[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 217 (Monday, November 15, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62966-62978]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-24786]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

29 CFR Part 29

[Docket No. ETA-2021-0007]
RIN 1205-AC06


Apprenticeship Programs, Labor Standards for Registration

AGENCY: Employment and Training Administration, Labor.

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL or the Department) proposes 
to rescind its regulation regarding Standards Recognition Entities 
(SREs) of Industry-Recognized Apprenticeship Programs (IRAPs). 
Specifically, the proposed rule would rescind the regulatory framework 
for the Department's recognition of SREs and SREs' role in recognizing 
IRAPs, and make necessary conforming changes to the Department's 
registered apprenticeship regulations.

DATES: To be ensured consideration, comments must be received on or 
before January 14, 2022.

ADDRESSES: You may submit written comments electronically by the 
following method:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions on the website for submitting comments. Label 
all submissions with docket number ETA-2021-0007 and RIN 1205-AC06.
    Instructions. Include docket number ETA-2021-0007 in your comments 
as well as RIN 1205-AC06.
    You may submit comments, identified by docket number ETA-2021-0007 
and RIN 1205-AC06, by using the Federal eRulemaking portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the website instructions for submitting 
comments (under ``Help'' > ``How to use Regulations.gov'').
    Please be advised that the Department will post all comments 
received that relate to this proposed rule on https://www.regulations.gov without making any change to the comments or 
redacting any information. The https://www.regulations.gov website is 
the Federal eRulemaking portal, and all comments posted there are 
available and accessible to the public. Therefore, the Department 
recommends that commenters remove personal information, such as Social 
Security numbers, personal addresses, telephone numbers, and email 
addresses, included in their comments, as such information may become 
easily available to the public via the https://www.regulations.gov 
website. It is the responsibility of the commenter to safeguard 
personal information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heidi Casta, Acting Administrator, 
Office of Policy Development and Research, U.S. Department of Labor, 
200 Constitution Avenue NW, Room N-5641, Washington, DC 20210, 
Telephone: (202) 693-3700 (voice) (this is not a toll-free number) or 
1-800-326-2577 (TDD).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The National Apprenticeship Act of 1937 (NAA), 29 U.S.C. 50, 
authorizes the Secretary of Labor (Secretary) to: (1) Formulate and 
promote the use of labor standards necessary to safeguard the welfare 
of apprentices and to encourage their inclusion in apprenticeship 
contracts; (2) bring together employers and labor for the formulation 
of programs of apprenticeship; and (3) cooperate with State agencies 
engaged in the formulation and promotion of standards of 
apprenticeship. 29 U.S.C. 50. The Department promulgated regulations to 
implement the NAA at 29 CFR part 30 (equal employment opportunity in 
apprenticeship) in 1963 and part 29 (labor standards for the 
registration of apprenticeship programs) in 1977. The part 30 
regulations prohibit discrimination in registered apprenticeship based 
on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, age 
(40 or older), genetic information, and disability, and they require 
sponsors of registered apprenticeship programs (RAPs) to take 
affirmative action to provide equal opportunity in such programs. The 
part 29 regulations set forth labor standards safeguarding the welfare 
of apprentices, including: Prescribing policies and procedures 
concerning the registration, cancellation, and deregistration of 
apprenticeship programs; recognizing State Apprenticeship Agencies 
(SAAs) as Registration Agencies; and matters relating thereto. The 
Department significantly updated 29 CFR part 29 in 2008 to ``increase 
flexibility, enhance program quality and accountability, and promote 
apprenticeship opportunity in the 21st century, while continuing to 
safeguard the welfare of apprentices'' (73 FR 64402, Oct. 29, 2008), 
and updated 29 CFR part 30 in 2016 ``to

[[Page 62967]]

modernize equal employment opportunity regulations'' (81 FR 92026, Dec. 
19, 2016). These regulations provide the framework for the registered 
apprenticeship system.
    On June 15, 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order (E.O.) 
13801, ``Expanding Apprenticeships in America'' (82 FR 28229), which 
directed the Secretary to consider issuing regulations that promote the 
development of IRAPs by third parties. Section 8(b)(iii) of E.O. 13801 
also established a Task Force on Apprenticeship Expansion (Task Force) 
to identify strategies and proposals to promote apprenticeships, to 
include ``the most effective strategies for creating industry-
recognized apprenticeships.'' Based on E.O. 13801 and the Task Force's 
recommendations, the Department issued a new rule entitled 
``Apprenticeship Programs, Labor Standards for Registration, Amendment 
of Regulations'' (IRAP rule), codified at 29 CFR part 29, subpart B, 
which established the IRAP system. 85 FR 14294 (Mar. 11, 2020).
    The IRAP rule established a process for DOL's Office of 
Apprenticeship (OA) Administrator (Administrator) to recognize 
qualified third-party entities, known as SREs, which would, in turn, 
evaluate and recognize IRAPs. The IRAP rule set forth the requirements 
for third-party entities applying for Departmental recognition as SREs. 
It also identified certain requirements apprenticeship programs must 
meet in order to obtain recognition from SREs as IRAPs. The IRAP rule 
was published on March 11, 2020, and went into effect on May 11, 2020. 
As of the date of this proposed rule, the Department has recognized 27 
SREs, which have, in turn, recognized 175 IRAPs, with 165 of these 
programs recognized by a single SRE.
    On February 17, 2021, President Biden issued E.O. 14016, 
``Revocation of Executive Order 13801'' (86 FR 11089), which in section 
2 directed Federal agencies to ``promptly consider taking steps to 
rescind any orders, rules, regulations, guidelines, or policies'' 
implementing E.O. 13801.
    Pursuant to E.O. 14016, on February 17, 2021, the Department 
announced it would be undertaking a review of the IRAP system and as a 
result suspended the acceptance of new applications to become a 
recognized SRE and suspended making final determinations for 
organizations that had already submitted an application to become a 
recognized SRE.\1\ The Department advised that all SREs already 
approved by the Department and all IRAPs recognized by an SRE could 
continue to perform their functions as described in the regulation, to 
include the recognition of new IRAPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/eta/eta20210217.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department's review of the IRAP system and proposed rescission 
of the IRAP rule has been informed by the Administration's priority to 
create jobs ``to be filled by diverse, local, well-trained workers who 
have a choice to join a union'' through strengthening RAPs.\2\ The 
Department is focused on rebuilding the middle class, connecting a 
diverse workforce to family-sustaining jobs, and playing an active role 
in the rebuilding of the workforce to address the effects of the 2019 
Coronavirus Disease pandemic in a manner consistent with its mission to 
``foster, promote, and develop the welfare of the wage earners, job 
seekers, and retirees of the United States; improve working conditions; 
advance opportunities for profitable employment; and assure work-
related benefits and rights.'' \3\ As such, the Department plays an 
important role in ensuring workers are paid a fair wage, provided a 
safe workplace, and provided the tools and training necessary to access 
equitable economic opportunity and success. This mission is always 
important, but even more so as the country emerges and begins to 
recover from the 2019 Coronavirus Disease pandemic.\4\ The pandemic has 
led to millions of workers becoming unemployed, and it has exposed 
vulnerabilities and fissures in our economy as a result of systemic 
racism and economic inequality, of which the burdens were felt greatest 
by low-wage earners and communities of color. The Department views the 
registered apprenticeship system--a system that has benefited thousands 
of workers and employers throughout its existence--as a far more 
effective system than IRAPs for delivering on DOL's mission to help 
workers access family-sustaining jobs, protect the safety and welfare 
of apprentices, and reach out to underserved communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ White House, ``Fact Sheet: Biden Administration to Take 
Steps to Bolster Registered Apprenticeships'' (Feb. 17, 2021), 
available at 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/general/aboutdol.
    \4\ The IRAP rule was published on March 11, 2020, which is the 
same day that the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a 
pandemic and 2 days before the President declared a national 
emergency concerning the COVID-19 pandemic. See World Health 
Organization Director General's opening remarks at the media 
briefing on COVID-19 (Mar. 11, 2020), available at https://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19---11-march-2020; 
Proclamation 9994, Declaring a National Emergency Concerning the 
Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Outbreak, 85 FR 15337 (Mar. 13, 
2020). The declaration of a national emergency continues as of the 
date of the publication of this proposed rule. Continuation of the 
National Emergency Concerning the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-
19) Pandemic, 86 FR 11599 (Feb. 24, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The IRAP rule, conversely, does not align with the Administration's 
and Department's priorities for several reasons, as discussed in 
further detail below. Among them is that IRAPs have fewer quality 
training and worker protection standards than RAPs and, contrary to the 
conclusions in the IRAP rule, the Department no longer considers it 
appropriate or necessary to create an additional apprenticeship model, 
particularly one that does not guarantee the same protections for 
apprentices. The IRAP rule also threatens to undermine the robust and 
successful registered apprenticeship system by creating a duplicative 
system that lacks sufficient oversight and quality necessary to ensure 
the Department endorses programs meeting the needs of the American 
workforce and economy. Although the IRAP rule was premised on the idea 
that parallel apprenticeship systems were preferable as a means to 
better grow apprenticeship generally, upon further consideration and 
review the Department thinks that the existence of two parallel systems 
overseen by the Department is an inefficient and ineffective use of its 
resources.
    In the IRAP rule, IRAPs were touted as a more flexible, industry-
driven model that would enable expansion of apprenticeship into new 
industries and occupations. However, as explained in greater detail 
below, the Department has reconsidered this conclusion and now thinks 
that the IRAP rule is redundant and not necessary to broaden the scope 
of apprenticeship coverage by industry. In addition, upon review the 
Department now thinks that the IRAP rule does not provide adequate 
focus on worker needs and protections, does not ensure adequate program 
quality standards, does not provide sufficient equal employment 
opportunity protections for apprentices, and does not provide a proven 
pathway to family-sustaining jobs.
    The Department therefore believes that focusing its efforts and 
resources on expanding the registered apprenticeship system will more 
effectively meet the needs of industry and workers alike, and has 
concluded that the best path forward is to rescind the IRAP rule and 
focus on further strengthening the successful registered apprenticeship 
system.

[[Page 62968]]

II. The Registered Apprenticeship System is Highly Successful for 
Industry

    For over 80 years, the registered apprenticeship system has met the 
demands from industry to provide quality work-based training. RAPs 
combine paid on-the-job learning (OJL) with related instruction to 
progressively increase workers' skill levels and wages. With this 
``earn and learn'' model, apprentices are employed and earn wages from 
the first day on the job. Industries that have adopted RAPs as part of 
their work-based learning models have cited the standards, skillsets, 
and retention offered by skilled workers associated with RAPs as 
advantageous to their bottom line. In one survey, nearly three-fourths 
of surveyed employers stated that registered apprenticeships drove 
increased worker productivity.\5\ RAPs are a flexible training strategy 
that can be customized to meet the needs of any business, including 
allowing employers to partner with workforce partners and educators to 
develop and apply industry standards to training programs, thereby 
increasing the quality and productivity of the workforce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Urban Institute Research Report, ``The Benefits and 
Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors' Perspective'' 
(June 12, 2009), available at https://www.urban.org/research/publication/benefits-and-challenges-registered-apprenticeship-sponsors-perspective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A skilled workforce is foundational to a strong economy, and 
registered apprenticeship provides a proven avenue by which to deliver 
much needed talent development to various industry sectors, including 
as the economy recovers from the disruption cause by the COVID-19 
pandemic. Employers have continued to turn to registered apprenticeship 
to hire and train new employees, with over 221,000 new registered 
apprentices over the past year across several industries, including 
cybersecurity, healthcare, advanced manufacturing, transportation, 
energy, and information technology (IT).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The 25 federally administered States and 18 federally 
recognized SAAs use the Employment and Training Administration's 
Registered Apprenticeship Partners Information Database System 
(RAPIDS) to provide individual apprentice and sponsor data. These 
data represent registered apprenticeship national results for Fiscal 
Year (FY) 2020 (Oct. 1, 2019-Sept. 30, 2020), as reported by these 
entities, and are available at https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/apprenticeship/about/statistics/2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This growth is not an anomaly. Since its establishment, the 
registered apprenticeship system has, with few exceptions, shown strong 
growth. The past 5 years saw the creation of over 13,500 new RAPs. In 
2020 alone, there were nearly 26,000 RAPs active across the nation, and 
3,143 new apprenticeship programs were established nationwide, 
representing 73-percent growth from 2009 levels.\7\ Despite the COVID-
19 pandemic, 2020 represents the third-highest year of new RAP 
development over the past decade. As a result of these programs, more 
than 221,000 new workers became apprentices in 2020. In total, there 
were over 636,000 apprentices across the Nation who were obtaining 
skills while earning the wages they need to build financial security, 
and over 80,000 apprentices have successfully completed their program 
and received a certificate of completion recognized by industries 
across the Nation.\8\ Apprentices who have successfully completed their 
program and received their certificate of completion have high career 
retention rates, with over 94 percent of graduates retaining 
employment.\9\ The continued, sustained growth of registered 
apprenticeship demonstrates it remains a trusted and successful 
framework that industry can leverage to develop and retain a skilled 
workforce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ OA 2020 Data and Statistics, available at https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/apprenticeship/about/statistics/2020.
    \8\ OA 2020 Data and Statistics, available at https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/apprenticeship/about/statistics/2020.
    \9\ OA Career Seeker Fact Sheet (Sept. 2020), available at 
https://www.apprenticeship.gov/sites/default/files/Career_Seeker_Fact_Sheet.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department expects this broad-based growth to continue as the 
registered apprenticeship system is an important part of the 
Administration's workforce development strategy, including its COVID-19 
recovery strategy in which registered apprenticeship can provide a 
bridge to businesses to an economic recovery. Thus, registered 
apprenticeship has been, and will continue to be, an important long-
term education and talent development strategy for all workers, and in 
turn for industry.

III. The Registered Apprenticeship System is Highly Successful for 
Workers

    In addition to the demonstrated success of the registered 
apprenticeship system as a workforce training model for industry, it 
has proven to be highly successful and beneficial to workers because of 
its emphasis on both high-quality training and apprentice safety and 
welfare. Registered apprenticeship is designed to ensure high-quality 
training through mentorship, OJL, and related instruction while also 
prioritizing safety, wage progression, and equal employment opportunity 
for apprentices. Registered apprenticeships follow federally approved 
industry standards for workplaces, and programs must abide by set 
ratios for supervision to further enhance safety in the program. During 
training, apprentices are guaranteed progressive wage increases, and 
research shows that Registered Apprenticeship program completers earn 
over $300,000 (including benefits) more over their lifetimes as 
compared with individuals who do not complete a registered 
apprenticeship.\10\ Further, the Department has taken significant steps 
to increase the participation of women and individuals from 
underrepresented groups through the robust requirements in 29 CFR part 
30. With registered apprenticeship, there is also an added level of 
accountability because the Department can exercise its enforcement 
authority to intervene and ensure employers provide industry-
established prevailing wages, ensure stringent safety standards are in 
place, and monitor program quality to protect workers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See, e.g., Mathematica Policy Research, ``An Effectiveness 
Assessment and Cost-Benefit Analysis of Registered Apprenticeship in 
10 States: Final Report'' (July 25, 2012), 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 apprenticeships on earnings. Moreover, the 
estimates do not represent increments between registered 
apprenticeships and IRAPs (the latter not having been implemented at 
the time the study was conducted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In contrast, the IRAP model was designed in a way that does not 
incorporate these same benefits and protections. IRAPs do not ensure 
that programs uniformly produce a high quality of training recognized 
across the Nation, are not designed to promote and advance diversity in 
the apprenticeship system, and do not include the same apprentice 
safety and welfare requirements as the RAP model. The IRAP model was 
designed as a hands-off approach, requiring SREs to play the primary 
role in program monitoring and intervention. The Department no longer 
views this as a reasonable or effective alternative to the standards 
and oversight that are the hallmarks of the registered apprenticeship 
system. While SREs are responsible for establishing and enforcing the 
individual standards of the programs under their purview, each SRE may 
have differing standards and views on acceptable levels for 
performance. For example, IRAPs' lack of uniform requirements regarding 
a progressively increasing wage, enhanced safety standards, and 
affirmative action goals mean there is no

[[Page 62969]]

uniformity across different IRAPs and SREs.
    This is fundamentally inconsistent with the Department's goal of 
expanding quality apprenticeships in a manner that both ensures a high 
level of quality while also retaining industry input and flexibility to 
adapt the apprenticeship model to different industries and occupations. 
RAPs--which can be, and have been, adapted to different occupations and 
are recognized for their high quality and effective worker 
protections--have proven effective in striking an appropriate balance 
between the structure necessary to ensure high-quality training and the 
flexibility necessary to adapt the apprenticeship model to different 
industries and occupations. Further, the Department's ability to 
intervene to address disparities in quality and worker protections 
across IRAPs is limited because the Department does not have the 
ability to directly monitor or oversee IRAPs, and such disparities may 
cause confusion for apprentices and promote inequitable outcomes among 
program participants.

A. Registered Apprenticeships Uniformly Provide More Rigorous, Higher 
Quality Training

    As described further below, registered apprenticeships must adhere 
to rigorous training requirements, to include OJL and related 
instruction. When compared to registered apprenticeships, IRAPs do not 
have the same standards for minimum skill level or competency baselines 
in their respective occupations.
1. On-the-Job Learning
    A structured OJL model is a hallmark of a high-quality 
apprenticeship program, as this framework provides standardized 
evaluation of apprentice proficiency using a time-based model, 
competency-based model, or a hybrid of both, with benchmarks that 
ensure mastery in the apprentice's respective occupation and 
flexibility in the approach used that ensures apprenticeships can be 
developed and customized to a variety of occupations. Registered 
apprenticeships generally require a minimum of 2,000 hours (or 1 year) 
of OJL for time-based and hybrid programs. Registered apprenticeships 
can also be measured against skills-based competencies, and the amount 
of OJL typically amounts to 1 year but may take more or less time 
depending on the individual. The standardized approach to OJL employed 
in registered apprenticeships ensures apprentices have the necessary 
time, within a structured framework, to apply their skills and training 
in practice and apprentices meet minimum skill level or competency 
baselines before entering the workforce. Further, registered 
apprenticeships are assessed based, in part, on whether OJL is 
available for all phases of an apprentice's training. Because OJL is a 
critical component for the apprentice's learning experience, the 
Department considers a structured mentorship requirement as a strength 
for high-quality apprenticeship programs. Registered apprenticeships 
pair apprentices with experienced employees (also referred to as 
Journeyworkers) who have already mastered the skills and competencies 
associated with the occupation such that these individuals can mentor 
apprentices with on-the-job guidance and direction that ensures safety 
and quality training.
    In contrast, IRAPs are not required to have a robust, structured 
OJL model. Instead, IRAPs need only follow the written training plan 
established by the SRE--a plan that has no requirements other than that 
it be formulated using consensus-based competency standards. Because 
not all IRAPs provide the same structured, standardized framework for 
OJL as RAPs, the quality of training can vary across SREs and, in turn, 
IRAPs. As a result, apprentices participating in IRAPs may lack access 
to rigorous, structured OJL--a critical component of a high-quality 
apprenticeship program because it equips registered apprentices to 
enter the workforce. Although the training provisions of the IRAP rule 
were based on the assumption that SREs are in the best position to 
establish OJL frameworks, the Department now views this lack of 
uniformity in OJL as inconsistent with the goal of growing a highly 
skilled workforce through apprenticeship as it could too easily lead to 
apprenticeship programs that do not provide sufficient training to 
apprentices. The Department thinks that the existing OJL models 
available under the registered apprenticeship system--which can be 
adapted to different occupations and are recognized for their high 
quality and effective worker protections--have proven effective in 
striking an appropriate balance between the structure necessary to 
ensure high-quality training and the flexibility necessary to adapt the 
apprenticeship model to different industries and occupations.
2. Related Instruction
    As important as OJL is the related instruction \11\ component of an 
apprenticeship program. By requiring related instruction as part of 
registered apprenticeship, the Department ensures employers are 
equipping apprentices with the theoretical and technical knowledge in 
subjects related to their respective occupations. This is essential to 
a high-quality apprenticeship program, and it is the Department's 
priority that minimum related instruction standards are integrated into 
the apprenticeship programs it recognizes. A minimum of 144 hours of 
related instruction is recommended for registered apprenticeships, and 
recognizing the benefit of robust related instruction, most registered 
apprenticeships exceed the 144-hour recommendation. This approach 
ensures apprentices uniformly receive meaningful and substantive 
knowledge in their respective occupations, creating a well-rounded 
training experience that provides the educational foundation necessary 
for success in practical settings, while also retaining flexibility 
based on different industries and occupations that may require varying 
amounts of related instruction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ ``Related instruction'' is an organized and systematic form 
of instruction designed to provide the apprentice with the knowledge 
of the theoretical and technical subjects related to the 
apprentice's occupation. Such instruction may be given in a 
classroom, through occupational or industrial courses, or by 
correspondence courses of equivalent value, electronic media, or 
other forms of self-study approved by the Registration Agency. 29 
CFR 29.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In contrast, the IRAP requirements lack standards on minimum 
related instruction hours, and do not articulate how SREs monitor or 
evaluate related instruction. As a matter of design, apprentices in an 
IRAP may lack access to this key component of a high-quality 
apprenticeship program and apprentices and the program therefore may 
not provide sufficient educational experiences for the foundational 
knowledge that is necessary in their occupations. In the IRAP rule, the 
Department viewed SREs as best-placed to develop the standards and 
frameworks on related instruction, but it no longer finds this approach 
consistent with the goal of expanding high-quality apprenticeships. 
Instead the Department finds that the conspicuous absence of minimum 
standards and an articulated approach to evaluation for related 
instruction in IRAPs means the Department cannot uniformly ensure 
apprentices in those programs receive the theoretical and technical 
knowledge necessary in their respective occupations, which is a 
hallmark of a high-quality apprenticeship program and necessary to 
developing a highly skilled workforce. Accordingly, the Department 
cannot ensure IRAPs are

[[Page 62970]]

providing the quality of related instruction necessary to ensure 
apprentices are competent in these occupations, which conflicts with 
the Department's goal of expanding high-quality apprenticeships.

B. Registered Apprenticeships Provide Better Safety and Welfare 
Protections

    The importance of apprentice safety and welfare cannot be 
overstated. As discussed further below, the registered apprenticeship 
system includes requirements related to safety, equal employment, 
progressive wages, and other worker protections that provide 
apprentices with meaningful employment opportunities while also 
guaranteeing rights and protections on the job.
    In contrast, the requirements of the IRAP rule fall short in these 
areas. As discussed further below, the requirements include basic 
compliance with existing laws but do not create additional obligations 
that focus on safeguarding the welfare of apprentices, especially with 
respect to progressively increasing wages, safety requirements, and 
equal employment opportunity (EEO). The IRAP rule also dilutes the 
Department's role in overseeing apprenticeships, tasking SREs with this 
oversight role instead and retaining only a minimal role in overseeing 
the SREs.
1. Workplace Safety
    Enhanced safety standards are an essential element of a successful 
apprenticeship program. While the additional requirements of RAPs are 
designed to keep apprentices safe, this does not mean each RAP requires 
the same training or same safety precautions--these are workplace- and 
industry-specific requirements within the framework of the registered 
apprenticeship system.
    RAPs require several safety protections designed to both teach 
apprentices how to work safely within their occupation and create safe 
workplaces for apprentices. RAPs must specify a numeric ratio of 
apprentices to Journeyworkers ``consistent with proper supervision, 
training, safety, and continuity of employment.'' 29 CFR 29.5(b)(7). 
They must also have ``[a]dequate and safe equipment and facilities for 
training and supervision'' in addition to ``safety training for 
apprentices on the job and in related instruction.'' 29 CFR 29.5(b)(9). 
Though broad, these safety requirements focus on both physical 
workplace safety and safety through training and mentorship. Further, 
they are meant to protect the safety of apprentices in each RAP by 
being tailored to the specific conditions in which those apprentices 
will be working and learning.
    In contrast, IRAPs are not necessarily covered by enhanced safety 
standards beyond generally applicable Federal, State, and local safety 
laws and regulations and any additional safety requirements of the SRE. 
While a SRE may require an IRAP to have stricter, more tailored safety 
standards than required by applicable law, this discretionary 
requirement is insufficient to protect the safety of apprentices who, 
by definition, are being trained on the job and therefore would benefit 
from additional workplace protections, particularly for less skilled 
workers training in occupations that pose a higher risk of injury or 
death. Although the safety provisions of the IRAP rule were based on 
the assumptions that SREs would be able to better determine the safety 
standards relevant to their IRAPs and that compliance with generally 
applicable workplace safety standards was a sufficient baseline 
requirement, the Department now disagrees with leaving such a 
determination to the SRE, especially without the important safety 
parameters requirements of the registered apprenticeship system. The 
registered apprenticeship regulations require a ratio of apprentices to 
journeyworkers, safe equipment and facilities for training and 
supervision, and the provision of safety training on the job and in 
related instruction. However, the registered apprenticeship regulations 
do not prescribe how to meet these requirements, leaving sufficient 
flexibility for implementation. This ensures a process for taking into 
consideration both industry needs and apprentice safety that is not 
present in the IRAP rule. The Department views this as the more 
appropriate approach given that apprentices are learning on the job and 
therefore benefit from enhanced training and protections.
2. Progressive Wages
    It is a priority of the Department to grow opportunities to help 
workers access family-sustaining jobs. Registered apprenticeship's 
earn-as-you-learn model accomplishes this priority by providing for 
progressively increasing wages for apprentices as they progress in 
their apprenticeship experience, learning, and skills. In registered 
apprenticeship, the graduated scale of wages and any compensation for 
related instruction is set forth in the apprenticeship agreement 
required for each apprentice. Not only is this type of wage progression 
guaranteed per the terms of the apprenticeship agreement, but it also 
serves as an important incentive to attract apprentices and sets them 
on a path to potential lifetime earnings (including benefits) that, 
according to research, exceed by more than $300,000 those who do not 
complete a registered apprenticeship.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See, e.g., Mathematica Policy Research, ``An Effectiveness 
Assessment and Cost-Benefit Analysis of Registered Apprenticeship in 
10 States: Final Report'' (July 25, 2012), 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 apprenticeships on earnings. Moreover, the 
estimates do not represent increments between registered 
apprenticeships and IRAPs (the latter not having been implemented at 
the time the study was conducted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In contrast, there is no such guaranteed wage progression for 
apprentices of IRAPs--an apprentice could be earning the same wages 
over the course of the apprenticeship, and any wage progression is 
solely at the discretion of the IRAP. Because the IRAP regulation is 
silent on one of the most valuable features of apprenticeship to 
apprentices, there is no requirement for SREs to play any role in an 
IRAP's wage-setting, other than to affirm compliance with applicable 
laws, such as minimum wage. Although the IRAP rule is premised upon the 
assumption that market forces and apprentice choice will drive wage 
decisions, the Department notes that RAP wages are also influenced by 
market forces and apprentice choice, including an apprentice's option 
to enroll in a RAP where a progressive wage is required. The important 
difference is the prioritization of wage increases commensurate with 
skill increases, which is in line with the Department's priorities to 
help workers access family-sustaining jobs and the idea that 
apprentices should be paid a wage commensurate with the skills they 
have attained.
3. Equal Employment Opportunity
    The Department views equity and equal opportunity as essential to 
the success of an apprenticeship program, and it notes its 
responsibility under E.O. 13985, ``Advancing Racial Equity and Support 
for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government,'' 86 FR 
7009 (Jan. 20, 2021), to advance equity, civil rights, racial justice, 
and equal opportunity. Such a responsibility necessitates action, 
intentional infusion of equity into workforce development programs, and 
critical thinking about how to reduce barriers to workforce entry. The 
registered apprenticeship system's 29 CFR part 30 regulations 
acknowledge that mere passive nondiscrimination is insufficient and

[[Page 62971]]

require affirmative steps to promote diversity and equity in 
apprenticeship. 29 CFR 30.3, 30.4. Accordingly, the registered 
apprenticeship system has structured and specific requirements 
regarding equal opportunity, anti-harassment, affirmative action, 
utilization analyses and goals, targeted recruitment, outreach and 
retention, compliance, and enforcement. Through the equal opportunity 
regulations at 29 CFR part 30, the registered apprenticeship system 
provides enhanced opportunities for apprentices to access and succeed 
in RAPs and gives sponsors tools to reduce barriers to equal 
opportunity within their programs.
    In contrast, the IRAP model simply requires programs to affirm 
their adherence to applicable Federal, State, and local laws and 
regulations pertaining to EEO. 29 CFR 29.22(a)(4). Requiring IRAPs to 
do the bare minimum, especially when a model framework for EEO in 
apprenticeship is already in place in 29 CFR part 30, is a disservice 
to apprentices and apprenticeship programs, and contrary to the goals 
of the Department to promote equity in apprenticeship. Although the 
SREs do have minimal additional responsibilities to develop policies 
requiring IRAP adherence to EEO law, facilitating such adherence, and 
reflecting comprehensive outreach strategies to reach diverse 
populations that may participate in IRAPs, the IRAP rule lacks specific 
requirements and provides no framework for equity principles or goals. 
29 CFR 29.22(i). The requirements of the IRAP model fail to ensure 
meaningful action will be taken to expand equal employment opportunity 
in apprenticeship.
4. Worker Empowerment
    The Department generally thinks the relationship between workers 
and employers must be balanced so workers have a voice in ensuring fair 
and safe work conditions. For registered apprentices, there are many 
avenues to realize worker empowerment. The apprenticeship agreement 
plays a crucial role in articulating the standards of apprenticeship 
and the terms and conditions of employment. The registered 
apprenticeship agreement must contain specific terms, including a 
statement of the occupation for which the apprentice is training, the 
duration of the apprenticeship, the number of hours in the program to 
include related instruction hours, the schedule of work processes, the 
graduated scale of wages to be paid, the standards of the 
apprenticeship program, and an EEO statement. 29 CFR 29.7. The 
registered apprenticeship agreement must also contain information about 
dispute resolution should a controversy or difference arise out of the 
agreement, id., and must be accepted and recorded either by OA or an 
SAA. 29 CFR 29.2. The requirement that registered apprenticeship 
agreements include specific terms ensures the apprentices have 
knowledge of their rights and responsibilities and empowers them to be 
informed participants in the employment relationship.
    Although IRAPs also contain a written apprenticeship agreement 
requirement, each IRAP may determine which terms and conditions to 
include as long as the agreement is consistent with the SRE's 
requirements. Each SRE may determine its own requirements as it sees 
fit, potentially creating a wide variety in apprenticeship agreements 
across SREs and no requirement for a uniform set of terms and 
conditions for apprentices. There is also no requirement to submit the 
agreement to be accepted or recorded by the SRE. Without parameters, 
this requirement contains little more than an honor system to ensure 
apprentices have meaningful information about the terms and conditions 
of their apprenticeship and how they can voice their concerns.
    One of the key justifications of the 2020 rule was that the IRAP 
model would help address a purported ``skills gap'' in the labor 
market. While providing training to job seekers is a key component to 
addressing any ``skills gaps'' or ``skills mismatches,'' evidence 
suggests that training alone is not the answer. Employer investments in 
workforce development, competitive and rising wages to attract and 
retain workers, commitments to opportunity and diversity, and worker 
empowerment are key factors to addressing industry labor 
needs.13 14 The well-established RAP model--with its role in 
and focus on employer investment in training, specific equal employment 
opportunity recruitment requirements and protections for apprentices, 
as well as its requirement that a progressive wage (beyond the minimum 
wage) be paid to apprentices during their apprenticeship reflecting 
their acquisition of occupational and workplace competencies, and 
worker empowerment and safety provisions--provides a more promising and 
effective framework for addressing and closing persistent 
inefficiencies in the labor market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Annelies Goger and Luther Jackson, ``The labor market 
doesn't have a `skills gap'--it has an opportunity gap,'' Sept. 9, 
2020, https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/09/09/the-labor-market-doesnt-have-a-skills-gap-it-has-an-opportunity-gap/.
    \14\ 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/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Conversely, the very deficiencies inherent to the IRAP model 
discussed above--workplace safety, progressive wages, equal employment 
opportunity, and worker empowerment--severely reduce the ability of 
IRAPs to address any current or future labor shortages that might 
exist. Job quality is key to recruiting, training, and retaining 
workers in a specific occupation or industry.15 16 Thus, the 
lack of requirements for IRAPs to address these critical issues limits 
their ability to help fulfill labor market demands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Livia Y. Lam, ``A Multiple Measures Approach to Workforce 
Equity: How Improving Job Quality in Workforce Accountability Can 
Help Close Equity Gaps,'' Center for American Progress, October 20, 
2020, at: https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/reports/2020/10/20/491998/multiple-measures-approach-workforce-equity/.
    \16\ Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), ``Managing 
for Employee Retention,'' 2017, at: https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/toolkits/pages/managingforemployeeretention.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. The IRAP System is Redundant of the Registered Apprenticeship 
System

    One of the main justifications behind the development of IRAPs was 
the necessity to grow and expand apprenticeship into industries and 
occupations that have traditionally not used the registered 
apprenticeship system because of the insufficient flexibility in 
program requirements within RAPs to meet the varying needs of different 
industries and the administrative burden posed by these requirements. 
However, the premise that registered apprenticeship is too inflexible 
to meet the needs of industry is fundamentally flawed and contrary to 
the above-mentioned demonstrated success of registered apprenticeship 
for industry and workers and its continued growth in expanding into new 
industries and occupations. Although registered apprenticeship has 
historically been associated with the construction sector, it has 
successfully been adopted across a diverse range of industry sectors, 
with significant growth in recent years.
    The Department has used a variety of strategies to drive registered 
apprenticeship growth beyond those industries historically associated 
with registered apprenticeship. One strategy driving this expansion and 
growth is the Industry Intermediaries concept, where the Department has 
used contracted entities with specific industry expertise to further 
the Department's efforts to

[[Page 62972]]

expand registered apprenticeship opportunities in high-growth sectors. 
From 2016 to 2020, Department-contracted Industry Intermediaries 
created 271 new RAPs in 232 high-demand occupations for a total of 867 
employers. Of the occupations developed under these contracts, 37 
percent were in the manufacturing sector, 15 percent were in the 
healthcare sector, and 15 percent were in the transportation 
sector.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ National Industry and Equity Apprenticeship Intermediaries 
Fact Sheet, ``Advancing Registered Apprenticeship for Business and 
Workers in the U.S.'' (Jan. 19, 2021), available at https://www.apprenticeship.gov/sites/default/files/Industry-and-Equity-Intermediary-Accomplishment-Fact-Sheet.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another strategy that has helped expand registered apprenticeship 
is the Department's 2015 American Apprenticeship Initiative (AAI), 
which aimed to register new apprentices in high-growth and high-tech 
industries, such as health care, IT, and advanced manufacturing, 
especially from populations traditionally underrepresented in 
apprenticeship, including women and people of color. AAI grantees, 
which included labor unions, industry associations, local workforce 
boards and nonprofit organizations, have successfully expanded the RAP 
model into new industries and extended to more diverse populations. As 
of June 2020, the 44 AAI grantees initiated 2,019 new programs and 
registered 24,675 apprentices, of which 14,486 were from 
underrepresented populations.\18\ This use of targeted investments and 
intermediaries to extend registered apprenticeship to new industry 
sectors and occupations, as well as underrepresented populations, 
undermines the rationale for the IRAP system and underscores the 
redundant and duplicative aspect of the IRAP model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ National Governors' Association, ``Registered 
Apprenticeship Reimagined: Lessons Learned From the American 
Apprenticeship Initiative'' (Nov. 9, 2020), available at https://www.nga.org/center/publications/registered-apprenticeship-reimagined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    More broadly, the expansion of registered apprenticeship into 
``non-traditional'' industry sectors where IRAPs are operating and for 
which SREs have been certified demonstrates that the IRAP effort is 
superfluous and not a good use of government resources that could 
support the proven activities already underway. Based on Federal 
program data from 2019 and 2020, which were unavailable at the time the 
IRAP rule was issued, the health care and social assistance industry 
sector saw an 18-percent rise in the number of active RAPs.\19\ 
Similarly, the information industry sector saw a 31-percent increase in 
the number of active RAPs during this same period, while the 
manufacturing industry sector saw a 14-percent increase in the number 
of active RAPs, as well. Within the same time frame, equally impressive 
growth has taken place in the following industry sectors not 
historically associated with the registered apprenticeship system: 
Accommodation and food services (31 percent); arts, entertainment and 
recreation (45 percent); finance and insurance (39 percent); 
professional, scientific and technical services (41 percent) and 
transportation and warehousing (19 percent).\20\ Based on the most 
recent data, and in conjunction with historical data about registered 
apprenticeship's steady growth, the Department is departing from the 
IRAP rule's assertion that IRAPs are necessary for expansion of 
apprenticeship into non-traditional occupations. Instead, the 
Department is convinced that the registered apprenticeship system is 
capable of effectively and efficiently expanding into non-traditional 
occupations, while at the same time maintaining high-quality labor 
standards. This expansion demonstrates that the design of the 
registered apprenticeship system is capable of adapting successfully to 
a wide range of industry needs and that registered apprenticeship's 
requirements on industry set forth important parameters for the 
successful growth of apprenticeship programs without being overly 
burdensome.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ OA Data and Statistics, available at https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/apprenticeship/about/statistics/2020.
    \20\ Federal Data: Apprenticeship Statistics by Industry for FY 
2019 and FY 2020, available at https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/apprenticeship/about/statistics/2019 and https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/apprenticeship/about/statistics/2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department's actual experience administering the IRAP system 
highlights the duplicative nature of the two systems. There is clear 
overlap between the occupations that SREs were approved to recognize 
IRAPs in and the occupations the Department has determined are 
appropriate for the registered apprenticeship system. A majority of the 
occupations in the IRAP system are occupations that have already been 
deemed as apprenticeable under the registered apprenticeship system. 
Similarly, the top five occupations in the IRAP system (machinist; 
maintenance workers, machinery; manufacturing production technicians; 
information security analysts; and web developers) all are currently 
regarded as apprenticeable occupations and used within the registered 
apprenticeship system. Moreover, comparing the approved occupations for 
IRAP SREs with currently apprenticeable occupations in registered 
apprenticeship shows a majority of the top 20 occupations recognized by 
industry for training under the IRAP model have been determined 
suitable under the registered apprenticeship system.\21\ The concurrent 
recognition of these occupations as both IRAPs and registered 
apprenticeship occupations is likely to lead to confusion and disparate 
outcomes, particularly as it allows a single entity to simultaneously 
operate as an SRE or IRAP and sponsor a RAP, with the IRAP allowed to 
provide lower quality training and fewer worker protections. This 
result is unquestionably a poor use of government resources because it 
imposes duplicative costs to the government to support a redundant 
program that may not be advancing the Department's mission and goals 
for apprenticeship. Furthermore, it is likely to sow confusion among 
prospective apprentices and employers, who will struggle to understand 
how they should interact with these duplicative systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ OA Registered Apprenticeship Occupations, available at 
https://www.apprenticeship.gov/apprenticeship-occupations; OA 
Recognized Standards Recognition Entities, available at https://www.apprenticeship.gov/employers/industry-recognized-apprenticeship-program/approved-standards-recognition-entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. The Effect of the Department's Proposed Rescission of the IRAP Rule

    As discussed above, the Department has determined that the 
establishment of a duplicative and parallel IRAP system will not ensure 
access to high-quality job skills and training to American workers, 
while at the same time safeguarding the welfare of apprentices. 
Accordingly, the Department believes that the IRAP system is not a 
prudent use of Government resources, would diminish the quality and 
coherence of American apprenticeship efforts, and would not allow the 
Department to ensure that employers, prospective apprentices, or the 
general public are effectively served. The Department also determined 
that amending the IRAP rule would not solve any of these issues. As 
discussed in detail above, registered apprenticeship provides for 
apprentice safety and welfare and continues to grow apprenticeship 
opportunities without sacrificing crucial requirements for quality or 
worker protections. Amending the IRAP rule to align with the 
Department's goals and priorities so

[[Page 62973]]

that it possesses more of the qualities of the registered 
apprenticeship system would not serve the interests of employers and 
apprentices given that they already have access to the registered 
apprenticeship system. Further, the Department can better utilize its 
resources and provide better service to the public by supporting and 
strengthening one robust apprenticeship system that has been designed 
to incorporate the needs of both industry and the workforce and has a 
demonstrated record of successfully doing so.
    The Department acknowledges this proposal would, if finalized, 
immediately affect current SREs, IRAPs, and any apprentices 
participating in IRAPs. The Department understands SREs devoted 
resources to developing their applications and infrastructure necessary 
to effectively operate for a period of 5 years, and IRAPs and their 
apprentices may have been drawn to the program given the indication of 
approval from the Department. However, the Department thinks the impact 
of this proposal is limited given the total number of SREs and IRAPs. 
Over the 9-month period between May 2020, when the IRAP rule became 
effective, and February 2021, when the Department paused the 
consideration of SRE applications, the Department received a total of 
45 SRE applications, including from two organizations that resubmitted 
applications. Of these applications, the Department ultimately 
recognized 27 SREs.\22\ In turn, as of September 30, 2021, the 
recognized SREs have only recognized a reported 175 IRAPs, with the 
vast majority recognized by a single SRE.\23\ With respect to the 
potential impact of this proposed rule on apprentices that are or may 
become enrolled in IRAPs, because apprenticeship programs may operate 
even without DOL recognition, IRAP apprentices would not be precluded 
under this proposal from continuing their participation in such 
training programs. Alternatively, apprentices enrolled in IRAPs may 
elect instead to enroll in a RAP that provides training for their 
desired occupation; in such instances, they may qualify for advanced 
standing or credit in those registered programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Applications Received by the Department of Labor for 
Standards Recognition Entities. Approved SREs published at https://www.apprenticeship.gov/employers/industry-recognized-apprenticeship-program/approved-standards-recognition-entities.
    \23\ According to the IRAP Program and Performance Reporting 
System, as of September 30, 2021, of the 175 IRAPs approved, 165 
were recognized by the same SRE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department considered other options with respect to the 
currently recognized SREs or IRAPs, including a proposed ``sunset'' 
period during which SREs and IRAPs would operate for a set number of 
years before the Department ceased its recognition, and recasting IRAPs 
as Certified Work-Based Learning. However, in light of the concerns 
discussed above, the Department believes that rescinding the 
regulation, including the immediate cessation of recognition for 
currently recognized SREs or IRAPs, is the best approach.
    If this proposal is finalized, the Department will provide 
technical assistance and support to SREs or IRAPs who are interested in 
becoming program sponsors or intermediaries under the registered 
apprenticeship system. Similarly, as a component of the Department's 
technical assistance to SREs, the Department will provide SREs with 
information and resources the SREs can share with any IRAP apprentices 
who may seek placement in a RAP.
    Although the Department recognizes that immediate rescission of the 
rule, if finalized, will likely have minimal impact, the Department 
seeks comments on how to address the effects of the proposed immediate 
cessation of recognition on SREs, IRAPs, and IRAP apprentices, 
including comments on the alternatives considered, but ultimately not 
adopted, by the Department.

VI. Regulatory Analysis and Review

A. Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563 
(Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review)

    Under E.O. 12866, the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs determines whether a 
regulatory action is significant and, therefore, subject to the 
requirements of the E.O. and review by OMB. See 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 
1993). Section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 defines a ``significant regulatory 
action'' as an action that is likely to result in a rule that: (1) Has 
an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely 
affects in a material way a sector of the economy, productivity, 
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, 
local, or tribal governments or communities (also referred to as 
economically significant); (2) creates serious inconsistency or 
otherwise interferes with an action taken or planned by another agency; 
(3) materially alters the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user 
fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or (4) raises novel legal or policy issues arising out of 
legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth 
in the E.O. Id. This proposed rule is an economically significant 
regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866.
    E.O. 13563 directs agencies to propose or adopt a regulation only 
upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs; the 
regulation is tailored to impose the least burden on society, 
consistent with achieving the regulatory objectives; and in choosing 
among alternative regulatory approaches, the agency has selected those 
approaches that maximize net benefits. E.O. 13563 recognizes that some 
benefits are difficult to quantify and provides that, where appropriate 
and permitted by law, agencies may consider and discuss qualitatively 
values that are difficult or impossible to quantify, including equity, 
human dignity, fairness, and distributive impacts.
1. Preliminary Economic Analysis
    E.O. 14016, ``Revocation of Executive Order 13801,'' instructed the 
Director of OMB and the heads of executive departments and agencies to 
``promptly consider taking steps to rescind any orders, rules, 
regulations, guidelines, or policies, or portions thereof, implementing 
or enforcing'' E.O. 13801. Accordingly, the Department identified for 
review the IRAP rule published on March 11, 2020. The Department is 
issuing this proposed rule because the Department has determined that a 
single apprenticeship system, namely, the registered apprenticeship 
system, would provide clearer messaging and more consistent outcomes 
than two parallel apprenticeship systems that would likely lead to 
disparate outcomes and incur duplicative costs.
    In accordance with the regulatory analysis guidance articulated in 
OMB Circular A-4 and consistent with the Department's practices in 
previous rulemakings, this regulatory analysis focuses on the likely 
consequences of the proposed rule. The Department anticipates that the 
proposed rule would result in cost savings for SREs and IRAPs since 
they would no longer need to comply with the provisions of the March 
2020 rule.
    The Department has estimated the cost savings of the proposed rule 
relative to the existing baseline (i.e., 27 SREs and 175 IRAPs). The 
analysis covers 10 years to ensure it captures the major cost savings 
that are likely to accrue over time. The Department expresses the 
quantifiable impacts in 2020 dollars and uses discount rates of

[[Page 62974]]

3 and 7 percent, pursuant to OMB Circular A-4. The Department also 
considered an alternative baseline in which the Department's February 
17th suspension of consideration of SRE applications was temporary and 
would be removed. That analysis is discussed qualitatively in the Total 
Cost Savings section below.
a. Number of SREs, IRAPs, and Apprentices
    To calculate the annual cost savings, the Department first needed 
to estimate the number of SREs and IRAPs over the 10-year analysis 
period. The Department used the number of SREs (27) and the number of 
IRAPs (175) as of September 30, 2021, for this analysis.
    The Department does not have data on the number of apprentices per 
IRAP because that information is not due from SREs until 45 days after 
the end of FY 2021, which will be November 15, 2021. One calculation in 
the March 2020 rule was based on the number of apprentices: IRAPs' 
preparation and signing of written apprenticeship agreements, which was 
estimated at 10 minutes per apprentice. Given the lack of data on the 
number of apprentices, this cost savings estimate should be emphasized 
as preliminary: If there are three apprentices per IRAP, which is the 
median number per RAP, and signing the written apprenticeship agreement 
requires 10 minutes per apprentice, then 175 IRAPs x 3 apprentices x 10 
minutes x $121.08 hourly compensation adds $10,806 per year, which 
would increase the cost savings estimate from $9.1 million (explained 
below) to $9.2 million over 10 years.
b. Compensation Rates
    The compensation rates used to quantify the cost savings of the 
proposed rule are based on the compensation rates in the IRAP rule 
published on March 11, 2020. The Department updated the compensation 
rates with 2020 data. The Department anticipates that the bulk of the 
workload for private sector workers would have been performed by 
employees in occupations similar to those associated with the following 
Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) codes: SOC 11-3131 (Training 
and Development Managers) and SOC 43-0000 (Office and Administrative 
Support Occupations).
    According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the mean 
hourly wage rate for Training and Development Managers in May 2020 was 
$60.54.\24\ For this analysis, the Department used a fringe benefits 
rate of 46 percent \25\ and an overhead rate of 54 percent,\26\ 
resulting in a fully loaded hourly compensation rate for Training and 
Development Managers of $121.08 [= $60.54 + ($60.54 x 0.46) + ($60.54 x 
0.54)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ BLS, ``Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2020,'' 
available at https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes113131.htm.
    \25\ BLS, ``Employer Costs for Employee Compensation'' (ECEC), 
available at https://www.bls.gov/ncs/data.htm. Wages and salaries 
averaged $26.22 per hour worked in 2020, while benefit costs 
averaged $11.99, which is a benefits rate of 46 percent.
    \26\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), 
``Guidelines for Regulatory Impact Analysis'' (2016), available at 
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 2020 was $20.38.\27\ The 
Department used a fringe benefits rate of 46 percent and an overhead 
rate of 54 percent, resulting in a fully loaded hourly compensation 
rate for Office and Administrative Support Occupations of $40.76 [= 
$20.38 + ($20.38 x 0.46) + ($20.38 x 0.54)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ BLS, ``Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2020,'' 
available at https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes430000.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department estimated the compensation rate for a Program 
Analyst in OA using the midpoint (Step 5) for Grade 13 of the General 
Schedule, which is $55.75 in the Washington, DC, locality area.\28\ The 
Department used a fringe benefits rate of 69 percent \29\ and an 
overhead rate of 54 percent, resulting in a fully loaded hourly 
compensation rate for Program Analysts of $124.32 [= $55.75 + ($55.75 x 
0.69) + ($55.75 x 0.54)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Office of Personnel Management, ``General Schedule (GS) 
Locality Pay Tables,'' available at https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/pdf/2020/DCB_h.pdf.
    \29\ Congressional Budget Office, ``Comparing the Compensation 
of Federal and Private-Sector Employees, 2011 to 2015'' (Apr. 25, 
2017), available at 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 the 
proposed rule are based on the Department's time estimates in the IRAP 
rule published on March 11, 2020. The following time burdens are annual 
estimates.
Cost Savings Components for SREs
 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
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

[[Page 62975]]

    Exhibit 1 shows the total estimated cost savings of the proposed 
rule over 10 years (2022-2031) at discount rates of 3 percent and 7 
percent.\30\ The proposed rule is expected to have first-year cost 
savings of $1.3 million in 2020 dollars. Over the 10-year analysis 
period, the annualized cost savings are estimated at $1.3 million at a 
discount rate of 7 percent in 2020 dollars. In total, over the first 10 
years, the proposed rule is estimated to result in cost savings of $9.1 
million at a discount rate of 7 percent in 2020 dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ The 2022 start year accounts for the time involved in the 
Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking process, with the final rule 
expected to be published in 2022.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15NO21.013

    The Department also contemplated including an alternative baseline 
that assumed the Department's February 17th suspension of consideration 
of SRE applications would be removed. If the suspension were to be 
removed, there could be additional SREs and IRAPs in future years. OMB 
Circular A-4 defines a no action baseline as ``what the world will be 
like if the proposed rule is not adopted.'' If the world did not 
include this proposed rule, but included the removal of the February 
17th suspension as well as decision making by potential SREs in the 
manner anticipated in the 2020 rule, it is possible that there would be 
more than 27 SREs and 175 IRAPs in each year of the analysis period. 
Given the potential temporary nature of the February 17th suspension, 
some members of the public may believe there will be an opportunity to 
participate in the program again in the absence of this proposed rule. 
Under such a scenario, 27 SREs and 175 IRAPs may be only fractions of 
the numbers of SREs and IRAPs that would come into existence, and 
perhaps those numbers would continue to grow throughout the analysis 
period. As such, this proposed rule would then prevent some of the 
eventual effects of the 2020 rule.
    The Department is unable, however, to provide a quantitative 
analysis of this alternative baseline. The Department does not have a 
way to accurately estimate the number of SREs or IRAPs that would be 
established in the absence of this proposed rule and the removal of the 
February 17th suspension. Specifically, the Department is unable to 
estimate a reasonable growth rate for SREs over the analysis period or 
a realistic number of IRAPs per SRE each year. Without these two key 
data points, a quantitative analysis is not possible.
    The Department believes that the numbers of SREs and IRAPs 
estimated in the 2020 rule are not an appropriate source for 
quantifying an alternative baseline in this proposed rule. Over the 9-
month period between May 2020, when the IRAP rule became effective, and 
February 2021, when the Department paused the consideration of SRE 
applications, data indicate that participation was far lower than what 
was projected in the 2020 rule. To begin with, the number of SRE 
applications was far fewer than the number anticipated in the 2020 
rule. For the 2020 rule, the Department used the number of entities 
that submitted grant applications under AAI grant program in FY 2016 as 
a guidepost for estimating the number of SRE applications. It now seems 
that this guidepost was unrealistic because millions of dollars were 
awarded to each successful AAI grant application whereas similar grant 
funds were not available to SREs. The lack of Federal funding may 
largely explain the low number of SREs (27) and IRAPs (175) compared to 
the numbers anticipated in the 2020 rule (203 SREs and 2,030 IRAPS in 
Year 1).
    While the estimated number of SRE applications in the 2020 rule was 
based on the number of entities that submitted AAI grant applications, 
the estimated number of IRAPs was not based on a specific source of 
data because the IRAP system was a new concept in the United States. 
Accordingly, the Department does not have a guidepost to realistically 
estimate the number of IRAPs for an alternative baseline that assumes 
the absence of this proposed rule and the removal of the February 17th 
suspension.
    The Department invites comments on the potential number of SREs and 
IRAPs in the absence of this proposed rule and the removal of the 
February 17th suspension. Without a reasonable way to estimate these 
numbers and quantify the cost savings, benefits, and transfer payments, 
the Department acknowledges that this proposed rule may have an annual 
effect on the economy of $100 million or more; therefore, this rule has 
been designated as an economically significant regulatory action under 
section 3(f) of E.O. 12866.
e. Nonquantifiable Effects

[[Page 62976]]

    The Department proposes rescinding the IRAP rule and, instead, 
refocusing efforts on expanding the registered apprenticeship system. 
As explained in the previous sections, the registered apprenticeship 
system is highly successful for industry. Industries that have adopted 
RAPs have cited the standards, skillsets, and retention offered by 
skilled workers associated with RAPs as advantageous to their bottom 
line. In one survey, nearly three-fourths of surveyed employers stated 
that registered apprenticeships drove increased worker 
productivity.\31\ A skilled workforce is foundational to a strong 
economy, and registered apprenticeship provides a proven avenue by 
which to deliver talent development to various industry sectors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Urban Institute Research Report, ``The Benefits and 
Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors' Perspective'' 
(June 12, 2009), available at https://www.urban.org/research/publication/benefits-and-challenges-registered-apprenticeship-sponsors-perspective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the demonstrated success of registered 
apprenticeship as a workforce training model for industry, it has 
proven to be highly beneficial to workers because of its emphasis on 
high-quality training as well as apprentice safety and welfare. During 
training, apprentices are guaranteed wage increases, and research shows 
that registered apprenticeship completers earn over $300,000 (including 
benefits) more over their lifetimes as compared with individuals who do 
not complete a RAP.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See, e.g., Mathematica Policy Research, ``An Effectiveness 
Assessment and Cost-Benefit Analysis of Registered Apprenticeship in 
10 States: Final Report'' (July 25, 2012), 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 apprenticeships; however, for purposes of 
E.O. 12866 analysis, adding these effects would constitute double-
counting and they should instead be presented as an assessment of 
who, other than workers themselves, receives some portion of 
productivity benefits. Moreover, as noted earlier in this regulatory 
preamble, the report does not speak to the relative effects of RAPs 
and IRAPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Registered apprenticeship has successfully been adopted across a 
diverse range of sectors, with significant growth in recent years. The 
expansion of registered apprenticeship into ``non-traditional'' sectors 
indicates that the IRAP effort may be superfluous and not a good use of 
government resources that could support the proven activities of the 
registered apprenticeship system.
2. Regulatory Alternatives
    OMB Circular A-4 directs agencies to analyze alternatives if such 
alternatives best satisfy the philosophy and principles of E.O. 12866. 
Accordingly, the Department considered two regulatory alternatives. 
Under the first alternative, the Department would allow the SREs and 
any related IRAPs to operate with the Department's recognition for a 
transitional period not to exceed the previously approved 5-year 
period. As noted above, the approach of permitting the continued 
recognition of SREs and any related IRAPs would continue to temporarily 
retain a parallel system that does not ensure sufficient protections 
for apprentices, would diminish Departmental resources available for 
expansion of registered apprenticeship, and would generate confusion 
among both entities interested in establishing apprenticeship programs 
and the potential apprentices in such programs. This alternative would 
result in lower cost savings over the 10-year analysis period than the 
cost savings presented in Exhibit 1 because SREs and IRAPs would be 
obligated to follow the provisions of the IRAP rule published on March 
11, 2020, for a longer period of time. Therefore, the costs of the 
March 2020 rule would accumulate for a longer duration and the cost 
savings would be delayed.
    Under the second alternative, the Department would recast IRAPs as 
Certified Work-Based Learning. The Department considers the most 
effective and efficient use of its resources is to oversee a national 
system of registered apprenticeship that is more protective of the 
welfare of apprentices and that has demonstrated its capacity to grow 
and adapt across a range of industries and sectors. Similarly, 
recasting IRAPs as a type of Certified Work-Based Learning would not 
address the concerns identified in the discussions above regarding an 
indirect and insufficient oversight role for the Department in IRAPs. 
This alternative would also result in lower cost savings over the 10-
year analysis period than the cost savings presented in Exhibit 1 
because SREs and IRAPs would incur costs under the revised program. The 
Department cannot estimate the costs without details about the 
provisions of such a program. The Department invites comments on these 
or other possible alternatives with the goal of ensuring a thorough 
consideration and discussion at the final rule stage.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act, Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996, and Executive Order 13272 (Proper Consideration 
of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking)

    In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. ch. 6 
(as amended), the Department examined the regulatory requirements of 
the proposed rule to determine whether they would have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As explained 
in the E.O. 12866 preliminary economic analysis above, the proposed 
rule is expected to lead to cost savings for IRAPs because these 
entities would no longer be required to comply with the provisions of 
the IRAP rule published on March 11, 2020. Cost savings for IRAPs would 
primarily arise from no longer needing to submit performance data to 
the SRE. In the March 2020 rule, the Department estimated that it would 
take IRAPs approximately 25 hours per year to collect and provide the 
relevant data. To estimate the cost savings per IRAP under this 
proposed rule, the Department multiplied 25 hours by the hourly 
compensation rate for Training and Development Managers ($121.08 per 
hour). The first-year cost savings per IRAP is estimated at $2,829 at a 
discount rate of 7 percent. The annualized cost savings per IRAP is 
estimated at $3,027 at a discount rate of 7 percent.
    As of September 30, 2021, the number of IRAPs recognized by SREs 
stands at 175. Of the 175 IRAPs, 165 are in the health care industry; 
specifically, the vast majority of the 165 IRAPs are associated with 
hospitals and medical centers. As shown in Exhibit 2, the first-year 
and annualized cost savings for IRAPs in the hospitals subsector are 
not expected to have a significant economic impact (3 percent or more) 
on small entities of any size.

[[Page 62977]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15NO21.014

    Similarly, the proposed rule would result in cost savings for SREs. 
The cost savings would arise from SREs no longer needing to perform the 
activities listed in the E.O. 12866 preliminary economic analysis 
above: Notifying the Administrator of any major change to processes or 
programs; informing the Administrator of IRAP recognition, suspension, 
or derecognition; provision of data or information to the 
Administrator; provision of written attestation to the Administrator; 
disclosure of the credentials that apprentices will earn; quality 
control of IRAPs; submission of performance data to the Administrator; 
making publicly available IRAP performance data; and recordkeeping. The 
first-year cost savings per SRE is estimated at $13,099 at a discount 
rate of 7 percent. The annualized cost savings per SRE is estimated at 
$14,016 at a discount rate of 7 percent.
    As of the date of this proposed rule, the Department has recognized 
27 SREs. Only 5 of the 27 SREs have recognized IRAPs, and of those 5 
SREs, only 1 so far has indicated that it has IRAP apprentices. This 
particular SRE is unlikely to be considered a small entity based on its 
annual revenue,\33\ which exceeds the Small Business Administration's 
Small Business Size Standard of $16.5 million for professional 
organizations (North American Industry Classification System code 
813920).\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ IRS Form 990 filing data available from the Internal 
Revenue Service, ``Tax Exempt Organization Search,'' https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos.
    \34\ U.S. Small Business Administration, ``Table of Small 
Business Size Standards'' (Aug. 19, 2019), available at https://www.sba.gov/document/support--table-size-standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Department certifies that the proposed rule would 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Moreover, any economic impact experienced by IRAPs or SREs 
would be cost savings.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    As explained in the ``Background'' section above, the Department is 
proposing to rescind subpart B, ``Standards Recognition Entities of 
Industry-Recognized Apprenticeship Programs,'' from title 29 CFR part 
29, the regulatory framework for the Department's recognition of SREs 
and SREs' role in recognizing IRAPs.
    As part of the implementation and rollout of the IRAP rule the 
Department developed and received OMB approval for two information 
collection requests (ICRs), an application form and a performance 
report. The first active ICR is entitled ``Industry-Recognized 
Apprenticeship Program Standards Recognition Entity Regulation and 
Application'' (OMB Control Number 1205-0536) and includes an annual 
approved burden of 141,819 responses and 285,310 hours. There is no 
additional cost burden. The second active ICR is entitled ``IRAP 
Program and Performance Report for Standards Recognition Entities'' 
(OMB Control Number 1205-0545) and includes an annual approved burden 
of 12,447 responses and 111,118 hours. There is no additional cost 
burden.
    If a final rule rescinds subpart B, on the effective date of the 
regulation, the Department will withdraw its recognition of SREs and 
any SRE-recognized apprenticeship program would no longer be an IRAP as 
described in subpart B. The Department will no longer use the 
``Industry-Recognized Apprenticeship Program Standards Recognition 
Entity Regulation and Application'' ICR and the ``IRAP Program and 
Performance Report for Standards Recognition Entities'' ICR.
    Upon publication of a final rule, DOL will submit requests to 
discontinue both OMB Control Number 1205-0536 and OMB Control Number 
1205-0545, eliminating all paperwork burden associated with the ICRs.

D. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This proposed rule, if finalized, does not have federalism 
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the National Government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government. Accordingly, E.O. 13132, Federalism, 
requires no further agency action or analysis.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 
U.S.C. 1532, requires each Federal agency to prepare a written 
statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed 
agency rule that may result in $100 million or more in expenditures 
(adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year by State, local, and 
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector.

[[Page 62978]]

    This proposed rule, if finalized, does not exceed the $100-million 
expenditure in any one year when adjusted for inflation, and this 
rulemaking does not contain such a mandate. The requirements of title 
II of UMRA, therefore, do not apply, and the Department has not 
prepared a statement under the Act.

F. Executive Order 13175 (Indian Tribal Governments)

    The Department has reviewed this proposed rule in accordance with 
E.O. 13175 and has determined that it does not have tribal 
implications. The proposed rule does not have substantial direct 
effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the 
Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 29

    Apprenticeability criteria, Apprentice agreements and complaints, 
Apprenticeship programs, Program standards, Registration and 
deregistration, Sponsor eligibility, State apprenticeship agency 
recognition and derecognition.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department proposes to 
amend 29 CFR part 29 as follows:

PART 29--LABOR STANDARDS FOR THE REGISTRATION OF APPRENTICESHIP 
PROGRAMS

0
1. The authority citation for part 29 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 9 U.S.C. 50; 40 U.S.C. 3145; 5 U.S.C. 301; 5 U.S.C. 
App. P. 534.

Subpart A--[Amended]

0
2. Remove the designation of subpart A and the associated heading.
0
3. Amend Sec.  29.1 by:
0
a. Revising the section heading; and
0
b. In paragraph (b), removing the word ``subpart'' and adding the word 
``part'' in its place.
    The revision reads as follows:


Sec.  29.1  Purpose and scope.

* * * * *


Sec.  29.2  [Amended]

0
4. Amend Sec.  29.2 by:
0
a. In the introductory text, removing the word ``subpart'' and adding 
the word ``part'' in its place;
0
b. In the definitions of Apprenticeship program and Registration 
agency, removing the citation ``29 CFR part 29 subpart A, and part 30'' 
and adding the citation ``this part and 29 CFR part 30'' in its place; 
and
0
c. In the definition of Technical assistance, removing the word 
``subpart'' and adding the word ``part'' in its place.


Sec.  29.13  [Amended]

0
5. Amend Sec.  29.13 by:
0
a. In paragraph (a)(1), removing the citation ``29 CFR part 29 subpart 
A, and part 30'' and adding the citation ``this part and 29 CFR part 
30'' in its place;
0
b. In paragraph (b)(1), removing the citation ``29 CFR part 29 subpart 
A'' and adding ``this part'' in its place;
0
c. In paragraphs (c) and (e) introductory text, removing the word 
``subpart'' and adding the word ``part'' in its place; and
0
d. In paragraph (e)(4), removing the citation ``part 29 subpart A'' and 
adding ``this part'' in its place.


Sec.  29.14  [Amended]

0
6. Amend Sec.  29.14 by:
0
a. In the introductory text, removing the citation ``part 29 subpart A, 
and part 30'' and adding the citation ``this part and 29 CFR part 30'' 
in its place; and
0
b. In paragraphs (e)(1) and (i), removing the word ``subpart'' and 
adding the word ``part'' in its place.


Sec.  Sec.  29.3,  29.6, 29.10, and 29.11 [Amended]

0
7. In addition to the amendments set forth above, in 29 CFR part 29, 
remove the word ``subpart'' and add in its place the word ``part'' in 
the following places:
0
a. Section 29.3(b)(1), (g) introductory text, and (h);
0
b. Section 29.6(b)(2);
0
c. Section 29.10(a)(2); and
0
d. Section 29.11 introductory text.

Subpart B--[Removed]

0
8. Remove subpart B, consisting of Sec. Sec.  29.20 through 29.31.

Angela Hanks,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training, Labor.
[FR Doc. 2021-24786 Filed 11-12-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FR-P