
$5,902
0.0%
Firms with receipts of$40,000,000 to $49,999,999
132
9.0%
48,369 $5,577,594,000
$42,254,500
$5,516
0.0%
$5,902
0.0%
* Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Stat:tshcs of U.S. Busmesses, https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/susb/2017-susb-annual.html.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:55 Sep 23, 2022
Jkt 256001
performance data to the Administrator;
making publicly available IRAP
performance data; and recordkeeping.
The first-year cost savings per SRE is
estimated at $13,555 at a discount rate
of 7 percent. The annualized cost
savings per SRE is estimated at $14,504
at a discount rate of 7 percent.
The Department has recognized 27
SREs. Only 6 of the 27 SREs have
recognized IRAPs, and of those 6 SREs,
1 has 99.2 percent of all apprentices in
IRAPs (23,781 out of 23,975
apprentices). This particular SRE is
unlikely to be considered a small entity
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
based on its annual revenue,36 which
exceeds the Small Business
Administration’s Small Business Size
Standard of $20.5 million for
professional organizations (North
American Industry Classification
System code 813920).37
36 IRS Form 990 filing data available from the
Internal Revenue Service, ‘‘Tax Exempt
Organization Search,’’ https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos
(last visited May 19, 2022).
37 U.S. Small Business Administration, ‘‘Table of
Small Business Size Standards,’’ https://
www.sba.gov/document/support-table-sizestandards (last updated May 2, 2022).
E:\FR\FM\26SER1.SGM
26SER1
ER26SE22.008</GPH>
Similarly, the final rule will result in
cost savings for SREs. The cost savings
will arise from SREs no longer needing
to perform the activities listed in the
E.O. 12866 economic analysis above:
notifying the Administrator of any major
change to processes or programs;
informing the Administrator of IRAP
recognition, suspension, or
derecognition; provision of data or
information to the Administrator;
provision of written attestation to the
Administrator; disclosure of the
credentials that apprentices will earn;
quality control of IRAPs; submission of
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 185 / Monday, September 26, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
Accordingly, the Department certifies
that this final rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Moreover, any economic impact
experienced by IRAPs or SREs will be
cost savings.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
As explained in the ‘‘Background’’
section above, the Department is
rescinding subpart B, ‘‘Standards
Recognition Entities of IndustryRecognized Apprenticeship Programs,’’
from 29 CFR part 29, the regulatory
framework for the Department’s
recognition of SREs and SREs’ role in
recognizing IRAPs.
As part of the implementation and
rollout of the 2020 IRAP final rule, the
Department developed and received
OMB approval for two information
collections (ICs), an application form
and a performance report. The first
active IC is entitled ‘‘IndustryRecognized Apprenticeship Program
Standards Recognition Entity Regulation
and Application’’ (OMB Control
Number 1205–0536) and includes an
annual approved burden of 141,819
responses and 285,310 hours. The
second active IC is entitled ‘‘IRAP
Program and Performance Report for
Standards Recognition Entities’’ (OMB
Control Number 1205–0545) and
includes an annual approved burden of
12,447 responses and 111,118 hours.
This rule does not result in any
additional cost burden for either IC.
Because this final rule rescinds
subpart B, which is the authority for
these information collections, the
Department will no longer use the
‘‘Industry-Recognized Apprenticeship
Program Standards Recognition Entity
Regulation and Application’’ IC and the
‘‘IRAP Program and Performance Report
for Standards Recognition Entities’’ IC.
The Department has submitted
requests to discontinue both OMB
Control Number 1205–0536 and OMB
Control Number 1205–0545, eliminating
all paperwork burden associated with
the ICs. These ICs will discontinue upon
the effective date of this final rule.
D. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This final rule does not have
federalism implications because it does
not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the
National Government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of Government. Accordingly, E.O.
13132, Federalism, requires no further
agency action or analysis.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:55 Sep 23, 2022
Jkt 256001
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995
§ 29.2
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1532, requires each Federal agency to
prepare a written statement assessing
the effects of any Federal mandate in a
proposed agency rule that may result in
$100 million or more in expenditures
(adjusted annually for inflation) in any
one year by State, local, and tribal
Governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector.
This final rule does not exceed the
$100-million expenditure in any one
year when adjusted for inflation, and
this rulemaking does not contain such a
mandate. The requirements of title II of
UMRA, therefore, do not apply, and the
Department has not prepared a
statement under the Act.
■
F. Executive Order 13175 (Indian Tribal
Governments)
The Department has reviewed this
final rule in accordance with E.O. 13175
and has determined that it does not
have tribal implications. The final rule
does not have substantial direct effects
on one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes.
List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 29
Apprenticeability criteria, Apprentice
agreements and complaints,
Apprenticeship programs, Program
standards, Registration and
deregistration, Sponsor eligibility, State
Apprenticeship Agency recognition and
derecognition.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, the Department amends 29
CFR part 29 as follows:
PART 29—LABOR STANDARDS FOR
THE REGISTRATION OF
APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAMS
1. The authority citation for part 29 is
revised to read as follows:
■
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 50; 40 U.S.C. 3145; 5
U.S.C. 301; 5 U.S.C. App. P. 534.
2. Remove the subpart A heading.
3. Amend § 29.1 by:
■ a. Revising the section heading; and
■ b. In paragraph (b), removing the word
‘‘subpart’’ and adding the word ‘‘part’’
in its place.
The revision reads as follows:
■
■
§ 29.1
*
PO 00000
Purpose and scope.
*
*
Frm 00033
*
Fmt 4700
*
Sfmt 4700
58287
[Amended]
4. Amend § 29.2 by:
a. In the introductory text, removing
the word ‘‘subpart’’ and adding the
word ‘‘part’’ in its place;
■ b. In the definitions of
‘‘Apprenticeship program’’ and
‘‘Registration agency’’, removing the
citation ‘‘29 CFR part 29 subpart A, and
part 30’’ and adding the citation ‘‘this
part and 29 CFR part 30’’ in its place;
and
■ c. In the definition of ‘‘Technical
assistance’’, removing the word
‘‘subpart’’ and adding the word ‘‘part’’
in its place.
■
§ 29.3
[Amended]
5. In § 29.3 amend paragraphs (b)(1),
(g) introductory text, and (h) by
removing word ‘‘subpart’’ and add in its
place the word ‘‘part’’.
■
§ 29.6
[Amended]
6. In § 29.6 amend paragraph (b)(2) by
removing word ‘‘subpart’’ and add in its
place the word ‘‘part’’.
■
§ 29.10
[Amended]
7. In § 29.10 amend paragraph (a)(2)
by removing word ‘‘subpart’’ and add in
its place the word ‘‘part’’.
■
§ 29.11
[Amended]
8. In § 29.11 amend the introductory
text removing word ‘‘subpart’’ and add
in its place the word ‘‘part’’.
■
§ 29.13
[Amended]
9. Amend § 29.13 by:
a. In paragraph (a)(1), removing the
citation ‘‘29 CFR part 29 subpart A, and
part 30’’ and adding the citation ‘‘this
part and 29 CFR part 30’’ in its place;
■ b. In paragraph (b)(1), removing the
citation ‘‘29 CFR part 29 subpart A’’ and
adding ‘‘this part’’ in its place;
■ c. In paragraphs (c) and (e)
introductory text, removing the word
‘‘subpart’’ and adding the word ‘‘part’’
in its place; and
■ d. In paragraph (e)(4), removing the
citation ‘‘part 29 subpart A’’ and adding
‘‘this part’’ in its place.
■
■
§ 29.14
[Amended]
10. Amend § 29.14 by:
a. In the introductory text, removing
the citation ‘‘part 29 subpart A, and part
30’’ and adding the citation ‘‘this part
and 29 CFR part 30’’ in its place; and
■ b. In paragraphs (e)(1) and (i),
removing the word ‘‘subpart’’ and
adding the word ‘‘part’’ in its place.
■
■
E:\FR\FM\26SER1.SGM
26SER1
58288
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 185 / Monday, September 26, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
Subpart B—[Removed]
11. Remove subpart B, consisting of
§§ 29.20 through 29.31.
■
Brent Parton,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Employment
and Training, Labor.
[FR Doc. 2022–20560 Filed 9–23–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FR–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:55 Sep 23, 2022
Jkt 256001
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\26SER1.SGM
26SER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 185 (Monday, September 26, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58269-58288]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-20560]
[[Page 58269]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
29 CFR Part 29
[Docket No. ETA-2021-0007]
RIN 1205-AC06
Apprenticeship Programs, Labor Standards for Registration
AGENCY: Employment and Training Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL or the Department) is
issuing this final rule to rescind its 2020 regulation that established
a process under which the Department's Office of Apprenticeship (OA)
Administrator (Administrator) was authorized to grant recognition to
qualified third-party entities, known as Standards Recognition Entities
(SREs), which in turn were authorized to evaluate and extend
recognition to Industry-Recognized Apprenticeship Programs (IRAPs).
This final rule also makes necessary conforming changes to the
regulations governing the registration of apprenticeship programs by
the Department.
DATES: This final rule is effective November 25, 2022.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John V. Ladd, Administrator, Office of
Apprenticeship, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW,
Room C-5311, Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-2796 (this is
not a toll-free number).
Individuals with hearing or speech impairments, please dial 7-1-1
to access telecommunications relay services.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
List of Abbreviations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbreviation Definition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AAI............................... American Apprenticeship Initiative.
Administrator..................... Administrator of the U.S. Department
of Labor's Office of
Apprenticeship.
BLS............................... U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics.
CFR............................... Code of Federal Regulations.
COVID-19.......................... Coronavirus Disease 2019.
DOL or the Department............. U.S. Department of Labor.
ECEC.............................. Employer Costs for Employee
Compensation.
EEO............................... equal employment opportunity.
E.O............................... Executive Order.
ERISA............................. Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974.
ETA............................... Employment and Training
Administration.
FR................................ Federal Register.
FY................................ Fiscal Year.
GS................................ General Schedule.
HHS............................... U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services.
IC................................ information collection.
IRAP.............................. Industry-Recognized Apprenticeship
Program.
IT................................ information technology.
NAA............................... National Apprenticeship Act of 1937.
NPRM.............................. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
OA................................ Office of Apprenticeship.
OJL............................... on-the-job learning.
OMB............................... Office of Management and Budget.
RAP............................... Registered Apprenticeship program.
RAPIDS............................ Registered Apprenticeship Partners
Information Database System.
RI................................ Related instruction.
SAA............................... State Apprenticeship Agency.
Secretary......................... U.S. Secretary of Labor.
SOC............................... Standard Occupational
Classification.
SRE............................... Standards Recognition Entity.
Task Force........................ Task Force on Apprenticeship
Expansion.
UMRA.............................. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995.
U.S.C............................. U.S. Code.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preamble Table of Contents
I. Background
II. The Registered Apprenticeship System Is Highly Successful for
Industry
III. The Registered Apprenticeship System Is Highly Successful for
Workers
A. Registered Apprenticeships Uniformly Provide More Rigorous,
Higher Quality Training
B. Registered Apprenticeships Provide Better Safety and Welfare
Protections
IV. The IRAP System Is Redundant of the Registered Apprenticeship
System
V. The Effect of the Department's Rescission of the 2020 IRAP Final
Rule
VI. Regulatory Analysis and Review
A. Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and
13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review)
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. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
F. Executive Order 13175 (Indian Tribal Governments)
I. Background
The National Apprenticeship Act of 1937 (NAA), 29 U.S.C. 50,
authorizes the Secretary of Labor (Secretary) to: (1) formulate and
promote the use of labor standards necessary to safeguard the welfare
of apprentices and to encourage their inclusion in apprenticeship
contracts; (2) bring together employers and labor for the formulation
of programs of apprenticeship; and (3) cooperate with State agencies
engaged in the formulation and promotion of standards of
apprenticeship. 29 U.S.C. 50. The Department promulgated
[[Page 58270]]
regulations to implement the NAA at 29 CFR part 30 (equal employment
opportunity (EEO) in apprenticeship) in 1963 and at 29 CFR part 29
(labor standards for the registration of apprenticeship programs) in
1977. The part 30 regulations prohibit discrimination in Registered
Apprenticeship based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex
(including pregnancy and gender identity), sexual orientation, age (40
or older), genetic information, and disability, and they require
sponsors of Registered Apprenticeship programs (RAPs) to promote equal
opportunity in such programs. The part 29 regulations set forth labor
standards designed to safeguard the welfare of apprentices in RAPs,
including: prescribing policies and procedures concerning the
registration, cancellation, and deregistration of apprenticeship
programs; recognizing State Apprenticeship Agencies (SAAs) as
Registration Agencies; and matters relating thereto. The Department
significantly updated 29 CFR part 29 in 2008 to ``increase flexibility,
enhance program quality and accountability, and promote apprenticeship
opportunity in the 21st century, while continuing to safeguard the
welfare of apprentices'' (73 FR 64402, Oct. 29, 2008, hereinafter ``the
2008 final rule''), and updated 29 CFR part 30 in 2016 ``to modernize
the equal employment opportunity regulations'' (81 FR 92026, Dec. 19,
2016). These regulations provide the framework for the Registered
Apprenticeship system.
On June 15, 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order (E.O.)
13801, ``Expanding Apprenticeships in America'' (82 FR 28229), which
directed the Secretary of Labor to consider issuing regulations that
promote the development of IRAPs by third parties. Section 8(b)(iii) of
E.O. 13801 also established a Task Force on Apprenticeship Expansion
(Task Force) to identify strategies and proposals to promote
apprenticeships, to include ``the most effective strategies for
creating industry-recognized apprenticeships.'' Based on E.O. 13801 and
the Task Force's recommendations, the Department issued a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on June 25, 2019 (84 FR 29970, hereinafter
``the 2019 IRAP NPRM''), which proposed amending 29 CFR part 29 by
adding a subpart (subpart B) containing a new regulatory framework
governing both the recognition and oversight of SREs by the Department,
and the recognition and oversight of IRAPs by Department-recognized
SREs. After considering approximately 326,000 written comments on the
2019 IRAP NPRM, the Department published a final rule in the Federal
Register on March 11, 2020 (85 FR 14294), entitled ``Apprenticeship
Programs, Labor Standards for Registration, Amendment of Regulations''
(hereinafter ``the 2020 IRAP final rule''), which established a new 29
CFR part 29, subpart B governing the recognition and oversight of SREs
and IRAPs, designated the Registered Apprenticeship regulations at 29
CFR 29.1 through 29.14 as subpart A under the heading ``Subpart A--
Registered Apprenticeship Programs,'' and made conforming edits to
subpart A to account for the addition of subpart B.
The 2020 IRAP final rule established a set of standards and
procedures under which the Administrator would evaluate and extend
recognition to SREs; these recognized SREs, in turn, were authorized
under the rule to evaluate and recognize IRAPs. The 2020 IRAP final
rule set forth in detail the requirements for third-party entities
applying for Departmental recognition as SREs. It also identified
certain requirements apprenticeship programs must meet to obtain
recognition from SREs as IRAPs. The 2020 IRAP final rule became
effective on May 11, 2020.
On February 17, 2021, President Biden issued E.O. 14016,
``Revocation of Executive Order 13801'' (86 FR 11089); section 2 of
this E.O. directed Federal agencies to ``promptly consider taking steps
to rescind any orders, rules, regulations, guidelines, or policies''
implementing E.O. 13801. Pursuant to E.O. 14016, on February 17, 2021,
the Department announced that it would initiate a review of the IRAP
system. The Department also suspended the acceptance and review of new
and pending SRE recognition applications.\1\ The Department advised
that all SREs recognized by the Department prior to the February 17,
2021 suspension, as well as all IRAPs recognized by an SRE prior to
that date, could continue to operate in accordance with the
requirements outlined in 29 CFR part 29, subpart B. At the time the
Department began the SRE pause and IRAP system review, there were 27
organizations recognized by the Department as SREs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ DOL, ``U.S. Department of Labor Undertakes Several Actions
to Strengthen Registered Apprenticeship Program, Eliminate
Duplication,'' Feb. 17, 2021, https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/eta/eta20210217.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with E.O. 14016, the Department considered whether to
retain the 2020 IRAP regulation. After review, the Department concluded
that retaining the IRAP regulatory framework was not in the best
interest of apprentices or the Department. Accordingly, on November 15,
2021, the Department published an NPRM in the Federal Register (86 FR
62966, hereinafter ``the 2021 IRAP Rescission NPRM''), proposing to
rescind the 2020 IRAP final rule and to make necessary conforming
changes to the Department's Registered Apprenticeship regulations in 29
CFR part 29, subpart A (Registered Apprenticeship Programs).
In the 2021 IRAP Rescission NPRM, the Department explained the
rationale for adopting the 2020 IRAP final rule, acknowledged that the
proposed rescission represented a change in its position with respect
to the need for and the benefits of IRAPs, and explained why it
proposed to rescind the 2020 final rule. Commenters on the proposed
rescission largely supported the Department's proposal for the reasons
discussed at length in the proposal, as discussed in more detail in the
``Public Comments'' section below. Accordingly, the Department, for the
reasons discussed in the 2021 IRAP Rescission NPRM and the preamble to
this final rule, is finalizing the rule as proposed.
The Department is rescinding the 2020 IRAP final rule because it
has determined that the Department's efforts and resources should be
focused on Registered Apprenticeship, which has proven to be highly
successful for both industry and workers and incorporates valuable
quality standards and worker protections. This is consistent with the
Administration's priority to expand Registered Apprenticeship because
of its success as a pathway to the middle class and ability to connect
a diverse workforce to family-supporting jobs.\2\ Further, it aligns
with the Department's priority to use ``Registered Apprenticeship [to]
provide pathways to strengthen our workforce and our economy.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/02/17/fact-sheet-biden-administration-to-take-steps-to-bolster-registered-apprenticeships/.
\3\ https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/eta/eta20210217.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In contrast, and as explained in detail in the 2021 IRAP Rescission
NPRM, the Department now believes the 2020 IRAP final rule does not
align with the Department's priorities of providing high-quality
training with an emphasis on apprentice safety and welfare. 86 FR
62968-71. This is due to the 2020 IRAP final rule's fewer quality
training and worker protection standards as compared to Registered
Apprenticeship's on-the-job learning and related instruction
requirements and apprentice protections, such as
[[Page 58271]]
enhanced safety standards, a progressive wage requirement, and EEO
regulations. Within the Registered Apprenticeship regulations, there is
also greater accountability because the Department can exercise direct
oversight to ensure employers provide industry-established prevailing
wages, ensure stringent safety standards are in place, and monitor
program quality to protect workers. By contrast, the Department's
limited, indirect oversight role of IRAPs under the 2020 IRAP final
rule constrains its ability to ensure that IRAPs are providing quality
training and worker protection, leading to potentially inequitable
access to higher quality training and worker protections among program
participants. Accordingly, the Department no longer believes the IRAP
model is a reasonable or effective alternative to the training
standards, worker protection, and oversight that are the cornerstones
of Registered Apprenticeship. 86 FR 62968-71.
The Department also determined that two of the key justifications
for issuing the 2020 IRAP final rule--the purported inflexibility in
the Registered Apprenticeship system and the administrative burdens
hindering Registered Apprenticeship's ability to meet the needs of
different industries--are fundamentally flawed. As discussed at length
in the 2021 IRAP Rescission NPRM, the assertion that the Registered
Apprenticeship system is inflexible and administratively burdensome is
belied by the demonstrated success of Registered Apprenticeship for
industry and workers alike, and by Registered Apprenticeship's
continued growth and expansion into new industries and occupations.
Indeed, Registered Apprenticeship has continued to show strong growth
since its establishment, including the latest data reflecting strong
growth in 2020 and 2021, during the height of the COVID-19
pandemic.4 5 RAPs are a flexible training strategy, with
vital quality controls, that can be customized to meet the business
needs for a skilled workforce. As the Department discussed in the 2021
IRAP Rescission NPRM, the most recent data reflects that Registered
Apprenticeship has not only continued to grow but has also expanded
into ``non-traditional'' industry sectors, such as healthcare,
cybersecurity, transportation, and advanced manufacturing, through a
variety of initiatives (e.g., Department's 2015 American Apprenticeship
Initiative (AAI)) and has demonstrated success in those sectors. 86 FR
62971-72.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ OA 2020 Data and Statistics, available at https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/apprenticeship/about/statistics/2020.
\5\ OA 2021 Data and Statistics, available at https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/apprenticeship/about/statistics/2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department also determined that the 2020 IRAP final rule's
justification that IRAPs were necessary to address a purported ``skills
gap'' was based on faulty reasoning. As discussed in the 2021 IRAP
Rescission NPRM, the Department no longer believes the purported
``skills gap,'' as referenced in the 2020 IRAP final rule, to be the
major challenge facing the labor market. 86 FR 62971. Rather, the
Department now believes that there are additional factors that have a
bearing on industry labor needs, such as employer investments in
workforce development, competitive and rising wages to attract and
retain workers, commitments to opportunity and diversity, and worker
empowerment.6 7 These are factors that the RAP framework
supports and is well-positioned to address, thereby providing a more
promising and effective framework for addressing and closing persistent
inefficiencies in the labor market. In contrast, the 2020 IRAP final
rule is deficient in incorporating these factors, and its deficiencies
in job quality and worker protection requirements (particularly with
respect to EEO and progressive wages for apprentices) reduce the
ability of IRAPs to address any current or future labor shortages.
Further, the IRAP final rule's deficiencies in ensuring quality
standards for workers undermine both the RAP framework and the
Administration's commitment to promoting good quality, family-
sustaining jobs for all workers, including apprentices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Annelies Goger and Luther Jackson, ``The labor market
doesn't have a `skills gap'--it has an opportunity gap,'' Sept. 9,
2020, https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/09/09/the-labor-market-doesnt-have-a-skills-gap-it-has-an-opportunity-gap/.
\7\ Kate Bahn, `` `Skills gap' arguments overlook collective
bargaining and low minimum wages,'' May 9, 2019, https://equitablegrowth.org/skills-gap-arguments-overlook-collective-bargaining-and-low-minimum-wages/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, through the experience of administering the IRAP system,
the Department has determined that the IRAP system is redundant of
Registered Apprenticeship and that such redundancy creates confusion
and reduces resources that would be better used to support the
continued success and growth of Registered Apprenticeship across
industries and occupations. As discussed in the 2021 IRAP Rescission
NPRM, the Department observed significant duplication of occupations
covered by RAPs and IRAPs. 86 FR 62972. The Department notes that the
flexible RAP model has continued to expand into emerging occupations
and sectors; accordingly, as discussed above and in the 2021 IRAP
Rescission NPRM, there is a significant overlap in the industry sectors
served by RAPs and IRAPs. Further, the administration of the IRAP
system has generated duplicative work and costs for the Department,
created inconsistent standards for quality training, reduced worker
protections such as EEO, and committed limited resources that could
have been better utilized by the Department to partner with industry to
expand the existing Registered Apprenticeship system. 86 FR 62971-72.
Public Comments
The 2021 IRAP Rescission NPRM invited written comments from the
public concerning the proposed rulemaking; the comment period closed on
January 14, 2022. During the 60-day public comment period, the
Department received a total of 20 public comment submissions (including
18 unique submissions, one duplicate submission, and one submission
that was outside the scope of the rulemaking). The comments received on
the 2021 IRAP Rescission NPRM may be viewed at https://www.regulations.gov by entering docket number ETA-2021-0007.
The commenters represented a range of stakeholders from the public,
private, and not-for-profit sectors, including: six labor
organizations; three trade associations; two advocacy organizations;
two SAAs; one organization that represents SAAs; one SRE; and one IRAP.
The Department also received comments from two individuals. After
careful consideration of the comments received and for the reasons
explained below, the Department is adopting this final rule, which
rescinds the regulatory framework for SREs and IRAPs codified at 29 CFR
part 29, subpart B, and makes necessary conforming changes to the
Department's Registered Apprenticeship regulations in 29 CFR part 29,
subpart A, as proposed (including removing the subpart A designation).
General Support for and Opposition to the 2021 Proposal To Rescind the
2020 IRAP Final Rule
Several commenters discussed their general support for the proposal
to rescind the 2020 IRAP final rule and thereby remove the regulatory
framework for SREs and IRAPs under 29 CFR part 29, subpart B. Some
commenters expressed agreement with the proposal and further supported
the proposal's focus on strengthening and modernizing the current
Registered
[[Page 58272]]
Apprenticeship system, ensuring that apprentices are protected from
abuse and properly trained by their chosen apprenticeship program, and
safeguarding the welfare of apprentices. Other commenters expressed
support for the proposal and argued that the Registered Apprenticeship
system should be supported and expanded to new industries and that,
``if allowed to remain in place, the 2020 IRAP final rule would
threaten to undo more than eight decades of highly effective
apprenticeship programs validated by public entities.'' A commenter
conveyed its support for the removal of subpart B because doing so
would ensure that construction industry apprenticeships continue as the
``gold standard'' for apprenticeship programs throughout the United
States and to serve as an example to other industries to emulate.
Another commenter urged the Department to ensure that the proposal only
strengthen RAPs and maintain the high quality of the Registered
Apprenticeship system.
The Department appreciates the commenters' support of the proposal
and agrees that the RAP model is effective and has proven successful
for both industry and workers for more than 80 years. The Department
shares the view of the commenters who believe that the Department
should focus its efforts on bolstering and modernizing the Registered
Apprenticeship system and facilitating the expansion of RAPs into new
and emerging industries and sectors. The Department appreciates the
commenter's assertion that the rescission of 29 CFR part 29, subpart B
would ensure that construction industry apprenticeships continue as the
``gold standard'' for apprenticeship programs, however, the Department
also notes that the rescission of this subpart would ensure that all
apprenticeship programs, including construction industry
apprenticeships, maintain high-quality labor standards in connection
with the Registered Apprenticeship framework. The Department recognizes
the value of the Registered Apprenticeship system and has prioritized
investing in the RAP model to rebuild the economy, expand economic
opportunities and workforce access for underrepresented populations and
communities, and advance racial and gender equity. By adopting this
proposal, the Department preserves high-level requirements for
apprentice training and safety. These requirements are vital to
establishing quality RAP opportunities that lead to good-quality jobs,
and careers for workers, while also helping fulfill labor market
demands and support economic growth.
The Department received comments expressing general support for the
IRAP model, based on commenters' use of the model, and discussing some
of the benefits of their use of the IRAP model. One commenter described
the process by which it developed an SRE and its process to create
criteria to evaluate IRAPs. The commenter described its process as
fair, valid, impartial and well-received by the IRAP that it
recognized. Another commenter asserted that IRAPs can help close the
growing skills gap, creating a bridge between business leaders and
career seekers. The commenter further argued that IRAPs help rebuild
the workforce by shortening the amount of time required to enter or
upskill in a given industry. The commenter also highlighted the
internal and external program evaluation elements in their IRAP that
cover validation of need, validation of competencies, qualifications of
personnel, apprentice selection, and program effectiveness.
The Department acknowledges these comments in general support of
IRAPs and appreciates that there can be instances of success in IRAPs.
Nevertheless, as stated in the 2021 IRAP Rescission NPRM, the
Department views the 2020 IRAP final rule as inconsistent with the
Department's goal of expanding quality apprenticeships in a manner that
both ensures a high level of quality for apprentices and industry while
also retaining the necessary flexibility to adapt apprenticeships to
different industries and occupations. Further, the Department views the
IRAP system as duplicative of the Registered Apprenticeship system,
though with fewer quality standards and less oversight, and the IRAP
system is not a prudent use of Government resources and would diminish
the quality and coherence of the Department's apprenticeship efforts.
In response to the commenter who asserted that IRAPs can help
address the skills gap in the American workforce, the Department
disagrees with this view. In the 2021 IRAP Rescission NPRM, the
Department explained why the IRAP model is not poised to address the
existing challenges and inefficiencies in the labor market.
Specifically, while providing training to job seekers is a key
component to addressing any ``skills gaps'' or ``skills mismatches,''
evidence suggests that training alone is not the answer. Employer
investments in workforce development, competitive and rising wages to
attract and retain workers, commitments to opportunity and diversity,
and worker empowerment are key factors to addressing industry labor
needs.8 9 The well-established RAP model provides a more
promising and effective framework for addressing and closing persistent
inefficiencies in the labor market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Annelies Goger and Luther Jackson, ``The labor market
doesn't have a `skills gap'--it has an opportunity gap,'' Sept. 9,
2020, https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/09/09/the-labor-market-doesnt-have-a-skills-gap-it-has-anopportunity-gap/.
\9\ Kate Bahn, `` `Skills gap' arguments overlook collective
bargaining and low minimum wages,'' May 9, 2019, https://equitablegrowth.org/skills-gap-arguments-overlook-collective-bargaining-and-low-minimum-wages/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department's Role in Administering the National Apprenticeship Act
and Implementing Its Regulations
The Department received several comments that questioned whether
the 2020 IRAP final rule's issuance was consistent with the NAA,
referring to the legislative history and purpose of the NAA. One
commenter, in describing the NAA's legislative history, highlighted
congressional comments about Federal intervention to halt the
exploitation of apprentices. Several commenters remarked that the 2020
IRAP final rule constituted an improper delegation of the Department's
authority under the NAA. One commenter stated that Congress did not
enable the Secretary to delegate the authority to approve
apprenticeships or apprenticeship standards to an outside party.
Similarly, another commenter stated that the 2020 IRAP final rule
shifts the authority from the Department to third-party SREs in
contravention of the Department's responsibility under the NAA to
determine whether statutory requirements have been met. Another
commenter stated that IRAPs created under the 2020 IRAP final rule do
not feature the level of standardization demanded by the NAA. A
commenter asserted that the 2020 IRAP final rule unlawfully delegated
EEO oversight to SREs, contrary to the Department's goals in the 29 CFR
part 30 regulations to address discrimination and inequitable
participation of women and minorities in apprenticeships. Another
commenter asserted that the 2020 IRAP final rule eliminated protections
for apprentices established by the 2008 final rule, including: (1) the
requirement that a State Apprenticeship Agency serving as a
Registration Agency recognized by the Department under 29 CFR part 29
must be a Government entity; (2) the provisional registration of new
apprenticeship programs; (3) minimum standards for instructor
qualifications; and (4) a cap on the length of an apprentice's
probationary period. The commenter argued that rescinding the
[[Page 58273]]
IRAP regulations would restore these important protections as well as
other safeguards that preceded the 2008 final rule, such as the minimum
number of hours of related instruction (RI), for all apprentices.
The Department acknowledges these comments and appreciates their
support for the 2021 IRAP Rescission NPRM. As the Department explained
in the 2020 IRAP final rule (85 FR 14295-14296, Mar. 11, 2020), the NAA
provides a general authorization and direction for the Secretary to
create and promote standards of apprenticeship, including through
contracts, and to interface with employers, labor, and States to create
apprenticeships and apprenticeship standards. See 29 U.S.C. 50. The
2020 IRAP final rule does not exceed or conflict with the broad
authority granted by Congress to the Secretary in the NAA. However, the
Department agrees that IRAPs created under the 2020 IRAP final rule do
not provide adequate standards for high-quality training or safety and
welfare protections, including sufficient EEO protections. As stated in
the 2021 IRAP Rescission NPRM, the 2020 IRAP final rule ``does not
provide adequate focus on worker needs and protections, does not ensure
adequate program quality standards, does not provide sufficient [EEO]
protections for apprentices, and does not provide a proven pathway to
family-sustaining jobs'' (86 FR 62967, Nov. 15, 2021).
With regard to the comment that the 2020 IRAP final rule eliminated
protections for apprentices established by the 2008 final rule, the
Department clarifies that the 2020 IRAP final rule did not propose any
revisions to the 29 CFR part 29 requirements that a State
Apprenticeship Agency serving as a Registration Agency must be a
Government entity, the provisional registration of new apprenticeship
programs, the minimum standards for instructor qualifications, and a
cap on the length of an apprentice's probationary period. Rather, the
2020 IRAP final rule made technical amendments to subpart A to account
for subpart B. The 2021 IRAP Rescission NPRM proposed to remove subpart
B, to make conforming technical edits to what had been subpart A, and
to remove the distinctions of subparts because they would no longer be
necessary with the removal of subpart B. Therefore, no changes are
required in response to these comments.
II. The Registered Apprenticeship System Is Highly Successful for
Industry
A skilled workforce is foundational to a strong economy, and RAPs
provide a proven avenue by which to deliver much needed talent
development to various industry sectors. For over 80 years, the
Registered Apprenticeship system has been successful in providing
industry with high-quality work-based learning. RAPs combine paid on-
the-job learning (OJL) with RI to progressively increase workers' skill
levels and wages. With this ``earn and learn'' model, apprentices are
employed and earn wages from the first day on the job. Additionally,
employers have continued to turn to Registered Apprenticeship to hire
and train new employees, with over 241,000 new apprentices in RAPs in
Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 across several industries, including
cybersecurity, healthcare, advanced manufacturing, transportation,
energy, and information technology (IT).\10\ Industries that have
adopted RAPs as part of their work-based learning models have cited the
standards, skillsets, and retention offered by skilled workers
associated with RAPs as advantageous to their bottom line. In one
survey, nearly three-fourths of surveyed employers stated that RAPs
drove increased worker productivity.\11\ RAPs are a flexible training
strategy, with vital quality controls, that can be customized to meet
the business needs for a skilled workforce. These strategies include
allowing employers to partner with workforce partners and educators to
develop and apply industry standards to training programs, thereby
increasing the quality and productivity of the workforce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The 25 federally administered States and 18 federally
recognized SAAs use the Employment and Training Administration's
Registered Apprenticeship Partners Information Database System
(RAPIDS) to provide individual apprentice and sponsor data. These
data represent Registered Apprenticeship national results for FY
2021 (Oct. 1, 2020-Sept. 30, 2021), as reported by these entities,
and are available at https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/apprenticeship/about/statistics/2021 (last visited May 19, 2022).
\11\ Urban Institute Research Report, ``The Benefits and
Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors'
Perspective,'' June 12, 2009, https://www.urban.org/research/publication/benefits-and-challenges-registered-apprenticeship-sponsors-perspective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most commenters agreed with the Department's position in the NPRM
that RAPs are highly successful for industry. One commenter noted the
eight successful decades of the Registered Apprenticeship system and
credited RAPs with continued success in expanding their presence in
high-growth sectors (e.g., advanced manufacturing, healthcare,
transportation, and IT) and ``in industries not traditionally
associated with apprenticeship.'' Another commenter encouraged the
Department to ``embrace and bolster'' the RAP model. Several commenters
referred to RAPs as the ``gold standard'' for apprenticeship that
creates a highly trained workforce. The Department appreciates these
commenters' support for RAPs and agrees that the Registered
Apprenticeship system has had a robust and successful history.
Notably, these same commenters who lauded RAP as beneficial to
industry also expressed their views that IRAPs are harmful to industry.
One commenter expressed concern that the 2020 IRAP final rule's lack of
uniform standards disincentivizes the creation of apprenticeship
programs because apprentices are easily ``poached'' due to minimal
standards and less program transparency. The commenter also stated that
the Department's decision to create IRAPs was counter to the Task
Force's recommendation to start with a pilot program to determine
industry interest, leading to a hastily created apprenticeship model
without evidence that it would be embraced by industry or successful as
a viable alternative to RAPs.
Commenters also expressed the view that the 2020 IRAP final rule
was detrimental to the construction industry, despite the exclusion of
construction activities from the 2020 IRAP final rule. A commenter also
noted that future administrations could remove the construction
exclusion from the 2020 IRAP final rule, thereby undermining RAPs in
the construction industry, and jeopardizing RAPs as the ``premier
method for preparing its future workforce.''
The Department appreciates the support received to rescind the 2020
IRAP final rule. The Department acknowledges the commenters' assertions
that IRAPs would create disincentives to setting up apprenticeship
programs or an overall negative impact on industry, including the
construction industry. The Department's rationale for rescinding the
2020 IRAP final rule does not rely upon general concerns about the
potential detrimental effect to industry generally and the construction
industry particularly, but the Department appreciates these concerns
and notes that the rescission of the 2020 IRAP final rule in its
entirety obviates such concerns.
Conversely, a commenter in support of the IRAP system noted their
[[Page 58274]]
opposition to the Department's exclusion of the construction industry
from recognition under the IRAP regulatory framework.\12\ This
commenter argued that the construction industry was ripe for an
expansion of apprenticeship opportunities. While the commenter
applauded efforts to recruit, retrain, and upskill workers in the
Registered Apprenticeship system, the commenter asserted that ``new and
innovative apprenticeships'' are necessary in the construction sector
as it recovers from the negative economic impacts of the Coronavirus
Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The commenter specifically
highlighted the residential construction industry as one that could
benefit from these new approaches to apprenticeship. The commenter
urged the Department, when designing and implementing apprenticeship
and job training opportunities, to target those industries with the
highest number of job openings and conduct greater outreach efforts to
identify the individual sectors that are underrepresented. The
commenter also encouraged the Department to take steps to distinguish
between types of construction activities (such as residential
construction) and collaborate with the different segments of the
construction industry ``to develop and expand [RAPs] through companies,
educational organizations, and other nonunion groups that better
represent the demographics of the workforce.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The 2020 IRAP final rule at Sec. 29.30 excluded SREs from
not recognizing as IRAPs programs that seek to train apprentices to
perform construction activities as defined in Sec. 29.30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the comment reiterating opposition to the
construction industry's exclusion in the 2020 IRAP final rule, the
Department has concluded that the rescission of the 2020 IRAP final
rule should have a beneficial impact across all industries by restoring
a unitary regulatory framework for quality apprenticeship programs,
both in sectors where such programs are widespread (such as
construction) and in a wide range of high-growth and emerging
occupations (such as healthcare, IT, cybersecurity, advanced
manufacturing). While the Department notes the commenter's concerns
about a current shortage of workers in the residential construction
sector, it does not believe that preserving a parallel system of
apprenticeship that lacks quality control and oversight is the
appropriate solution for addressing such a worker shortage. Moreover,
the Department notes that it has registered nonunion programs in the
construction sector, which demonstrates the RAP model can be
successfully utilized across all parts of an industry. The Department
notes further that the IRAP system is not necessary to expand the reach
of apprenticeship to new and different industries as RAPs have proven
to be successful across a wide range of industry sectors. The
Department continues to be interested in expanding and strengthening
the RAP model in all industry sectors, including residential
construction and other construction-related activities.
III. The Registered Apprenticeship System Is Highly Successful for
Workers
A. Registered Apprenticeships Uniformly Provide More Rigorous, Higher
Quality Training
In addition to the demonstrated success of the Registered
Apprenticeship system as a workforce training model for industry, it
has proven to be highly successful and beneficial to workers because of
its emphasis on both high-quality training and apprentice safety and
welfare. RAPs are designed to ensure high-quality training through
structured OJL, mentorship, and RI, while also prioritizing safety,
wage progression, and EEO for apprentices. RAPs implement federally
approved industry standards for training apprentices for skilled
occupations in the workplace; specifically, these programs must abide
by regulatory provisions for supervision and training of apprentices to
further enhance safety in the workplace. During training, apprentices
are guaranteed progressive wage increases, and research shows that RAP
completers earn over $300,000 (including benefits) more over their
lifetimes as compared with individuals who do not complete a RAP.\13\
Further, the Department has taken significant steps to increase the
participation of women and individuals from underrepresented groups
through the robust requirements in 29 CFR part 30. With Registered
Apprenticeship, there is also an added level of accountability because
the Department can intervene and ensure employers provide progressive
wages established in their approved Registered Apprenticeship
standards, ensure stringent safety standards are in place, address
discrimination and issues of equal opportunity, and monitor program
quality to protect workers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See, e.g., Mathematica Policy Research, ``An Effectiveness
Assessment and Cost-Benefit Analysis of Registered Apprenticeship in
10 States: Final Report,'' July 25, 2012, https://wdr.doleta.gov/research/FullText_Documents/ETAOP_2012_10.pdf. The study cautions
against interpreting its results, which do not control for
unobservable skill or motivation, as having conclusively identified
the effects of Registered Apprenticeship on earnings. Moreover, the
estimates do not represent increments between RAPs and IRAPs (the
latter not having been implemented at the time the study was
conducted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters agreed with the Department that the RAP model is highly
successful because of its emphasis on both high-quality training and
apprentice safety and welfare and agreed with the Department's position
that IRAPs are not designed to uniformly promote these core elements of
quality apprenticeship programs. For example, several commenters, in
expressing support for the Department's 2021 IRAP Rescission NPRM,
remarked that RAPs offer protection and standards to ensure quality
among the hallmarks of apprenticeship--high-quality training, including
OJL and RI, safety and welfare, progressive wages, EEO protections, and
worker empowerment. One commenter argued that Registered Apprenticeship
is a proven model that consistently provides quality training and
employment opportunities, and another commenter stated that the RAP
model's balance of regulatory oversight and standardized training
requirements produces workers with skillsets that lead to family-
sustaining careers. In addition, in noting their support for the
Department's 2021 IRAP Rescission NPRM, several commenters compared the
RAP model with that of IRAPs, agreeing with the Department's
determination that the IRAP model neither adequately ensures high-
quality training nor apprentice safety and welfare.
Commenters also provided suggestions on how to improve Registered
Apprenticeship. One commenter suggested that the Department use lessons
learned from the IRAP model to strengthen Registered Apprenticeship,
specifically recommending that the RAP model should emphasize the
assessment of competencies, use third-party capstone industry-
recognized certifications, and require a program evaluation component
with an emphasis on outcomes. Another commenter, in expressing support
for the 2021 IRAP Rescission NPRM, suggested that resources be
refocused on aggressive oversight of RAPs to ensure the protection of
apprentices, including investigation into the amount and source of
funding for the operation of a RAP; the adequacy of the facilities and
equipment used for training; adequacy of plans for retraining graduates
to upgrade skillsets; the track record of the RAP sponsor; and whether
the sponsor has the ability to provide broad-based training that will
prepare apprentices to
[[Page 58275]]
be marketable in an industry-recognized occupation.
The Department appreciates these comments that support its 2021
IRAP Rescission NPRM. The Department also appreciates and agrees with
the comments characterizing the RAP model as highly successful because
of its emphasis on protections and standards that ensure high-quality
training and apprentice safety and welfare. The Department agrees with
the comments that assert that the IRAP model does not adequately ensure
high-quality training or apprentice safety and welfare. With respect to
the suggestions on how to improve Registered Apprenticeship, the
Department acknowledges these comments and continues to be interested
in ideas to expand Registered Apprenticeship while elevating important
quality standards and promoting advancement opportunities for workers.
The Department notes that the 2020 IRAP final rule does not mandate
industry capstone certifications and that such mechanisms are not
prohibited under the Registered Apprenticeship regulations. The
Department continues to be interested in exploring ideas for
strengthening the Registered Apprenticeship system and training model,
and the Department appreciates these suggestions on how to make
Registered Apprenticeship more successful for all workers and
industries.
A structured OJL model is a hallmark of a high-quality
apprenticeship program, as this framework provides standardized
evaluation of apprentice proficiency using a time-based model,
competency-based model, or a hybrid of both, with benchmarks that
ensure mastery in the apprentice's respective occupation and
flexibility in the approach used that ensures apprenticeships can be
developed and customized to a variety of occupations.\14\ OJL is a
critical component for the apprentice's learning experience, and the
Department considers a structured mentorship requirement as a strength
for high-quality apprenticeship programs. RAPs pair apprentices with
experienced employees (also referred to as journeyworkers) who have
already mastered the skills and competencies associated with the
occupation such that these individuals can mentor apprentices with on-
the-job guidance and direction that ensures safety and quality
training. In contrast, the IRAP regulations lack a structured,
standardized framework for OJL, resulting in inconsistent training
across all SREs and IRAPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ RAP regulations at 29 CFR 29.5(b)(2) set forth the
requirements for the term of apprenticeship, which for an individual
apprentice may be measured either through the completion of the
industry standard for OJL (at least 2,000 hours) (time-based
approach), the attainment of competency (competency-based approach),
or a blend of the time-based and competency-based approaches (hybrid
approach).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another critical component of a RAP is RI.\15\ This RI provision is
designed to ensure that apprentices uniformly receive meaningful and
substantive knowledge in their respective occupations, creating a well-
rounded training experience that provides the educational foundation
necessary for success in practical settings, while also retaining
flexibility based on different industries and occupations that may
require varying amounts of RI. In contrast, the IRAP regulations lack
standards on minimum RI hours, and do not articulate how SREs monitor
or evaluate RI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ RI is an organized and systematic form of instruction
designed to provide the apprentice with the knowledge of the
theoretical and technical subjects related to the apprentice's
occupation. Such instruction may be given in a classroom, through
occupational or industrial courses, or by correspondence courses of
equivalent value, electronic media, or other forms of self-study
approved by the Registration Agency. 29 CFR 29.2. Under 29 CFR
29.5(b)(4), a minimum of 144 hours of RI is recommended for
Registered Apprenticeship; many RAPs exceed this 144-hour
recommendation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department received several comments concerning OJL and RI.
Several commenters, in expressing their support for the Department's
2021 IRAP Rescission NPRM, agreed with the Department's assertion that
the IRAP model lacks OJL and RI standards that are necessary to ensure
high-quality training. One commenter argued that the 2020 IRAP final
rule's lack of robust OJL requirements means that many IRAPs would not
include this essential aspect of quality apprenticeship programs.
Another commenter lauded the current OJL and RI requirements in the
Registered Apprenticeship regulations \16\ and agreed with the
Department's assertion that the 2020 IRAP final rule's requirement of
only a written training plan \17\ means that IRAPs cannot create a
standardized framework for quality training since quality of training
can vary across SREs. Another commenter suggested that the RAP model
benefits apprentices through robust requirements for OJL, which
provides a holistic understanding of their specific field; the
commenter also asserted that the RAP model is generally supported by a
recommended minimum requirement for RI, which provides theoretical and
technical education associated with an apprentice's profession. The
same commenter argued that the absence of minimum standards and an
articulated approach to evaluation for RI in the 2020 IRAP final rule
results in subpar IRAP training relative to RAPs and a lower quality
experience for employers and apprentices. Another commenter agreed with
the Department and stated that the 2020 IRAP final rule's approach to
OJL and RI is amorphous and inadequate. The commenter also referred to
the Department's recent updates to its RAP guidance \18\ around
flexibilities available in the delivery of OJL and RI to demonstrate
that the RAP model can be flexible while still adhering to quality
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See 29 CFR 29.5(b)(1) through (3) for OJL and 29.5b(4) for
RI.
\17\ See 29 CFR 29.22(a)(4)(ii).
\18\ OA issued Circular 2021-01, Flexibilities Available for the
Delivery of On-the-Job Learning (OJL) and Related Instruction (RI)
by Registered Apprenticeship Programs (RAPs), on December 16, 2020.
It is available at https://www.apprenticeship.gov/about-us/legislation-regulations-guidance/circulars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another commenter, in expressing support for the proposed
rescission, argued that the IRAP model also failed to incorporate
apprenticeability standards, which appear at 29 CFR 29.4.\19\ The
commenter argued that rescission of the 2020 IRAP final rule is
important to ensure that apprentices receive broad-based training for
in-demand skills because the 2020 IRAP final rule fails to account for
apprentices' need to affordably retrain and update their skillsets. The
commenter referred to three States--Delaware, New York, and
Pennsylvania--that have included language in their apprenticeability
standards that ensures skill development is not restricted to a single
organization. Further, the commenter referred to Washington State's
apprenticeability standard as one of the most stringent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Registered Apprenticeship regulations at 29 CFR 29.4 set
forth criteria for determining when an occupation qualifies as
apprenticeable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While not expressly opposing the Department's 2021 IRAP Rescission
NPRM, two commenters, nevertheless, expressed their support of the
general IRAP approach to OJL and RI, and suggested improvements to the
RAP model based on the 2020 IRAP final rule. One of these commenters
developed an IRAP-recognition procedure that the commenter described as
``based on national and international standards [. . .] that, in turn,
incorporate adult learning principles, validate content in alignment
with industry, and produce rigorous and
[[Page 58276]]
validated assessment tools and personnel who are qualified to
facilitate learning in the work environment.'' This commenter expressed
the view that incorporating such a competency-based approach could
strengthen outcomes for RAP apprentices by assuring industry and
employers that competencies have been attained. The commenters
recommended that all apprenticeships be based on competency and
performance criteria rather than having the option of a time-based
approach, and they stated that the Department should incorporate
positive features of the 2020 IRAP final rule into a new, modified
Registered Apprenticeship system. To this end, one of the commenters
recommended that RAPs emphasize the assessment of competencies by using
a third-party capstone industry-recognized certification and by
requiring a program evaluation component with an emphasis on outcomes.
The other commenter opined that the IRAP model's competency-based
approach to learning is more cost effective than apprenticeship
programs that are time-based. The commenter further asserted that IRAPs
provide credit for prior knowledge for all workers, allowing
individuals to complete apprenticeships more quickly. The same
commenter stated that its IRAP ensures quality of OJL and apprentices'
instruction by specifically using an assessment model tiered with
several levels of quality assurance.
The Department appreciates and agrees with the comments asserting
that, when compared to Registered Apprenticeship, the IRAP model lacks
OJL and RI requirements that are necessary to ensure high-quality
training. The Department agrees with the comments that laud the RAP
model's approach to OJL and RI, which provide a holistic understanding
of a specific field and are generally supported by a recommended
minimum requirement for RI that provides theoretical and technical
education associated with an apprentice's profession. The Department
also agrees that the standards and approach to evaluation for RI in the
2020 IRAP final rule results in subpar training relative to RAPs and a
lower quality experience for employers and apprentices. The Department
concurs that the existing approach to OJL and RI in RAPs has proven
effective in striking an appropriate balance between the structure
necessary to ensure high-quality training and the flexibility necessary
to adapt the apprenticeship model to different industries and
occupations.
In response to the comment that notes the 2020 IRAP final rule
failed to incorporate apprenticeability standards, the Department
concurs that the omission of the apprenticeability requirements from
the 2020 IRAP final rule was problematic. The Department agrees that
this omission is further support for the proposed rescission, as
apprenticeability standards are a key component in determining whether
an occupation's training is responsive to the needs of industry. The
RAP model's incorporation of apprenticeability standards to determine
whether proposed training is suitable for an occupation and responsive
to industry needs underscores the quality of the existing RAP model.
In response to the comments that expressed support of the IRAP
model's approach to OJL and RI, the Department maintains that IRAPs do
not have the same rigorous training standards for minimum skill level
or competency baselines in their respective occupations when compared
to RAPs. Regarding the commenter that stated that the IRAP model's
competency-based approach to learning is more cost effective than
apprenticeship programs that are time-based, the Department notes that
the RAP model allows for a competency-based approach to OJL (see 29 CFR
29.5(b)(2)(ii)) and permits RAP sponsors the ability to choose the
approach--time-based, competency-based, or hybrid--that is best suited
for their industry, programs, and apprentices. Regarding the same
commenter's further assertion that IRAPs provide credit for prior
knowledge for all workers, allowing individuals to complete
apprenticeships more quickly, the Department notes that the RAP model
also permits sponsors to grant advanced standing or credit for
demonstrated competency (see 29 CFR 29.5(b)(12)). Finally, in response
to the same commenter that stated its IRAP ensures quality of OJL and
apprentices' instruction by specifically using an assessment model
tiered with several levels of quality assurance, the Department
acknowledges that while the commenter's specific IRAP may implement
several levels of quality assurance for its OJL and RI, the 2020 IRAP
final rule fails to ensure that all IRAPs include such quality
standards for OJL and RI.
In response to the comments that suggest improvements to the RAP
model's approaches to OJL and RI, the Department appreciates the
commenters' recommendation concerning the assessment of competencies as
a key measure for evaluating the successful completion of a RAP by an
apprentice but notes that adoption of these suggestions are outside the
scope of this rulemaking. The Department also notes that the RAP
regulations at 29 CFR 29.2 define ``competency'' as ``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 proficiency measurement.'' Accordingly, competency attainment
is the basis for advancement through and successful completion of both
the competency-based and hybrid approaches in RAPs. The Department is
committed to expanding competency attainment models as a feature of
RAPs while also ensuring the acquisition of critical structured OJL
necessary to acquire these competencies. Such models should include
sufficient mentoring opportunities for apprentices to obtain
proficiency in the skilled occupation.
The Department acknowledges this comment regarding the utility of
third-party evaluation of an apprentice's competencies in
apprenticeship program design and is committed to continuing to study
effective RAP models, identify research and evidence-based practices,
and evaluate their outcomes.
B. Registered Apprenticeships Provide Better Safety and Welfare
Protections
The importance of apprentice safety and welfare cannot be
overstated. As discussed in the 2021 IRAP Rescission NPRM and
reiterated below, the Registered Apprenticeship system includes
enhanced requirements related to safety, EEO, progressive wages, and
other worker protections that provide apprentices with meaningful
employment opportunities while also guaranteeing rights and protections
on the job. In contrast, the requirements of the 2020 IRAP final rule
fall short in these areas. That final rule's requirements include basic
compliance with existing laws but do not create additional obligations
that focus on safeguarding the welfare of apprentices, especially with
respect to progressively increasing wages, safety requirements, and EEO
protections and requirements. The 2021 IRAP Rescission NPRM also noted
that the 2020 IRAP final rule dilutes the Department's role in
overseeing apprenticeships, tasking SREs with this oversight role
instead, and retaining only a minimal role in overseeing the SREs. The
Department received several comments regarding these issues, which are
discussed below.
[[Page 58277]]
1. Workplace Safety
RAPs require several safety protections designed to both teach
apprentices how to work safely within their occupation and create safe
workplaces for apprentices.\20\ These safety requirements focus on both
physical workplace safety and safety through training and mentorship.
Further, they are meant to protect the safety of apprentices in each
RAP by being tailored to the specific conditions in which those
apprentices will be working and learning. In contrast, IRAPs are not
covered by enhanced safety standards beyond generally applicable
Federal, State, and local safety laws and regulations and any
additional safety requirements of the SRE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See 29 CFR 29.5(b)(7) and (9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several comments in support of the 2021 IRAP Rescission NPRM
discussed the strength of Registered Apprenticeship's worker safety
protections. For example, one commenter noted that the Registered
Apprenticeship safety framework has proven effective in striking the
right balance between safety, quality, and flexibility across
industries. Further, the commenter highlighted the strength of
Registered Apprenticeship's safety parameters, to include ratios,
supervision, and training requirements. Another commenter highlighted
the importance of a safe training environment for apprentices in RAPs,
with an emphasis on data from the construction industry about the
inherent dangers to younger, less experienced workers. The commenter
described how RAPs include extensive safety training as well as
supervision and on-the-job training to ensure the work environment is
safe. These commenters also contrasted the Registered Apprenticeship
safety protections with the 2020 IRAP final rule. One commenter
highlighted the lack of required safety training in the 2020 IRAP final
rule and offered that a mere pledge to comply with workplace safety
laws was insufficient to adequately protect apprentices. Another
commenter acknowledged the construction industry exclusion from the
2020 IRAP final rule but expressed concern that some industry programs
could still be recognized as IRAPs, which in the commenter's view would
create parallel systems that would dilute safety requirements and
affect overall industry safety for apprentices, journeyworkers, and the
public. A commenter faulted the 2020 IRAP final rule for merely
requiring IRAPs to abide by Federal, State, and local safety laws and
for providing SREs with too much discretion to establish their own
safety standards, leading to less rigorous safety requirements that
could result in unsafe training programs and high-risk workplaces.
Finally, a commenter contrasted the safety requirements for RAPs in the
Registered Apprenticeship regulations at 29 CFR 29.5 with the lack of
an apprentice-to-journeyworker ratio in the 2020 IRAP final rule at 29
CFR 29.22 to ensure a level of supervision necessary for apprentice
safety.
The Department appreciates these comments and agrees that
Registered Apprenticeship's worker safety provisions are designed to
provide stronger protections than provided in the 2020 IRAP final rule.
The Department views the enhanced safety requirements in Registered
Apprenticeship regulations as an essential element of a successful
apprenticeship program, given the nature of apprenticeship as OJL and
training. The focus in the Registered Apprenticeship regulations on
both workplace safety standards and safety through training and
mentorship provides a multi-pronged approach to worker safety. 29 CFR
29.5(b)(7) and (9). The Department agrees with the commenters'
assessments that the safety requirements in Registered Apprenticeship
are rigorous enough to provide essential protection and training for
apprentices as well as flexible and adaptable enough to each workplace
and industry needs. The Department also agrees with commenters'
assessments of the 2020 IRAP final rule requirements at Sec.
29.22(a)(4) as being insufficient to provide a safe training
environment for apprentices. Likewise, the Department agrees that the
2020 IRAP final rule instead inadvisably gives discretion to the SRE on
the important matter of apprentice safety, potentially leading to both
inconsistencies and deficient safety requirements across IRAPs even
within the same industry. With respect to the construction industry
exclusion from the 2020 IRAP final rule in Sec. 29.30, the Department
acknowledges concerns that IRAPs could have been recognized in the
construction industry despite the exclusion in the 2020 IRAP final
rule. Although the Department views the explicit construction industry
exclusion from the 2020 IRAP final rule as an appropriate safeguard
against such potential outcomes, the Department's decision to rescind
the 2020 IRAP final rule resolves concerns about potential weaknesses
in the 2020 IRAP final rule's construction industry exclusion.
2. Progressive Wages
It is a priority of the Department to grow opportunities to help
workers access family-sustaining jobs. The RAP earn-as-you-learn model
accomplishes this priority by providing for progressively increasing
wages for apprentices as they progress in their apprenticeship
experience, learning, and skills. In Registered Apprenticeship, the
graduated scale of wages and any compensation for RI is set forth in
the apprenticeship agreement required for each apprentice. Not only is
this type of wage progression guaranteed per the terms of the
apprenticeship agreement, but it also serves as an important incentive
to attract apprentices and sets them on a path to family-sustaining
careers. In contrast, there is no such guaranteed wage progression for
apprentices of IRAPs--an apprentice could be earning the same wages
over the course of the apprenticeship, and any wage progression is
solely at the discretion of the IRAP.
Several commenters in support of the 2021 IRAP Rescission NPRM
discussed the importance of Registered Apprenticeship's progressive
wage requirements. A couple of commenters cited research showing that
apprentices who successfully complete RAPs accrue, over the course of
their careers, approximately $300,000 more in salary and benefits than
similarly situated workers who have not completed a RAP.\21\ Another
commenter described RAPs as providing ``a pathway to the middle class''
because apprentices are guaranteed to receive higher wages as they
advance and complete training requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See, e.g., Mathematica Policy Research, ``An Effectiveness
Assessment and Cost-Benefit Analysis of Registered Apprenticeship in
10 States: Final Report,'' July 25, 2012, https://wdr.doleta.gov/research/FullText_Documents/ETAOP_2012_10.pdf. The study cautions
against interpreting its results, which do not control for
unobservable skill or motivation, as having conclusively identified
the effects of Registered Apprenticeship on earnings. Moreover, the
estimates do not represent increments between RAPs and IRAPs (the
latter not having been implemented at the time the study was
conducted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These commenters also faulted the IRAP model for failing to require
progressive wage increases for participants. One commenter expressed
concern that failing to require progressive wages would decrease the
attractiveness of IRAPs, lead to lower completion rates, and worsen
employee loyalty. One commenter expressed that the 2020 IRAP final
rule's lack of progressive wage requirement undermined the pathway to
the middle class because IRAPs are permitted to
[[Page 58278]]
offer a single wage rate that never increases, even after apprentices'
complete months or years of training.
A commenter expressed concern that IRAPs could subvert Davis-Bacon
Act provisions that provide exemptions for apprentices in RAPs to be
paid at an amount commensurate with their skill level for Federal
construction contract positions. The commenter noted that this
exemption allows an apprentice to gain firsthand experience through a
robust training program with mentorship. Citing research, a commenter
remarked that ``robust'' prevailing wage laws help States attract more
apprentices and lead to improved safety on construction work sites.
The Department agrees with the commenters that progressive wages
are a critical element in successful apprenticeship programs both
because they guarantee increases commensurate with the apprentice's
experience and proficiency and because they lead apprentices on a path
to higher lifetime earnings. The Department also agrees with these
commenters that the absence of a requirement for a progressively
increasing schedule of apprentice wages in the 2020 IRAP final rule is
a fundamental shortcoming and is inconsistent with the Department's
role in promoting the highest quality apprenticeship programs. The
Department acknowledges one commenter's concern regarding Davis-Bacon
wages and related concern that IRAPs could subvert these wage
provisions to create instability in the construction apprenticeship
program. The Department does not share this view, however, because the
construction industry exclusion in the 2020 IRAP final rule was
specifically designed to address this concern. Moreover, the
Department's decision to rescind the 2020 IRAP final rule in its
entirety will obviate any concerns about its potential negative impact
on construction industry wages.
One commenter in support of the 2020 IRAP final rule stated that
IRAPs provide opportunities for job seekers to obtain profitable
employment while earning a credential and developing ``specific
industry-related skill sets.'' The commenter remarked that its practice
was to create apprenticeship programs that pay a living wage, as
determined by local workforce development boards.
The Department acknowledges and appreciates that IRAPs may
structure their programs to provide a path to family-sustaining
employment, and that the commenter's particular IRAP may be one that is
beneficial to its apprentices. The issue with the 2020 IRAP final rule,
however, is that it does not set requirements in this regard--other
than adherence to applicable laws--and therefore, IRAPs' wage
structures may vary widely. IRAPs have broad discretion to structure
their wages as they please and to include stagnant wages that do not
provide a viable path to family-sustaining employment. For this reason,
the Department does not view IRAPs' wage requirements as sufficiently
meeting the Department's goal of ensuring high-quality apprenticeship
programs.
3. Equal Employment Opportunity
The Department views equity and equal opportunity as essential to
the success of an apprenticeship program, and it notes its
responsibility under E.O. 13985, ``Advancing Racial Equity and Support
for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government,'' 86 FR
7009 (Jan. 20, 2021), to advance equity, civil rights, racial justice,
and equal opportunity. Accordingly, the Registered Apprenticeship
system has structured and specific requirements regarding equal
opportunity, anti-harassment, affirmative action, utilization analyses
and goals, targeted recruitment, outreach and retention, compliance,
and enforcement. In contrast, the 2020 IRAP final rule only requires
IRAPs to affirm their adherence to applicable Federal, State, and local
laws and regulations pertaining to EEO.
Commenters in support of the Department's 2021 IRAP Rescission NPRM
highlighted the strength of the Registered Apprenticeship system's EEO
requirements. One commenter remarked that the Registered Apprenticeship
system's EEO requirements are especially important for women, people of
color, and veterans.\22\ Another lauded the Registered Apprenticeship
system's requirements to take affirmative steps to ensure EEO in
apprenticeship. One commenter specifically noted the Registered
Apprenticeship system's requirements to develop and maintain an
extensive affirmative action plan, comprehensive recordkeeping, and
complaint and enforcement provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Pursuant to 29 CFR 30.3, all apprentices and applicants for
Registered Apprenticeship are protected against discrimination on
the bases of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual
orientation, age (40 or older), genetic information, or disability.
While the EEO in apprenticeship regulations do not specify veterans
as a protected group, sponsors may specifically seek out veterans or
give them preference in hiring as long as doing so does not
discriminate on the basis of any of the protected characteristics
covered by 29 CFR 30.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters were also critical of the 2020 IRAP final rule's lack of
enhanced EEO provisions. One commenter faulted the 2020 IRAP final rule
for failing to ensure EEO in its apprenticeship programs for
underrepresented groups, including women, minorities, and individuals
with disabilities. The commenter stated that merely requiring SREs to
develop outreach strategies was insufficient because there was no
requirement to implement such strategies. Another commenter similarly
faulted the 2020 IRAP final rule for failing to require programs to
comply with Registered Apprenticeship's EEO regulations at 29 CFR part
30 and instead only requiring IRAPs to practice ``passive
nondiscrimination'' and comply with a ``patchwork'' of Federal, State,
and local antidiscrimination laws. Because of this, the commenter
asserted that IRAPs do not comply with the Biden Administration's E.O.
13985, ``Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved
Communities Through the Federal Government.'' The commenter argued that
the 2020 IRAP final rule undermined diversity efforts in its industry
and fails to protect minorities and other disadvantaged populations
that would otherwise benefit from apprenticeship programs in its
industry. By rescinding the 2020 IRAP final rule and redirecting
resources to expansion of the Registered Apprenticeship system, the
commenter said the Department would promote equity and equal
opportunities to participate in training programs with a ``proven
record of leading to middle-class jobs for all Americans.'' Similarly,
another commenter agreed that IRAPs would not successfully expand
opportunities to participate in apprenticeship programs to underserved
populations because programs under the IRAP model are only required to
affirm they will adhere to Federal, State, and local EEO laws and
regulations. A commenter also noted the benefits of building upon and
strengthening the successful Registered Apprenticeship program rather
than allowing a parallel model ``to evolve through the shedding of
strong EEO commitments, obligations, [and] accountability.''
The Department appreciates and agrees with the comments in support
of the Registered Apprenticeship system's part 30 regulations. The
Department also agrees with the comments faulting the 2020 IRAP final
rule for falling short by only requiring the bare minimum under
applicable laws and minimal additional outreach responsibilities by the
SREs that do not include a mechanism for accountability. The Department
also agrees with the commenter who stated that the Department's focus
on building and strengthening Registered
[[Page 58279]]
Apprenticeship would be the most effective path in ensuring successful
apprenticeship programming for all U.S. workers.
Conversely, a commenter opposed to the proposed rescission asserted
that both IRAPs and RAPs are required to take affirmative steps to
ensure EEO, and that IRAPs promote increased apprenticeship
opportunities while continuing to safeguard the welfare of apprentices.
The Department disagrees with this assertion. As noted in the 2021
IRAP Rescission NPRM, the current regulations governing EEO in
Registered Apprenticeship under 29 CFR part 30 require program sponsors
to take affirmative steps to promote diversity and equity in
apprenticeship and provide sponsors with the tools needed to reduce
barriers to equal opportunity within their programs. The structured and
specific EEO requirements in Registered Apprenticeship regarding equal
opportunity, anti-harassment, affirmative action, utilization analyses
and goals, targeted recruitment, outreach and retention, compliance,
and enforcement are absent from the IRAP model. The IRAP model simply
requires programs to affirm their adherence to applicable Federal,
State, and local laws and regulations pertaining to EEO, but provides
no specific mechanisms by which to measure effort and outcomes.
4. Worker Empowerment
As mentioned in the 2021 IRAP Rescission NPRM, the Department
generally believes the relationship between workers and employers must
be balanced so workers have a voice in ensuring fair and safe work
conditions. The requirement that Registered Apprenticeship agreements
include specific terms ensures the apprentices have knowledge of their
rights and responsibilities and empowers them to be informed
participants in the program and employment relationship. Although the
IRAP regulation at 29 CFR 29.22(a)(4)(x) also contains a written
apprenticeship agreement requirement, each IRAP may determine which
terms and conditions to include as long as the agreement is consistent
with the SRE's requirements. Without parameters, this requirement
contains little more than an honor system to ensure apprentices have
meaningful information about the terms and conditions of their
apprenticeship and how they can voice their concerns.
Commenters in support of the Department's 2021 IRAP Rescission NPRM
praised the Department's attention to worker empowerment. One commenter
proposed that RAPs be further strengthened to empower workers in
industries that lack union representation and achieve the Biden
Administration goal of creating jobs ``to be filled by diverse, local,
well-trained workers who have a choice to join a union.'' The commenter
also agreed with the Department's reasoning that the apprenticeship
agreement is crucial to ``articulating the standards of apprenticeship
and the terms and conditions of employment'' given the required
elements of the apprenticeship agreement. The commenter additionally
praised RAPs for protecting apprentices by requiring periodic
performance evaluations and only canceling an apprenticeship for ``good
cause'' after a reasonable and time-limited probationary period that
counts toward completion of the program. Other commenters similarly
praised the RAP apprenticeship agreement requirements as a crucial tool
for worker empowerment and success.
Commenters highlighted the 2020 IRAP final rule's lack of worker
empowerment provisions. One commenter faulted the 2020 IRAP final rule
for failing to comply with the NAA's directive to safeguard
apprentices' welfare by leaving undue discretion to SREs, failing to
``establish the minimum standards necessary'' to ensure industries do
not exploit new entrants to an industry, and failing to clarify the
process for employee grievances or complaints. A commenter similarly
stated that the 2020 IRAP final rule fails to appropriately empower
workers through the lack of clarity on grievance procedures. A
commenter also agreed with the Department's reasoning that the IRAP
model's ``hands-off approach'' enables employers to ignore apprentice
needs and asserted that apprentices participating in IRAPs would be at
risk of sudden, arbitrary cancellation of their participation in a
program. Commenters noted that there were no uniform requirements for
IRAP apprenticeship agreements to include apprentice work plans and
number of classroom hours needed for program completion.
The Department views an apprenticeship agreement as a foundational
requirement for worker empowerment and agrees that the RAP requirements
for apprenticeship agreements provide apprentices with knowledge and
awareness of the terms of their employment and training during the
apprenticeship. As commenters noted, unlike in the 2020 IRAP final
rule, the apprenticeship agreement for RAPs must contain specific
terms, including a statement of the occupation for which the apprentice
is training, the duration of the apprenticeship, the number of hours in
the program (to include RI hours), the schedule of work processes, the
graduated scale of wages to be paid, the standards of the
apprenticeship program, dispute resolution, and an EEO statement. See
29 CFR 29.7. Registered Apprenticeship agreements must also set forth
the requirement that the apprenticeship agreement be canceled for
``good cause,'' which provides additional protection for apprentices,
as does the requirement to include information on grievance procedures.
These elements of an apprenticeship agreement are not required in the
2020 IRAP final rule, and the Department views their absence as a
detriment to apprentices.
The Department further agrees with commenters that the 2020 IRAP
final rule's requirement for an IRAP apprenticeship agreement is
insufficient to guarantee that apprentices are fully informed of the
terms and conditions of their apprenticeship because the IRAP can
determine which terms to include as long as the IRAP is consistent with
its SRE's requirements. Because there are two levels of discretion for
IRAP apprenticeship agreements--the SRE decides its required parameters
and the IRAP determines which terms and conditions to include--
apprenticeship agreements can vary widely among IRAPs and may not
include all provisions the Department thinks are necessary to protect
the interests of apprentices.
A commenter who supported IRAPs stated that the IRAP model does
meet workers' needs by providing them with a clear sense of career
trajectory and increased job satisfaction while also increasing loyalty
and reducing turnover for employers. The Department acknowledges that
an individual IRAP may structure its program to lead to such results.
However, the Department does not view the requirements in the 2020 IRAP
final rule as sufficient to provide apprentices with the information
needed to make informed decisions or be knowledgeable about their
rights and responsibilities during their apprenticeship.
5. Departmental Oversight
In support of its proposal, the Department noted its concern with
the oversight structure set forth in the 2020 IRAP final rule because
the required safety and welfare provisions of the 2020 IRAP final rule
are primarily overseen and enforced by SREs. The Department also
described its limited ability to intervene in any disparities in worker
protections or outcomes among IRAPs.
[[Page 58280]]
Commenters agreed with these concerns, faulting the 2020 IRAP final
rule for failing to ensure adequate Departmental oversight. For
example, a commenter noted that the 2020 IRAP final rule provided the
Department with almost no basis for evaluating SRE standards or IRAP
recognition. Another commenter stated that the requirement for
``reasonable'' and ``effective'' quality control between the SREs and
IRAPs was not sufficient to ensure IRAP compliance with the minimal
requirements of the 2020 IRAP final rule. This commenter also noted
that SREs and IRAPs would have no reason to comply with the higher
fiduciary standards under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 (ERISA), in contrast to the majority of apprentices in RAPs
being protected by ERISA. A commenter also expressed concern that the
2020 IRAP final rule lacked an adequate quality assurance framework and
that vesting oversight responsibilities with SREs would lead to
disparities in the quality of IRAPs available, noting that there were
few, if any, consequences for low-performing IRAPs. One commenter
referenced the 2008 final rule, in which the Department concluded that
delegation of oversight responsibilities to State Apprenticeship
Councils failed to meet its obligation under the NAA, to argue that the
Department similarly should conclude that delegation of oversight to
SREs is prohibited under the NAA.
The Department generally agrees that tasking SREs with oversight in
the manner set forth in the 2020 IRAP final rule dilutes the
Department's role in overseeing apprenticeship and concurs with the
notion that the 2020 IRAP final rule's oversight provisions are less
rigorous than those in the Registered Apprenticeship framework due to
the Department's more limited role. The Department agrees that the lack
of uniformity in the 2020 IRAP final rule could lead to disparities in
IRAP quality that may go unchecked. The Department also acknowledges
that the Department's reduced role in the 2020 IRAP final rule could
present compliance challenges and, in combination with the insufficient
apprentice safety and welfare provisions, could lead to less protection
for apprentices--a fundamental reason for the Department's proposed
rescission. The Department disagrees, however, that it inappropriately
delegated its oversight responsibilities to SREs and that it did so in
a manner inconsistent with the NAA. The Department considered this
issue in developing the 2019 IRAP NPRM and the 2020 IRAP final rule and
views the oversight provisions in the 2020 IRAP final rule, which
include SRE reporting requirements and the Department's oversight of
SREs, to be consistent with the NAA. That said, in rescinding the 2020
IRAP final rule, the Department has determined that, for the reasons
discussed in the NPRM and provided by the commenters, the better
approach is for the Department to have a more direct oversight role
than provided for in the 2020 IRAP final rule.
6. Other Worker Protection Concerns
The Department received comments in support of the proposed IRAP
rescission offering additional criticisms that the 2020 IRAP final rule
fails to protect apprentices and proposing additional bases for the
rescission of the 2020 IRAP final rule. Commenters raised several
concerns, in addition to the reasons set forth by the Department in the
2021 IRAP Rescission NPRM, related to IRAPs' impact on apprentice
safety and welfare. One commenter expressed the view that the SRE
recognition process was flawed because it did not provide for adequate
input from industry experts, stakeholders, or members of the public in
reviewing SRE applications and did not provide for their subsequent
involvement in SRE recognition of IRAPs. The commenter noted that the
2020 IRAP final rule's processes for suspension or derecognition of an
SRE are an ``inadequate remedy'' to protect apprentices who have spent
their time and money on a poor-quality program. This commenter also
expressed the view that allowing IRAPs to maintain their status for 1
year despite their SRE's derecognition further deprives apprentices of
protection without recourse with the IRAP regardless of the quality of
the program that the derecognized SRE recognized.
The Department generally agrees with the comment about the lack of
effective industry and public involvement in the IRAP framework; such
engagement can be instrumental to ensuring a high-quality
apprenticeship system that is responsive to industry, employer, and
worker needs. For example, as noted above, the apprenticeability
process for RAPs under 29 CFR 29.4 is one instance in which interested
stakeholders and industry are invited to share their expertise about
the suitability of certain occupations for apprenticeship training. The
Department also agrees that the 2020 IRAP final rule lacked protections
for apprentices if SREs were suspended or derecognized, particularly by
allowing IRAPs to maintain their status for 1 year after SRE
derecognition without any additional protections for their apprentices.
Some commenters noted that the design of SRE-IRAP recognition in
the 2020 IRAP final rule led to inherent conflicts of interest that
would leave apprentices vulnerable. One commenter argued that SREs and
IRAPs were incentivized to do only the bare minimum necessary to comply
rather than seeking to satisfy higher standards and requirements. This
commenter also expressed the view that there were inadequate safeguards
against self-dealing between SREs and their affiliates and that SREs
were responsible for policing their own conflicts of interest. This
commenter expressed the belief that IRAPs' on-the-job training could
lead to an apprentice being treated as an independent contractor and
that the IRAP model fails to ensure participants are protected by
ERISA. A commenter also asserted that SREs could not be impartial in
their recognition of IRAPs because of the industry-driven nature of the
2020 IRAP final rule and wide flexibility in recognition of SREs and
IRAPs.
The Department appreciates the commenters' concerns about these
perceived deficiencies in the 2020 IRAP final rule. The Department
generally agrees with the commenters that IRAPs provide insufficient
protection for apprentices, as discussed in the NPRM and above. The
Department also generally agrees that the 2020 IRAP final rule does not
eliminate risks of conflicts of interest or apprentice
misclassification. Nonetheless, the Department does not view the
concerns raised about conflicts of interest or apprentice
misclassification as additional bases for rescission of the 2020 IRAP
final rule. With respect to conflicts of interest, the Department notes
that it discussed conflicts of interest at length in the 2020 IRAP
final rule and added specific provisions to increase transparency and
mitigate against conflicts of interest during the SRE recognition
process. See 85 FR 14309-14312, 14336-14339 (Mar. 11, 2020).
Additionally, the apprenticeship agreement requirement in the 2020 IRAP
final rule provides some protection against apprentice
misclassification, though the Department acknowledges that it does not
eliminate the risk of such misclassification. As discussed above, the
Department does not view the apprenticeship agreement requirement in
the 2020 IRAP final rule as sufficient to inform apprentices of the
terms and conditions of their apprenticeship. Finally, ERISA
requirements are binding on all employee benefit plans, and the
[[Page 58281]]
2020 IRAP final rule does not allow SREs or IRAPs that constitute such
plans to circumvent ERISA's obligations. While the Department does not
agree with these commenters' specific concerns as the bases for IRAP
rescission, these features of the 2020 IRAP final rule do not overcome
the deficiencies that have led the Department to rescind the 2020 IRAP
final rule.
IV. The IRAP System Is Redundant of the Registered Apprenticeship
System
In the 2021 IRAP Rescission NPRM, the Department asserted that a
key premise justifying the establishment of the IRAP alternative
framework--that the Registered Apprenticeship system is too inflexible
and administratively burdensome to sufficiently accommodate the needs
of both industry and workers--is contradicted by the notable gains made
in the RAP model through such strategies as the Industry Intermediaries
concept \23\ and the AAI grants.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Since 2016, the Department has launched funding
opportunities for Industry Intermediaries to develop, promote, and
expand the availability of and access to Registered Apprenticeships
across the United States. See https://www.apprenticeship.gov/investments-tax-credits-and-tuition-support (last visited May 19,
2022). Through these investments, Industry Intermediaries have
expanded Registered Apprenticeship into new industry sectors and
occupations, worked with sponsors to ensure that diverse and
underrepresented populations are connected to Registered
Apprenticeship opportunities, and promoted Registered Apprenticeship
as a workforce solution. An OA fact sheet highlighting the
accomplishments these entities have made to accommodate the needs of
workers and industry is available at https://www.apprenticeship.gov/sites/default/files/Industry-and-Equity-Intermediary-Accomplishment-Fact-Sheet.pdf (last visited May 19, 2022).
\24\ In 2015, the Department launched the AAI to expand
Registered Apprenticeship in the United States, particularly in
high-growth and high-tech industries, such as healthcare, IT, and
advanced manufacturing, as well as to populations traditionally
underrepresented in apprenticeship, including women, people of
color, and individuals with disabilities. Through AAI, AAI grantees
have successfully expanded the RAP model into new industries and
extended it to more diverse populations. For more information, see
National Governors' Association Report, ``Registered Apprenticeship
Reimagined: Lessons Learned from the American Apprenticeship
Initiative,'' Nov. 9, 2020, available at https://www.nga.org/center/publications/registered-apprenticeship-reimagined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters in support of the Department's 2021 IRAP Rescission NPRM
expressed concerns that the 2020 IRAP final rule would, over time,
undermine the integrity of Registered Apprenticeship, create confusion,
and generate unnecessary duplication. One commenter remarked that
creating two distinct apprenticeship systems with different policies
and regulations could lead to inconsistent training for apprentices,
which would negatively impact their skills and marketability. The
commenter also viewed the IRAP framework as devaluing apprenticeship.
Another commenter echoed these concerns and asserted the establishment
of a duplicative, parallel system, which is not responsive to employers
or workers, would lead to confusion and disparate outcomes for
apprentices. A number of commenters expressed concern that the IRAP
model undermines investments in the proven RAP model and could
disincentivize the creation of new apprenticeship programs.
The Department agrees with the concerns expressed by these
commenters. The inherent confusion and redundancy created by parallel
systems was a significant factor in the Department's proposal to
rescind the 2020 IRAP final rule, as was the Department's concern about
disparate outcomes resulting from a lack of uniformity across programs.
V. The Effect of the Department's Rescission of the 2020 IRAP Final
Rule
For the reasons discussed above, the Department has determined that
the IRAP model established in the 2020 IRAP final rule does not ensure
access to high-quality job skills and training to American workers, nor
does it adequately safeguard the welfare of apprentices. The Department
has further concluded that because the IRAP system duplicates the
Registered Apprenticeship system, though with less quality standards
and oversight, continuing to operate the IRAP system is not a prudent
use of Government resources and would diminish the quality and
coherence of the Department's apprenticeship efforts.
In considering alternatives, the Department also has determined
that amending, rather than rescinding, the 2020 IRAP final rule would
not address these issues. As discussed in detail above, Registered
Apprenticeship provides for apprentice safety and welfare and continues
to nurture apprenticeship opportunities without sacrificing crucial
requirements for quality or worker protections. Amending the 2020 IRAP
final rule to align with the Department's goals and priorities so that
the IRAP model possesses more of the qualities of Registered
Apprenticeship, however, would simply recreate the RAP model with less
oversight by the Department. Rather than administer two parallel
programs, the Department can better utilize its resources and provide
better service to the public by supporting and strengthening one robust
apprenticeship system that has been designed to incorporate the needs
of both industry and the workforce. The Department therefore has
decided to adopt the NPRM as proposed.
As stated in the 2021 IRAP Rescission NPRM, the Department
acknowledges this final rule does immediately affect current SREs,
IRAPs, and the apprentices participating in IRAPs. The Department
understands SREs devoted resources to developing their applications and
the infrastructure necessary to operate effectively for a period of 5
years, and IRAPs and their apprentices may have been drawn to the
program given the indication of approval from the Department. However,
the impact of this rescission will be limited. Over the 9-month period
between May 2020, when the 2020 IRAP final rule became effective, and
February 2021, when the Department paused the consideration of SRE
applications, the Department received a total of 45 SRE applications,
including from two organizations that resubmitted applications. Of
these applications, the Department ultimately recognized 27 SREs.\25\
For FY 2021, covering the period of October 1, 2020, through September
30, 2021, 6 of the 27 recognized SREs recognized 178 IRAPs, which
served 23,975 apprentices. A single SRE recognized the majority of the
IRAPs (167).\26\ The rescission of the 2020 IRAP final rule does not
require that the SREs and the IRAPs they have recognized cease their
operations; rather, this action only requires that these entities cease
indicating that they are recognized by or associated with OA. The
apprentices enrolled in the existing IRAPs can continue to receive
training from the program uninterrupted. Alternatively, those
apprenticeship programs can seek registration with a Registration
Agency (either OA or a recognized SAA). Even if the IRAP does not seek
such registration, those apprentices currently enrolled in an IRAP can
seek to transfer into a RAP. In addition, IRAP apprentices moving into
a RAP, either on their own or because their IRAP has been registered as
a RAP with a Registration Agency, may qualify for
[[Page 58282]]
advanced standing or credit in those RAPs. Moreover, as the 2020 IRAP
final rule requires only basic compliance with existing federal, state,
and local laws governing employees, and does not provide any further
protections that would enhance the safety and welfare of apprentices,
the Department believes that the issuance of this final rule will not
adversely affect the existing rights and protections of IRAP
apprentices impacted by this rescission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Applications received by the Department for SREs. Approved
SREs published at https://www.apprenticeship.gov/employers/industry-recognized-apprenticeship-program/approved-standards-recognition-entities (last visited May 19, 2022).
\26\ According to the IRAP Program and Performance Reporting
System, as of September 30, 2021, of the 175 IRAPs approved, 167
were recognized by the same SRE. See https://www.apprenticeship.gov/sites/default/files/SRE-FY21-performance-data.pdf (last visited
September 6, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several commenters referred to the Department's acknowledgement
that rescinding the 2020 IRAP final rule would affect current SREs,
IRAPs, and any apprentices participating in IRAPs. Two commenters
agreed with the Department's position that the overall impact of the
rescission to SREs, IRAPs, and apprentices in IRAPs would be minimal
based on the reported data. Of these comments, one commenter said the
data suggest that IRAPs have not been widely adopted and therefore will
not likely be effective or successful. One commenter presented an
alternative view, suggesting that the number of recognized SREs and
IRAPs since the issuance of the 2020 IRAP final rule is significant
relative to the amount of time for which the rule has been effective.
Another commenter remarked that the number of recognized SREs and IRAPs
since the issuance of the 2020 IRAP final rule should not be understood
as a lack of interest from the business community but rather as a
reflection of the broader impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on industry.
The Department appreciates the comments supporting its analysis in
the 2021 IRAP Rescission NPRM of the potential impact of the rescission
of the 2020 IRAP final rule for SREs, IRAPs, and any apprentices
participating in IRAPs. The Department acknowledges the comment
suggesting the number of recognized SREs and IRAPs since the issuance
of the 2020 IRAP final rule is significant relative to the amount of
time for which the rule has been effective. As discussed below in
Section VI.A.2, Economic Analysis of Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory
Planning and Review and 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory
Review), the Department notes that the actual number of recognized SREs
and IRAPs is lower than anticipated in Economic Analysis of the 2020
IRAP final rule (85 FR 14357-14358, Mar. 11, 2020). However, regardless
of the number of current SREs and IRAPs, the Department, for the
reasons discussed above, has concluded that rescission of the IRAP
regulation is appropriate. The rescission of the 2020 IRAP final rule
does not require that the SREs and the IRAPs they have recognized cease
their operations. This rescission only requires that these entities
cease indicating that they are recognized by or associated with OA.
Further, as stated above, there are multiple avenues for IRAPs to
continue operation, either as independent apprenticeship programs or by
seeking registration with OA, and for apprentices to receive training,
either in their current program or in a RAP. Thus, the Department
maintains that the impact of the rescission will be limited and
outweighed by the benefits of rescission discussed above.
The Department also acknowledges that the COVID-19 pandemic had
broad societal impacts, including on the business community, which may
have had an impact on both RAPs and IRAPs. While the COVID-19 pandemic
may have had a negative impact on IRAPs, as the commenter asserted, in
contrast, despite the COVID-19 pandemic, FY 2021 represented the
fourth-highest year of new RAP development over the past decade, with
over 2,800 new RAPs developed.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ These figures reflect Registered Apprenticeship national
results and are available at https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/apprenticeship/about/statistics/2021 (last visited September 6,
2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 2021 IRAP Rescission NPRM, the Department considered other
options with respect to the currently recognized SREs or IRAPs,
including a proposed ``sunset'' period during which SREs and IRAPs
would operate for a set number of years before the Department ceased
its recognition, and recasting IRAPs as Certified Work-Based Learning.
The Department did not receive any specific comments on these two
options. One commenter stated that returning to a single RAP model and
``[i]mmediate rescission of the [2020 IRAP final rule] is superior to
any other alternative course of action.'' The commenter noted that,
based on the reported data at the time of the NPRM, it was evident that
private industry has rejected IRAPs as a vehicle for training workers.
As such, the commenter asserted there are no disadvantages to
rescinding the 2020 IRAP final rule now. The Department agrees that
rescinding the 2020 IRAP final rule and immediate cessation of
recognition for currently recognized SREs or IRAPs is appropriate in
light of the concerns discussed above.
Transition to and Implementation of the Final Rule
In the 2021 IRAP Rescission NPRM, the Department sought comments on
how to address the effects of the proposed immediate cessation of
recognition on SREs, IRAPs, and apprentices in IRAPs, including
comments on the alternatives considered, but ultimately not adopted, by
the Department. One commenter suggested the Department continue to
explore efforts to develop industry-driven apprenticeship programs and
continue to establish and strengthen workforce development initiatives
that partner with business. Another commenter recommended that the
Department provide technical assistance to build the capacity of SREs
and IRAPs to offer high-quality apprenticeships, even if they operate
outside of the Registered Apprenticeship system.
The Department, as noted, is rescinding its recognition of SREs
under this final rule; however, it continues to expand and further
develop the Registered Apprenticeship system as a premier workforce
development strategy. The Department appreciates the suggestions that
it continue to develop workforce development initiatives that partner
with business and industry, and it notes their integral role in the
Registered Apprenticeship system. This final rule does not prevent
IRAPs from continuing to offer a range of training options to job
seekers. The Department is interested in continuing to promote more
work-based learning strategies in its employment and training programs,
with an increased emphasis on RAP models as a proven solution for both
career seekers and business.
Additionally, the Department has provided and will continue to
provide technical assistance and support to SREs or IRAPs that are
interested in becoming program sponsors or intermediaries under the
Registered Apprenticeship system. Similarly, as a component of the
Department's technical assistance to SREs, the Department will provide
SREs and IRAPs with information and resources the SREs can share with
any apprentices in IRAPs who may seek placement in a RAP.
VI. Regulatory Analysis and Review
A. Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563
(Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) and Subtitle E of the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
Under E.O. 12866, the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB)
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) determines whether
a regulatory action is significant and, therefore, subject to the
requirements of the E.O. and review by OMB. See 58 FR 51735
[[Page 58283]]
(Oct. 4, 1993). Section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 defines a ``significant
regulatory action'' as an action that is likely to result in a rule
that: (1) has an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,
or adversely affects in a material way a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or
safety, or State, local, or Tribal Governments or communities (also
referred to as economically significant); (2) creates serious
inconsistency or otherwise interferes with an action taken or planned
by another agency; (3) materially alters the budgetary impacts of
entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raises novel legal or policy
issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or
the principles set forth in the E.O. Id. OIRA has determined that this
final rule is an economically significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of E.O. 12866.
E.O. 13563 directs agencies to propose or adopt a regulation only
upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs; the
regulation is tailored to impose the least burden on society,
consistent with achieving the regulatory objectives; and in choosing
among alternative regulatory approaches, the agency has selected those
approaches that maximize net benefits. E.O. 13563 recognizes that some
benefits are difficult to quantify and provides that, where appropriate
and permitted by law, agencies may consider and discuss qualitatively
values that are difficult or impossible to quantify, including equity,
human dignity, fairness, and distributive impacts.
Pursuant to Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, also known as the Congressional Review Act (5
U.S.C. 801 et seq.), OIRA designated this rule as a ``major rule,'' as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
1. Public Comments
In the preliminary economic analysis in the 2021 IRAP Rescission
NPRM, the Department invited written comments from the public
concerning the potential number of SREs and IRAPs in the absence of the
proposed rule and the removal of the February 17, 2021, suspension, as
well as on possible alternatives to the proposed rule. Only one
commenter submitted comments pertaining to the preliminary economic
analysis. The commenter stated that the rescission of the 2020 IRAP
final rule will result in cost savings in excess of those set forth in
the proposed rule; in particular, savings will be realized when
Government grant money that would otherwise go to ``ineffective IRAPs
and SREs'' is better used by RAPs. The commenter stated that, if
resources are used for RAPs instead of ``wasted on IRAPs,'' workers
will be safer, better protected, and more justly compensated, plus
society will benefit from a greater diversity of apprentices, a larger
tax base, increased employee loyalty, higher productivity, and
additional skilled labor that will help address labor market demands.
The commenter suggested that the monetary value of those additional
benefits should be factored into the cost analysis.
The Department appreciates the commenter's recognition of the
benefits of RAPs to the U.S. economy and workforce. The Department
agrees that supporting RAPs is a better use of grant funds than
supporting IRAPs; accordingly, the Department has not issued grant
funding specifically for IRAPs and does not plan to do so. The
Department agrees that RAPs provide numerous benefits to apprentices,
employers, taxpayers, and society, and that a quantification of these
benefits would be ideal to include in the economic analysis. Due to
data limitations, however, the Department cannot quantify the benefits
listed by the commenter and has maintained a qualitative discussion in
this final rule.
The same commenter stated that returning to a single RAP model is
the best course of action and rescinding the 2020 IRAP final rule is
superior to any alternative. The commenter anticipates that the cost of
transferring current IRAP participants to RAPs will be minimal and will
be offset by the increased benefits that will accrue to IRAP trainees
when they become RAP apprentices. The Department agrees that rescinding
the 2020 IRAP final rule is the best course of action.
2. Economic Analysis
E.O. 14016, ``Revocation of Executive Order 13801,'' instructed the
Director of OMB and the heads of executive departments and agencies to
``promptly consider taking steps to rescind any orders, rules,
regulations, guidelines, or policies, or portions thereof, implementing
or enforcing'' E.O. 13801. Accordingly, the Department identified for
review the 2020 IRAP final rule. The Department is issuing this final
rule because the Department has determined that a single apprenticeship
system, namely, the Registered Apprenticeship system, will provide
clearer messaging and more consistent outcomes than two parallel
apprenticeship systems that likely would lead to disparate outcomes and
incur duplicative costs.
In accordance with the regulatory analysis guidance articulated in
OMB Circular A-4 and consistent with the Department's practices in
previous rulemakings, this regulatory analysis focuses on the likely
consequences of this final rule. The Department anticipates that this
final rule will result in cost savings for SREs and IRAPs since they
will no longer need to comply with the provisions of the 2020 IRAP
final rule.
The Department has estimated the cost savings of this final rule
relative to the existing baseline (i.e., 27 SREs and 178 IRAPs). The
analysis covers 10 years to ensure it captures the major cost savings
that are likely to accrue over time. The Department expresses the
quantifiable impacts in 2021 dollars and uses discount rates of 3 and 7
percent, pursuant to OMB Circular A-4. The Department also considered
an alternative baseline in which the Department's February 17, 2021,
suspension of consideration of SRE applications was temporary and would
be removed. That analysis is discussed qualitatively in the Total Cost
Savings section below.
a. Number of SREs, IRAPs, and Apprentices
To calculate the annual cost savings, the Department first needed
to estimate the number of SREs, IRAPs, and apprentices over the 10-year
analysis period. The Department used the number of SREs (27), the
number of IRAPs (178), and the number of apprentices in IRAPs (23,975)
as of September 30, 2021, for this analysis.
b. Compensation Rates
The compensation rates used to quantify the cost savings of this
final rule are based on the compensation rates in the 2020 IRAP final
rule. The Department updated the compensation rates with 2021 data. The
Department anticipates that the bulk of the workload for private sector
workers would have been performed by employees in occupations similar
to those associated with the following Standard Occupational
Classification (SOC) codes: SOC 11-3131 (Training and Development
Managers) and SOC 43-0000 (Office and Administrative Support
Occupations).
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the mean
hourly wage rate for Training and Development Managers in May 2021 was
$61.92.\28\ For this analysis, the Department used
[[Page 58284]]
a fringe benefits rate of 45 percent \29\ and an overhead rate of 54
percent,\30\ resulting in a fully loaded hourly compensation rate for
Training and Development Managers of $123.22 [= $61.92 + ($61.92 x
0.45) + ($61.92 x 0.54)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ BLS, ``Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2021,''
https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes113131.htm (last updated March
31, 2022).
\29\ BLS, ``Employer Costs for Employee Compensation'' (ECEC),
https://www.bls.gov/ncs/data.htm (last visited May 19, 2022). Wages
and salaries averaged $27.22 per hour worked in 2021, while benefit
costs averaged $12.24, which is a benefits rate of 45 percent.
\30\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS),
``Guidelines for Regulatory Impact Analysis,'' 2016, https://aspe.hhs.gov/system/files/pdf/242926/HHS_RIAGuidance.pdf. In its
guidelines, HHS states, as ``an interim default, while HHS conducts
more research, analysts should assume overhead costs (including
benefits) are equal to 100 percent of pre-tax wages.'' HHS explains
that 100 percent is roughly the midpoint between 46 and 150 percent,
with 46 percent based on ECEC data that suggest benefits average 46
percent of wages and salaries, and 150 percent based on the private
sector ``rule of thumb'' that fringe benefits plus overhead equal
150 percent of wages. To isolate the overhead costs from HHS's 100-
percent assumption, the Department subtracted the 46-percent
benefits rate that HHS references, resulting in an overhead rate of
approximately 54 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to BLS, the mean hourly wage rate for Office and
Administrative Support Occupations in May 2021 was $20.88.\31\ The
Department used a fringe benefits rate of 45 percent and an overhead
rate of 54 percent, resulting in a fully loaded hourly compensation
rate for Office and Administrative Support Occupations of $41.55 [=
$20.88 + ($20.88 x 0.45) + ($20.88 x 0.54)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ BLS, ``Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2021,''
https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes430000.htm (last visited May 19,
2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department estimated the compensation rate for a Program
Analyst in OA using the midpoint (Step 5) for Grade 13 of the General
Schedule (GS), which is $56.31 in the Washington, DC, locality
area.\32\ The Department used a fringe benefits rate of 69 percent \33\
and an overhead rate of 54 percent, resulting in a fully loaded hourly
compensation rate for Program Analysts of $125.57 [= $56.31 + ($56.31 x
0.69) + ($56.31 x 0.54)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Office of Personnel Management, ``General Schedule (GS)
Locality Pay Tables,'' https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/pdf/2021/DCB_h.pdf (last
visited May 19, 2022).
\33\ Congressional Budget Office, ``Comparing the Compensation
of Federal and Private-Sector Employees, 2011 to 2015,'' Apr. 25,
2017, https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52637. The wages of Federal
workers averaged $38.30 per hour over the study period, while the
benefits averaged $26.50 per hour, which is a benefits rate of 69
percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Time Estimates
The hourly time burdens used to quantify the cost savings of this
final rule are based on the Department's time estimates in the 2020
IRAP final rule. The following time burdens are annual estimates.
Cost Savings Components for SREs
Notifying the Administrator of any major change to processes
or programs: 10 hours (50 percent of SREs)
Informing the Administrator of IRAP recognition, suspension,
or derecognition: 30 minutes
Provision of data or information to the Administrator: 2 hours
(10 percent of SREs)
Provision of written attestation to the Administrator: 10
minutes per IRAP
Disclosure of the credentials that apprentices will earn: 30
minutes
Quality control of IRAPs: 4 hours per IRAP
Submission of performance data to the Administrator: 4 hours
per IRAP
Making publicly available IRAP performance data: 2 hours per
IRAP
Recordkeeping: 20 hours per IRAP
Cost Savings Components for IRAPs
Submission of performance data to the SRE: 25 hours
Preparation of written apprenticeship agreement: 10 minutes
per apprentice
Cost Savings Components for the Federal Government
Compliance assistance reviews of SREs: 10 hours per SRE (5
percent of SREs)
Maintenance of online application form and internal review
system: $125,000
Maintenance of online resource for performance measures:
$245,909
Maintenance of online resource for list of SREs and IRAPs:
$18,000
d. Total Cost Savings
Exhibit 1 shows the total estimated cost savings of the final rule
over 10 years (2022-2031) at discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. The
final rule is expected to have first-year cost savings of $1.8 million
in 2021 dollars. Over the 10-year analysis period, the annualized cost
savings are estimated at $1.8 million at a discount rate of 7 percent
in 2021 dollars. In total, over the first 10 years, the final rule is
estimated to result in cost savings of $12.9 million at a discount rate
of 7 percent in 2021 dollars.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE22.007
The Department also contemplated including an alternative baseline
that assumed the Department's February 17, 2021, suspension of
consideration of SRE applications would be removed. If the suspension
were to be removed, there could be additional SREs and IRAPs in future
years. OMB Circular A-4 defines a no action baseline as ``what the
world will be like'' if the rule is not adopted. If the world did not
include this rule, but included the removal of
[[Page 58285]]
the February 17, 2021, suspension as well as decision making by
potential SREs in the manner anticipated in the 2020 IRAP final rule,
it is possible that there would be more than 27 SREs and 178 IRAPs in
each year of the analysis period. Given the potential temporary nature
of the February 17, 2021, suspension, some members of the public may
believe there will be an opportunity to participate in the program
again in the absence of this rule. Under such a scenario, 27 SREs and
178 IRAPs may be only fractions of the numbers of SREs and IRAPs that
would come into existence, and perhaps those numbers would continue to
grow throughout the analysis period. As such, this rule would then
prevent some of the eventual effects of the 2020 IRAP final rule.
The Department is unable, however, to provide a quantitative
analysis of this alternative baseline. The Department does not have a
way to accurately estimate the number of SREs or IRAPs that would be
established in the absence of this rule and the removal of the February
17, 2021, suspension. Specifically, the Department is unable to
estimate a reasonable growth rate for SREs over the analysis period or
a realistic number of IRAPs per SRE each year. Without these two key
data points, a quantitative analysis is not possible.
The Department believes that the numbers of SREs and IRAPs
estimated in the 2020 IRAP final rule are not an appropriate source for
quantifying an alternative baseline in this final rule. Over the 9-
month period between May 2020, when the 2020 IRAP final rule became
effective, and February 2021, when the Department paused the
consideration of SRE applications, data indicate that participation was
far lower than what was projected in the 2020 IRAP final rule. To begin
with, the number of SRE applications was far fewer than the number
anticipated in the 2020 IRAP final rule. For the 2020 IRAP final rule,
the Department used the number of entities that submitted grant
applications under the AAI grant program in FY 2016 as a guidepost for
estimating the number of SRE applications. It now seems that this
guidepost was unrealistic because millions of dollars were awarded to
each successful AAI grant application whereas similar grant funds were
not available to SREs. The lack of Federal funding may largely explain
the low number of SREs (27) and IRAPs (178) compared to the numbers
anticipated in the 2020 IRAP final rule (203 SREs and 2,030 IRAPs in
Year 1).
While the estimated number of SRE applications in the 2020 IRAP
final rule was based on the number of entities that submitted AAI grant
applications, the estimated number of IRAPs was not based on a specific
source of data because the IRAP system was a new concept in the United
States. Accordingly, the Department does not have a guidepost to
realistically estimate the number of IRAPs for an alternative baseline
that assumes the absence of this rule and the removal of the February
17, 2021, suspension.
Without a reasonable way to estimate the number of SREs and IRAPs
or to quantify the cost savings, benefits, and transfer payments, the
Department acknowledges that this rule may have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more; therefore, this rule has been
designated as an economically significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of E.O. 12866.
e. Nonquantifiable Effects
The Department is rescinding the 2020 IRAP final rule and, instead,
refocusing its efforts on expanding, modernizing, strengthening, and
diversifying the Registered Apprenticeship system. As explained in the
previous sections, the Registered Apprenticeship system is highly
successful for industry. Industries that have adopted RAPs have cited
the standards, skillsets, and retention offered by skilled workers
associated with RAPs as advantageous to their bottom line. In one
survey, nearly three-fourths of surveyed employers stated that RAPs
drove increased worker productivity.\34\ A skilled workforce is
foundational to a strong economy, and Registered Apprenticeship
provides a proven avenue by which to deliver talent development to
various industry sectors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Urban Institute Research Report, ``The Benefits and
Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors'
Perspective,'' June 12, 2009, https://www.urban.org/research/publication/benefits-and-challenges-registered-apprenticeship-sponsors-perspective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the demonstrated success of RAPs as a workforce
training model for industry, RAPs have proven to be highly beneficial
to workers because of their emphasis on high-quality training as well
as apprentice safety and welfare. During training, apprentices are
guaranteed wage increases, and research shows that RAP completers earn
over $300,000 (including benefits) more over their lifetimes as
compared with similar individuals who do not complete a RAP.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ See, e.g., Mathematica Policy Research, ``An Effectiveness
Assessment and Cost-Benefit Analysis of Registered Apprenticeship in
10 States: Final Report,'' July 25, 2012, https://wdr.doleta.gov/research/FullText_Documents/ETAOP_2012_10.pdf. This report
categorizes reduced payments of unemployment insurance, welfare, and
food stamps as benefits (separate from productivity increases)
associated with Registered Apprenticeship; however, for purposes of
this E.O. 12866 analysis, adding these effects would constitute
double-counting and they should instead be presented as an
assessment of who, other than workers themselves, receives some
portion of productivity benefits. Moreover, as noted earlier in this
regulatory preamble, the report does not speak to the relative
effects of RAPs and IRAPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Registered Apprenticeship system has successfully been adopted
across a diverse range of sectors, with significant growth in recent
years. The expansion of the Registered Apprenticeship system into
``nontraditional'' sectors indicates that the IRAP model may be
superfluous and not a good use of Government resources that could
support the proven activities of the Registered Apprenticeship system.
3. Regulatory Alternatives
OMB Circular A-4 directs agencies to analyze alternatives if such
alternatives best satisfy the philosophy and principles of E.O. 12866.
Accordingly, the Department considered two regulatory alternatives.
Under the first alternative, the Department would allow the SREs and
any related IRAPs to operate with the Department's recognition for a
transitional period not to exceed the previously approved 5-year
period. As noted above, the approach of permitting the continued
recognition of SREs and any related IRAPs would continue to temporarily
retain a parallel system that does not ensure sufficient protections
for apprentices, would diminish Departmental resources available for
expansion of Registered Apprenticeship, and would generate confusion
among both entities interested in establishing apprenticeship programs
and the potential apprentices in such programs. This alternative would
result in lower cost savings over the 10-year analysis period than the
cost savings presented in Exhibit 1 because SREs and IRAPs would be
obligated to follow the provisions of the 2020 IRAP final rule for a
longer period of time. Therefore, the costs of the 2020 IRAP final rule
would accumulate for a longer duration and the cost savings would be
delayed.
Under the second alternative, the Department would recast IRAPs as
Certified Work-Based Learning. The Department considers the most
effective and efficient use of its resources is to oversee a national
system of Registered Apprenticeship that is more protective of the
welfare of apprentices and that
[[Page 58286]]
has demonstrated its capacity to grow and adapt across a range of
industries and sectors. Similarly, recasting IRAPs as a type of
Certified Work-Based Learning would not address the concerns identified
in the discussions above regarding an indirect and insufficient
oversight role for the Department in IRAPs. This alternative would also
result in lower cost savings over the 10-year analysis period than the
cost savings presented in Exhibit 1 because SREs and IRAPs would incur
costs under the revised program. The Department cannot estimate the
costs without details about the provisions of such a program.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 13272 (Proper
Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking)
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. ch. 6
(as amended), the Department examined the regulatory requirements of
this final rule to determine whether they will have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As explained
in the E.O. 12866 economic analysis above, this final rule is expected
to lead to cost savings for IRAPs because these entities will no longer
be required to comply with the provisions of the 2020 IRAP final rule.
Cost savings for IRAPs will primarily arise from no longer needing to
submit performance data to the SRE and no longer needing to prepare or
sign a written apprenticeship agreement with each apprentice.
In the 2020 IRAP final rule, the Department estimated that it would
take IRAPs approximately 25 hours per year to collect and provide the
relevant performance data. To estimate the cost savings per IRAP under
this final rule, the Department multiplied the number of IRAPs (178) by
25 hours and by the hourly compensation rate for Training and
Development Managers ($123.22 per hour). In the 2020 IRAP final rule,
the Department estimated that it would take IRAPs approximately 10
minutes per apprentice to prepare and sign a written apprenticeship
agreement. To estimate the cost savings per IRAP under this final rule,
the Department multiplied the number of apprentices (23,975) by 10
minutes and by the hourly compensation rate for Training and
Development Managers ($123.22 per hour). In total, the first-year cost
savings per IRAP is estimated at $5,516 at a discount rate of 7
percent. The annualized cost savings per IRAP is estimated at $5,902 at
a discount rate of 7 percent.
As of September 30, 2021, the number of IRAPs recognized by SREs
stood at 178. Of the 178 IRAPs, 167 are in the health care industry;
specifically, the vast majority of the 167 IRAPs are associated with
hospitals and medical centers. As shown in Exhibit 2, the first-year
and annualized cost savings for IRAPs in the hospitals subsector are
not expected to have a significant economic impact (3 percent or more)
on small entities of any size.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26SE22.008
Similarly, the final rule will result in cost savings for SREs. The
cost savings will arise from SREs no longer needing to perform the
activities listed in the E.O. 12866 economic analysis above: notifying
the Administrator of any major change to processes or programs;
informing the Administrator of IRAP recognition, suspension, or
derecognition; provision of data or information to the Administrator;
provision of written attestation to the Administrator; disclosure of
the credentials that apprentices will earn; quality control of IRAPs;
submission of performance data to the Administrator; making publicly
available IRAP performance data; and recordkeeping. The first-year cost
savings per SRE is estimated at $13,555 at a discount rate of 7
percent. The annualized cost savings per SRE is estimated at $14,504 at
a discount rate of 7 percent.
The Department has recognized 27 SREs. Only 6 of the 27 SREs have
recognized IRAPs, and of those 6 SREs, 1 has 99.2 percent of all
apprentices in IRAPs (23,781 out of 23,975 apprentices). This
particular SRE is unlikely to be considered a small entity based on its
annual revenue,\36\ which exceeds the Small Business Administration's
Small Business Size Standard of $20.5 million for professional
organizations (North American Industry Classification System code
813920).\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ IRS Form 990 filing data available from the Internal
Revenue Service, ``Tax Exempt Organization Search,'' https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos (last visited May 19, 2022).
\37\ U.S. Small Business Administration, ``Table of Small
Business Size Standards,'' https://www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards (last updated May 2, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 58287]]
Accordingly, the Department certifies that this final rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Moreover, any economic impact experienced by IRAPs or SREs
will be cost savings.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
As explained in the ``Background'' section above, the Department is
rescinding subpart B, ``Standards Recognition Entities of Industry-
Recognized Apprenticeship Programs,'' from 29 CFR part 29, the
regulatory framework for the Department's recognition of SREs and SREs'
role in recognizing IRAPs.
As part of the implementation and rollout of the 2020 IRAP final
rule, the Department developed and received OMB approval for two
information collections (ICs), an application form and a performance
report. The first active IC is entitled ``Industry-Recognized
Apprenticeship Program Standards Recognition Entity Regulation and
Application'' (OMB Control Number 1205-0536) and includes an annual
approved burden of 141,819 responses and 285,310 hours. The second
active IC is entitled ``IRAP Program and Performance Report for
Standards Recognition Entities'' (OMB Control Number 1205-0545) and
includes an annual approved burden of 12,447 responses and 111,118
hours. This rule does not result in any additional cost burden for
either IC.
Because this final rule rescinds subpart B, which is the authority
for these information collections, the Department will no longer use
the ``Industry-Recognized Apprenticeship Program Standards Recognition
Entity Regulation and Application'' IC and the ``IRAP Program and
Performance Report for Standards Recognition Entities'' IC.
The Department has submitted requests to discontinue both OMB
Control Number 1205-0536 and OMB Control Number 1205-0545, eliminating
all paperwork burden associated with the ICs. These ICs will
discontinue upon the effective date of this final rule.
D. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This final rule does not have federalism implications because it
does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
Government. Accordingly, E.O. 13132, Federalism, requires no further
agency action or analysis.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2
U.S.C. 1532, requires each Federal agency to prepare a written
statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed
agency rule that may result in $100 million or more in expenditures
(adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year by State, local, and
tribal Governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector.
This final rule does not exceed the $100-million expenditure in any
one year when adjusted for inflation, and this rulemaking does not
contain such a mandate. The requirements of title II of UMRA,
therefore, do not apply, and the Department has not prepared a
statement under the Act.
F. Executive Order 13175 (Indian Tribal Governments)
The Department has reviewed this final rule in accordance with E.O.
13175 and has determined that it does not have tribal implications. The
final rule does not have substantial direct effects on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 29
Apprenticeability criteria, Apprentice agreements and complaints,
Apprenticeship programs, Program standards, Registration and
deregistration, Sponsor eligibility, State Apprenticeship Agency
recognition and derecognition.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department amends 29
CFR part 29 as follows:
PART 29--LABOR STANDARDS FOR THE REGISTRATION OF APPRENTICESHIP
PROGRAMS
0
1. The authority citation for part 29 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 50; 40 U.S.C. 3145; 5 U.S.C. 301; 5 U.S.C.
App. P. 534.
0
2. Remove the subpart A heading.
0
3. Amend Sec. 29.1 by:
0
a. Revising the section heading; and
0
b. In paragraph (b), removing the word ``subpart'' and adding the word
``part'' in its place.
The revision reads as follows:
Sec. 29.1 Purpose and scope.
* * * * *
Sec. 29.2 [Amended]
0
4. Amend Sec. 29.2 by:
0
a. In the introductory text, removing the word ``subpart'' and adding
the word ``part'' in its place;
0
b. In the definitions of ``Apprenticeship program'' and ``Registration
agency'', removing the citation ``29 CFR part 29 subpart A, and part
30'' and adding the citation ``this part and 29 CFR part 30'' in its
place; and
0
c. In the definition of ``Technical assistance'', removing the word
``subpart'' and adding the word ``part'' in its place.
Sec. 29.3 [Amended]
0
5. In Sec. 29.3 amend paragraphs (b)(1), (g) introductory text, and
(h) by removing word ``subpart'' and add in its place the word
``part''.
Sec. 29.6 [Amended]
0
6. In Sec. 29.6 amend paragraph (b)(2) by removing word ``subpart''
and add in its place the word ``part''.
Sec. 29.10 [Amended]
0
7. In Sec. 29.10 amend paragraph (a)(2) by removing word ``subpart''
and add in its place the word ``part''.
Sec. 29.11 [Amended]
0
8. In Sec. 29.11 amend the introductory text removing word ``subpart''
and add in its place the word ``part''.
Sec. 29.13 [Amended]
0
9. Amend Sec. 29.13 by:
0
a. In paragraph (a)(1), removing the citation ``29 CFR part 29 subpart
A, and part 30'' and adding the citation ``this part and 29 CFR part
30'' in its place;
0
b. In paragraph (b)(1), removing the citation ``29 CFR part 29 subpart
A'' and adding ``this part'' in its place;
0
c. In paragraphs (c) and (e) introductory text, removing the word
``subpart'' and adding the word ``part'' in its place; and
0
d. In paragraph (e)(4), removing the citation ``part 29 subpart A'' and
adding ``this part'' in its place.
Sec. 29.14 [Amended]
0
10. Amend Sec. 29.14 by:
0
a. In the introductory text, removing the citation ``part 29 subpart A,
and part 30'' and adding the citation ``this part and 29 CFR part 30''
in its place; and
0
b. In paragraphs (e)(1) and (i), removing the word ``subpart'' and
adding the word ``part'' in its place.
[[Page 58288]]
Subpart B--[Removed]
0
11. Remove subpart B, consisting of Sec. Sec. 29.20 through 29.31.
Brent Parton,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training, Labor.
[FR Doc. 2022-20560 Filed 9-23-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FR-P
